(Close Window)
Topic: The Real Climategate Scandal
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jul 16, 2010 08:22AM)
Cut and pasted from the [url=http://thechronicleherald.ca/Letters/1191216.html]Halifax Chronicle Herald[/url]


[b]The real Climategate scandal[/b]
Controversies over credibility of climate science have been intentionally contrived
By BRAD WALTERS
Sat. Jul 10 - 4:53 AM



The long-awaited release of the Russell panel report in the U.K. should finally put to rest the scientific controversies surrounding the so-called Climategate scandal, in which leaked emails from a renowned climate research group at East Anglia led some to question the credibility of global-warming science.

The Russell report’s conclusions are clear: There was no evidence of scientific malpractice and no reason to doubt the credibility of the scientific claims being made by the East Anglia researchers. Four previous reviews of the Climategate scandal (two in each of the U.K. and U.S.) came to the same general conclusion, although the review by Muir Russell and his panel was the most comprehensive and definitive.

The Russell report findings will not sit well with most climate change skeptics. After all, Climategate has become the No. 1 cause célèbre, the principal rallying cry, the "Exhibit A" put forth by skeptics in their ongoing efforts to discredit the scientific case for anthropogenic global warming.

The ranks of scientific skeptics have, in fact, dwindled considerably in recent years. The cumulative evidence for anthropogenic global warming is now so broad, diverse and compelling that 98 per cent of 1,200 climate scientists recently surveyed believe in it.

Yet, skepticism will persist and will no doubt remain at the forefront of public and political debates on climate change. To understand why is to understand the real scandal of Climategate.

To the sober observer — the practising scientist — the content of the leaked East Anglia emails appeared little more than the off-hand remarks of colleagues who, like the rest of us, sometimes get frustrated. They were hardly evidence of a scientific conspiracy, and certainly did not warrant the outpouring of baseless, hostile accusations that followed. When Climategate first broke, in fact, the editors of the pre-eminent science journal Nature commented that these supposedly explosive revelations would be laughable were it not for their political consequences. Like many, the editors recognized that the real scandal had little to do with the science, but everything to do with its political ramifications.

Specifically, large swaths of the public and many opinion leaders continue to doubt the reality of climate change. The reasons for this are complicated, but a major factor is that uncertainties regarding the status of climate science have been systematically exaggerated, and controversies over the credibility of climate science have been intentionally contrived.

The perpetrators of this misinformation about climate science include diverse individuals and organizations, although most share either an ideological resistance to government regulations or have vested economic interests in carbon-intensive industries.

What we are witnessing , according to Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway, authors of Merchants of Doubt, and James Hoggan and Richard Littlemore, authors of Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming, is a similar but more ambitious replay of the tobacco industries’ campaign to sow doubt about the scientific consensus on the health risks of smoking. In both cases, the supposed "skeptics" of the science have understood that politicians are reluctant to propose new regulations where the public is uncertain about the need for such regulations.

Like Watergate, the real scandal of Climategate was not likely to be found in the communications of those who had their emails illegally hacked (or in the case of Watergate, their phones illegally tapped). Rather, the real scandal can be found by looking to those who were behind the hacking (or wire-tapping), in the first place, and to those who have been so eager to butcher the truth and assault the professional reputations of respected scientists for short-term political gain.

[i]Brad Walters is a professor of geography and co-ordinator of environmental studies at Mount Allison University, New Brunswick.[/i]
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jul 16, 2010 07:11PM)
Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall,
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.
All the king's horses and all the king's men
Couldn't put Humpty together again
Message: Posted by: Josh the Superfluous (Jul 16, 2010 08:03PM)
This should be sure to convince everyone here that they were right all along.
Message: Posted by: Magic Spank (Jul 17, 2010 03:35AM)
Climate change and the dangers asscociated with it are probably real.

But now we will see what the dangers of lying are.

Liars have set us back 20 years. And liars are not going away.

Don't count on progress until liars disappear. And like many, I have zero faith in science knowing that it's full of liars.

How could anyone?
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jul 17, 2010 08:13AM)
Magic Spank, what makes you think the scientists are liars? According to the Russell report, the real liars are a number of journalists, politicians and special interest groups who have been attacking climate science.

John
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jul 17, 2010 02:46PM)
John, I know that the equivilant of proving God does not exist to a religious person is what happened to you so I see your need to cling to this. At what point do you back up even an inch?
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jul 17, 2010 02:58PM)
Hey, I figure if someone put up an article against the 'man made world is melting' idea John would be first in line to cry out against it so I am not surprised he put up this article thinking it is a new book to his gospel
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jul 17, 2010 03:37PM)
So many people, so much hot air, so obvious a problem yet no proposed solutions.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jul 17, 2010 03:46PM)
Hardly a new book to my gospel, Santa. Unless my gospel is critical thinking.

Unfortunately, far too many people confuse google with knowledge and cannot tell the difference between a link and an argument. NOTS boasts a number of them.

The fact is that political forces are more than happy to exploit intellectual laziness by substituting bombast for evidence. This gives the lazy all the links they could ask for to back up their preconceptions. In the end, it boils down to "my guys (and by extension, me) are right about everything and anyone who disagrees is our enemy."

If anybody cares to read the [url=http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf]Muir Russell report[/url], let's discuss it. But I won't hold my breath. Political pundits will tell the faithful what to believe and they'll go back the same old conclusions the same old lazy way. We'll be seeing links to youtube telling us that the Russell report is part of the global conspiracy. etc. etc.

And that is the real scandal.

John
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jul 17, 2010 04:20PM)
“The Russell report’s conclusions are clear: There was no evidence of scientific malpractice and no reason to doubt the credibility of the scientific claims being made by the East Anglia researchers.”

-BRAD WALTERS-


“It is important to note that we offer no opinion on the validity of their scientific work.”

-MUIR RUSSELL REPORT-
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jul 17, 2010 04:22PM)
And your point is, Tommy?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jul 17, 2010 04:35PM)
It is important to note that the MUIR RUSSELL REPORT offer no opinion on the validity of their scientific work so it says. But anyone reading "The Russell report’s conclusions are clear: There was no evidence of scientific malpractice and no reason to doubt the credibility of the scientific claims being made by the East Anglia researchers" might think that it did. In IMHO, John.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jul 17, 2010 05:58PM)
Fair enough. As I recall, the entire issue of the hacked CRU emails was whether they indicated scientific malpractice on the part of ht East Anglia researchers. Lots of people (including you, tommy) indicated that the emails offered evidence that they had faked their data and had misrepresented their findings. The Muir Russell report indicates that this does not appear to be the case.

And of course, this leads us to the "real scandal"...

John
Message: Posted by: Josh the Superfluous (Jul 17, 2010 06:56PM)
[quote]
On 2010-07-16 21:03, Josh the Superfluous wrote:
This should be sure to convince everyone here that they were right all along.
[/quote]

There are some very smart people here. And half of them are idiots.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jul 17, 2010 07:12PM)
"Al Gore is Jahovah to me
He's Lord and he King of Kings
he's more than a man, he's the great I Am
Al Gore is Jahovah to me!"
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jul 17, 2010 07:25PM)
John. If you have read the report then why are you using the word “hacked‘?
Message: Posted by: Josh the Superfluous (Jul 17, 2010 07:49PM)
They were leaked to the internet. According to the university, the emails and documents were obtained through a server hacking.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jul 17, 2010 07:50PM)
[quote]
On 2010-07-17 20:25, tommy wrote:
John. If you have read the report then why are you using the word “hacked‘?
[/quote]

Because that is what they have always been called. I assume you read the report. They use the word "hacked" throughout. They do, however, include the footnote:

"*Note: The word 'hacked‘ as contained in the Review‘s terms of reference
has been challenged in submissions to the Review, on the basis that the means
by which the unauthorized disclosure of the e-mails was made has not been
established. This matter is subject to police enquiries and the Review has
made no judgment on the question."

The report also uses the word "leaked" with regard to the emails. But that isn't established in a court of law either.

What is your point, exactly, Tommy?

John
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jul 18, 2010 12:26AM)
As you know John, or should do leading sceptics from the start, were suggested that the establishment were deliberately, using the word “hacked” to prevent, on a legal technicality. the emails being used in a court against Phil Jones or the Centre etc, should they be sued or worse. Despite knowing that before they started, MUIR RUSSELL still used the word many times, as you have pointed out. Yes they put in the out you quoted but only after they were pulled up about it. There is a still a prospect of court proceedings, as I understand it, when the police have concluded their enquiries.

Also from what I understand Phil Jones may face criminal charges in relation to deleting emails re the freedom of information act and so on. The MUIR RUSSELL REPORT have not gone into that question. While some out there have criticised The MUIR RUSSELL REPORT for not going into the question of Jones deleting emails. I think their reason for RUSSEL not doing so is that it might prejudice the police enquiry. So I don’t criticize MUIR RUSSELL for not going into that question personally, I do however suggest, Russell’s hands were tied somewhat by the parallel police enquiry that’s going on. Its relevant to how far this enquiry was allowed to go.

Be that as it may, lets look at some of the criticisms levelled at these reports by others who have looked at it so far from the many that have. Here is one for example from a man who has experience with these sort of enquiries over here:


Parliament misled over Climategate report, says MP


Parliament was misled and needs to re-examine the Climategate affair thoroughly after the failure of the Russell report, a leading backbench MP told us today.

"It's not a whitewash, but it is inadequate," is Labour MP Graham Stringer's summary of the Russell inquiry report. Stringer is the only member of the House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology with scientific qualifications - he holds a PhD in Chemistry.

Not only did Russell fail to deal with the issues of malpractice raised in the emails, Stringer told us, but he confirmed the feeling that MPs had been misled by the University of East Anglia when conducting their own inquiry. Parliament only had time for a brief examination of the CRU files before the election, but made recommendations. This is a serious charge.

After the Select Committee heard oral evidence on March 1, MPs believed that Anglia had entrusted an examination of the science to a separate inquiry. Vice Chancellor of the University of East Anglia Edward Acton had told the committee that "I am hoping, later this week, to announce the chair of a panel to reassess the science and make sure there is nothing wrong."[Hansard - Q129]]

Ron Oxburgh's inquiry eventually produced a short report clearing the participants. He did not reassess the science, and now says it was never in his remit. "The science was not the subject of our study," he confirmed in an email to Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit.

Earlier this week the former chair of the Science and Technology Committee, Phil Willis, now Lord Willis, said MPs had been amazed at the "sleight of hand".

"Oxburgh didn't go as far as I expected. The Oxburgh Report looks much more like a whitewash," Graham Stringer told us.

Stringer says Anglia appointee Muir Russell (a civil servant and former Vice Chancellor of Glasgow University), failed in three significant areas.

"Why did they delete emails? The key question was what reason they had for doing this, but this was never addressed; not getting to the central motivation was a major failing both of our report and Muir Russell."



Stringer also says that it was unacceptable for Russell (who is not a scientist) to conclude that CRU's work was reproducible, when the data needed was not available. He goes further:

"The fact that you can make up your own experiments and get similar results doesn't mean that you're doing what's scientifically expected of you. You need to follow the same methodology of the process."

"I was surprised at Phil Jones' answers to the questions I asked him [in Parliament]. The work was never replicable," says Stringer.

In 2004 Jones had declined to give out data that would have permitted independent scrutiny of their work, explaining that "We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it."

This policy is confirmed several times in the emails, with Jones also advising colleagues to destroy evidence helpful to people wishing to reproduce the team's results.

"I think that's quite shocking," says Stringer.

Thirdly, the University of East Anglia failed to follow the Commons Select Committee's recommendations in handling the inquiry and producing the report.

Stringer said, "We asked them to be independent, and not allow the University to have first sight of the report. The way it's come out is as an UEA inquiry, not an independent inquiry."

Stringer also says they reminded the inquiry to be open - Russell had promised as much - but witness testimony took place behind closed doors, and not all the depositions have been published


That is one and I could show many more but here just one more.


Fred Pearce
The Guardian Comment Wed 7 Jul 2010 17:16 BST

Climategate scientists far from squeaky clean

The Russell review found the climate scientists had not lied – but failed to criticise them properly for corrupting a scientific process that demands complete transparency

Generally honest but frequently secretive; rigorous in their dealings with fellow scientists but often "unhelpful and defensive", and sometimes downright "misleading", when explaining themselves to the wider world. That was the verdict of Sir Muir Russell and his fellow committee members in their inquiry into the role of scientists at the University of East Anglia in the "climategate" affair.

Many will find the report indulgent of reprehensible behaviour, particularly in peer review, where CRU researchers have been accused of misusing their seniority in climate science to block criticism. Brutal exchanges in which researchers boasted of "going to town" to prevent publication of papers critical of their work, and in which they conspired to blacklist journals that published hostile papers, were dismissed by Russell as "robust" and "typical of the debate that can go on in peer review".

In the event, the inquiry conducted detailed analysis of only three cases of potential abuse of peer review. And it investigated only two instances where allegations were made that CRU scientists such as director Phil Jones and deputy director Keith Briffa misused their positions as IPCC authors to sideline criticism. On the issue of peer review and the IPCC, it found that "the allegations cannot be upheld", but made clear this was partly because the roles of CRU scientists and others could not be distinguished from those of colleagues. There was "team responsibility".

The report is far from being a whitewash. And nor does it justify the claim of university vice-chancellor Sir Edward Action that it is a "complete exoneration". In particular it backs critics who see in the emails a widespread effort to suppress public knowledge about their activities and to sideline bloggers who want to access their data and do their own analysis.

Most seriously, it finds "evidence that emails might have been deleted in order to make them unavailable should a subsequent request be made for them [under Freedom of information law]". Yet, extraordinarily, it emerged during questioning that Russell and his team never asked Jones or his colleagues whether they had actually done this.

Secrecy was the order of the day at CRU. "We find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness," says the report. That criticism applied not just to Jones and his team at CRU. It applied equally to the university itself, which may have been embarrassed to find itself in the dock as much as the scientists on whom it asked Russell to sit in judgment.

The university "failed to recognise not only the significance of statutory requirements" – FOI law in particular – and "also the risk to the reputation of the university and indeed the credibility of UK climate science" from the affair.
The university has responded by abolishing the role of director of CRU, held by Jones until last November. Indeed CRU itself has lost its former independence. Acton said Jones would now be "director of research" for CRU, working within the university environment department.




And of course, this leads us to the real scandal:

BRAD WALTERS conning all the kids at his school into paying a $10 fee every year for his campaign on emissions.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jul 18, 2010 12:42AM)
There's gold in them thar climates.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jul 18, 2010 08:00AM)
You didn't expect EVERYBODY to be happy did you? A lot of people want to hurl stones and no report will ever stop that.

Are the "skeptics" holding each other to the same standards that they hold the scientists? Or will they be permitted just to keep saying whatever they like, and never being accountable?

John
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jul 18, 2010 01:13PM)
Well, the good news is you'll likely be able to spend the rest of your life clinging to global warming, and that is nice.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jul 18, 2010 01:29PM)
Santa, either you don't understand or you are being deliberately obtuse.

I have maintained in every discussion that I am not competent to judge the content of the science. I am, however, opposed to those even less competent to judge who are throwing up one bit of nonsense after the other to push an agenda. It is the pretense of competence that is the real problem.

What I oppose is dishonesty.

John
Message: Posted by: ringmaster (Jul 18, 2010 01:35PM)
Politics at it's worst.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jul 18, 2010 02:20PM)
But John, I do understand and I believe you not being competent to judge the content of the science puts you on even keel with the leadership of the global warming movement.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jul 18, 2010 02:25PM)
Ah Santa, when you have nothing intelligent to say, at least you can be witty. Occasionally tedious, but always witty.

But seriously, if there is a movement, I'm not part of it.

John
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jul 29, 2010 02:04PM)
In the news today:

Associated Press

WASHINGTON-Scientists from around the world are providing even more evidence of global warming.

“A comprehensive review of key climate indicators confirms the world is warming and the past decade was the warmest on record,” the annual State of the Climate report declares.

Compiled by more than 300 scientists from 48 countries, the report said its analysis of 10 indicators that are “clearly and directly related to surface temperatures, all tell the same story: Global warming is undeniable.”

[url]http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/science/the-earth-is-hotter-than-ever-global-warming-is-real-researchers-warn/article1655436/[/url]

“The conclusion is unmistakable – yes, the planet is warming,” said Derek Arndt, a co-editor of the report, called State of the Climate, which was published by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA.

“The facts speak for themselves, and speak simultaneously,” said Mr. Arndt, who runs the Climate Monitoring Branch at NOAA. “And, they all point toward the same conclusion – the globe is warming.”

The report – co-edited by researchers in the United States, Canada, Britain and Australia – pulled together data from 10 climate indicators measured by 160 research groups in 48 countries. The scientists compared the figures decade by decade as far back as possible, more than 100 years in some cases. They concluded 2000 to 2009 was the warmest decade ever, and the Earth has been growing warmer for 50 years. Each of the past three decades – 1980s, 1990s and 2000s – was the hottest on record, the researchers said.

This year is shaping up to be even warmer. For the first six months of 2010, the combined global land and ocean temperature was the warmest on record, according to the NOAA.

[url]http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams-state-of-the-climate/[/url]
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jul 29, 2010 02:53PM)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9f3zFVK0hU
Message: Posted by: GlenD (Jul 29, 2010 10:07PM)
No, there was and is fraud. Everyone knows it now and the fact is the planet is just fine. Manmade global warming is B.S.
Message: Posted by: spatlind (Jul 29, 2010 10:20PM)
I think Glen is right. The planet is just fine. Everyone knows it! Never been better!
Message: Posted by: Whit Haydn (Jul 30, 2010 12:37AM)
I agree. I just looked outside. It isn't that hot. Those 300 scientists from those 48 different countries are all just working on an agenda to take over the world and control the economy. Next thing you know, the scientists will be running everything--EVIL scientists with lab coats and goggles...

I think all those 48 countries are working together to take over the world...
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jul 30, 2010 04:30AM)
Tell me how human activity is warming the moons of Saturn.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/27/science/space/27titan.html?_r=1

Woland
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jul 30, 2010 05:07AM)
Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?

Yes, but only just.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jul 30, 2010 06:21AM)
Tommy,

At least as far as surface-based weather-station temperature results are confirmed, the data are severely limited. Two other factors are very important:

1)Increasing urbanization in the areas around weather stations.
2)The change from whitewash to white paint in weather station construction and maintenance in the 1970s.

When non-urban weather stations are analyzed separately from urban weather stations, the increased temperature trend is observed only in the urban weather stations.

An independent analysis of surface weather stations can be found here:

http://www.surfacestations.org/

70% of weather stations surveyed to date are "Class 4" or "Class 5":

Class 4 (CRN4) (error >= 2C) - Artificial heating sources <10 meters.

Class 5 (CRN5) (error >= 5C) - Temperature sensor located next to/above an artificial heating source, such a building, roof top, parking lot, or concrete surface."

There is no credible evidence to suggest that any of the apparent changes in our climate over the past 100 years are anything unusual in the overall scheme of things, much less directly or indirectly due to any human activity -- other than imprecise and biased measurement!

Woland
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jul 30, 2010 06:55AM)
Sir, think of the consequence of not filling the vacuum. Unless you can up with a better idea than Global Warming please be quite.
Message: Posted by: Nosher (Jul 30, 2010 06:59AM)
[quote]
On 2010-07-30 06:07, tommy wrote:
Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?

Yes, but only just.
[/quote]

Tamino:

"Suppose you have a child, a son — he’s 10. You want to know whether or not he’s growing normally, so every day you measure his height with a tape measure.

You’ve done so since he was 5. You even plot the data on a graph, and notice two things about it. First: the measurements show a fair amount of jitter, sometimes they’re a wee bit higher, sometimes a wee bit lower, there’s noise in the data. Second: there’s also a trend. Your kid is a lot taller at 10 than he was at 5, in fact the trend over the observed time span is upward and reasonably steady. You even do a statistical analysis, estimate the growth rate, and determine that it’s definitely statistically significant — so it’s not a false trend due to noise in the data, it’s real. Your son is growing normally.

Then you’re interviewed by a reporter from the Daily Mail. He asks, “Can you prove — with statistical significance — that your child has been growing since last Tuesday?”

You reply that no, even though the trend over that time span is upward, it’s not statistically significant.

The next day you read the article in the Daily Mail which is titled, “Growthgate U-turn as parent admits: There has been no growth since last Tuesday.”

You protest. “I never said my child wasn’t growing! I just said that the data over such a short time span didn’t show it with statistical significance! That’s only because on such a short time scale, the noise obscures the trend.”

Alas, it’s too late, the damage is done, because 3500 blogs have repeated the article from the Daily Mail and child protective services has been asked to investigate your fitness as a parent.

Sound familiar?"
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jul 30, 2010 07:25AM)
Can we surpose that one day you will have grown up?
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jul 30, 2010 08:48AM)
[quote]
On 2010-07-30 05:30, Woland wrote:
Tell me how human activity is warming the moons of Saturn.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/27/science/space/27titan.html?_r=1

Woland
[/quote]

Are you being funny or just foolish?
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jul 30, 2010 08:50AM)
[quote]
On 2010-07-30 07:21, Woland wrote:


There is no credible evidence to suggest that any of the apparent changes in our climate over the past 100 years are anything unusual in the overall scheme of things, much less directly or indirectly due to any human activity -- other than imprecise and biased measurement!

Woland
[/quote]

And on what grounds do you establish whether a scientific claim is "credible"? Are you scientifically competent to judge the volumes of peer-reviewed science that disagrees with you? Or have you simply picked web sites that agree with your preconceptions?

John
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jul 30, 2010 09:21AM)
John,

Thanks for noticing my comment.

1) First of all, temperature data in general are very poor. Almost all "temperatures" recorded prior to the 20th century are guesstimates, approximations, and extrapolations. 20th century data are scanty and compomised by technical problems.

2) What is the "world climate" anyway? To combine all of the available temperature readings around the world into a single index is a work of interpretation, not analysis.

3) Simple inspection of the climate record, as weak as it is, shows that the world has been as warm or warmer than it is now many times previously.
Those who claim that the current period is signficantly warmer than any previous climate period have done so largely by ignoring the Medieval warm period. When you remember that the Alps were free of ice and snow when Rome was at her height, you realize that the climate warms and cools with benefit of human activity, and that the warmer periods in recorded history are those during which you would have preferred to live. The ice ages, and the mini ice ages, were far worse than any warm period.

4) Even were I to accept that the current period is warmer than previous warm periods, there is no convincing evidence that human activity has anything to do with it. When you consider that other planets appear to be warming, you realize that any warming we observe today is likely the result of fluctuations in solar activity.

5) Coming back to ice ages, the current prolonged quiescence of the sun is of more concern than human production of CO2. A major ice age would be truly devastating.


Woland
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jul 30, 2010 10:18AM)
Thanks for the comments, Woland.

[quote]
On 2010-07-30 10:21, Woland wrote:
John,

Thanks for noticing my comment.

1) First of all, temperature data in general are very poor. Almost all "temperatures" recorded prior to the 20th century are guesstimates, approximations, and extrapolations. 20th century data are scanty and compomised by technical problems.[/quote]

The data are not "very poor". They certainly are not as accurate as current best measurements, but the proxies that have been developed are very robust. In other areas of science, we use proxy measures all the time. How else could we speak of Jupiter's weather patterns? Molecular activity? Neanderthals? The technical problems are well understood and are included in error or uncertainty calculations.

[quote]
2) What is the "world climate" anyway? To combine all of the available temperature readings around the world into a single index is a work of interpretation, not analysis. [/quote]

There was a nice article in which two mathematicians made this argument a couple of years ago (I read it, but the name escapes me at the moment.) It is not clear that this is as strong an objection as it at first appears. We have no trouble talking about your body core temperature, even though there are variations throughout your body, for example.

[quote]3) Simple inspection of the climate record, as weak as it is, shows that the world has been as warm or warmer than it is now many times previously.
Those who claim that the current period is signficantly warmer than any previous climate period have done so largely by ignoring the Medieval warm period. When you remember that the Alps were free of ice and snow when Rome was at her height, you realize that the climate warms and cools with benefit of human activity, and that the warmer periods in recorded history are those during which you would have preferred to live. The ice ages, and the mini ice ages, were far worse than any warm period.[/quote]

This is not a telling argument. Whether the earth has been warmer or cooler is irrelevant to the question of whether human activity is having an effect today. If human activity is affecting climate, then the ethical question of whether humans are responsible for dealing with it comes to the fore.

It is trivially true that the earth's climate changes over the long term and would do so even if there were no humans. What is at issue is whether human activity is climactically relevant and whether we ought to do something about it.

[quote]4) Even were I to accept that the current period is warmer than previous warm periods, there is no convincing evidence that human activity has anything to do with it. When you consider that other planets appear to be warming, you realize that any warming we observe today is likely the result of fluctuations in solar activity.[/quote]

This is simply fallacious, as I note above. Nobody claims that all warming everywhere is caused by human activity and nothing else.

[quote]5) Coming back to ice ages, the current prolonged quiescence of the sun is of more concern than human production of CO2. A major ice age would be truly devastating.


Woland [/quote]

Nobody is claiming that anthropogenic climate change is the only thing to worry about. Again, the relevant questions are 1. Is human activity changing the earth's climate? and 2. If the answer to #1 is "yes" then what is the appropriate response.

And what prolonged quiescence of the sun are you talking about? We are currently emerging from a cyclical low in solar activity. What does that have to do with that discussion?

John
[/quote]
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jul 30, 2010 12:12PM)
John,

Interesting points.

A "world" temperature and a human body "core" temperature are quite different: I can put a thermometer in your core and measure the temperature, but there is no place to actually measure the world's "core" or overall temperature.

My basic points regarding the quality of the data are that (1) before 1900 there were really no accurate thermometers in widespread use and those that were in sporadic use were not well calibrated with each other; (2) even since 1900, the actual temperature data are quite sparse, and are compromised by such things as the locations of the recording stations --most of which, in the United States at least, are mostly in urbanized areas -- and changes in their construction; and (3) less than 100 years of very spotty and questionable data are not sufficient in order to say anything definite at all about climate trends. Moreover, as you surely know, the mathematical formulae and computer programs that the climate meisters used to aggregate and smooth the data are highly suspect.

The fact that the world's climate does not appear to be any warmer today than it was in several previous periods of recorded history is despite what you say a very telling and convincing argument, because it suggests that there is really nothing much to climate hysteria after all, except hysteria. If the changes we are now observing are within the usual range of expected variation, then there is no reason to suspect human activity.

The real question is, should we spend trillions of dollars we don't have, and totally upend our economy, destroying the most productive economy in the world, the economy upon which the rest of the world depends, in order to address this will o' the wisp? The statist remedies that the climate hysterics propose would doom the United States to economic stagnation, collapse, bankruptcy, and poverty. Without the American consumer to absorb the productive capacity of China, India, and other developing and developed countries, they will starve. Why condemn hundreds of millions of people to famine because of willfully manipulated data that are dubious to begin with? It just doesn't make sense.

Finally, the prolonged quiescence of the sun over the past 10 or 20 years is well documented. The reason I mention it, is that another ice age would be far worse than a degree or two of warming -- as the same hysterics warned us only 30 or 40 years ago, when the coming ice age was their reason du jour to destroy western civilization.

Thanks.

Woland
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jul 30, 2010 12:20PM)
Well Mr. Critical thinking here is an idea. Check the difference in hacked and cracked in relation to email ok?
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jul 30, 2010 12:24PM)
Woland, I think you must agree to the following facts about global warming. One, it is a great way for scientist to get grants and organizations to get donations. Two, it gives something for the lefties to scream about and to point their boney little fingers at. Lastly, the only thing more fun to blame things on other than people in general is the US.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 30, 2010 12:47PM)
[quote]
On 2010-07-30 11:18, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Whether the earth has been warmer or cooler is irrelevant to the question of whether human activity is having an effect today.
[/quote]

Wow, really? What if we new definitively that the earth's climate hadn't changed for 10,000 years prior to the industrial revolution, and since then, it's been rising steadily? Conceptually, it's hard for me to imagine attributing, with any confidence, X amount of temperature change to human causes while treating the temperatures prior to those believed causes as irrelevant.
Message: Posted by: Whit Haydn (Jul 30, 2010 01:17PM)
I believe the evidence for mankind caused global warming is very convincing. The contradicting evidence seems to be provided largely by scientists and organizations funded by the right wing and major energy corporations.

I think that what is going on is the same thing that happened with smoking and DDT--that corporations are deliberately trying to increase profits by disseminating through various means false science and insincere, unscientific attacks against the credible reports and reputations of the leading climate scientists.

I think that we may have come very close, or have already passed any point at which meaningful corrections can be made.

I don't think talking with those who deny global-warming does much good, because the anti-scientific/anti-intellectual bias of the right-wing/multi-national business supporters refuse to accept the scientific evidence.

I don't wish to get in a discussion about this, because I don't think it is very fruitful. I did want to put my opinion, for what it is worth, down.

The future will reveal who was right.

Maybe everyone should just state their actual position on the matter, rather than engage in fruitless argument with those who will not change their positions regardless or argument or evidence. At least then, when the planet is slowly dying, we can at least have some fun saying, "I told you so!"

BTW, the last ten years have been the hottest recorded in human history.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jul 30, 2010 01:20PM)
[quote]
On 2010-07-30 13:47, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-07-30 11:18, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Whether the earth has been warmer or cooler is irrelevant to the question of whether human activity is having an effect today.
[/quote]

Wow, really? What if we new definitively that the earth's climate hadn't changed for 10,000 years prior to the industrial revolution, and since then, it's been rising steadily? Conceptually, it's hard for me to imagine attributing, with any confidence, X amount of temperature change to human causes while treating the temperatures prior to those believed causes as irrelevant.
[/quote]

Lobo you are responding only to the first clause of my statement. Natural cycles of warming and cooling are relevant data. They do not, however, make any difference to whatever impact humans have or have not had. When climate is measured and modelled, natural variations are important; but they certainly don't wipe out all other possible causal factors.

John
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jul 30, 2010 01:23PM)
[quote]
On 2010-07-30 13:12, Woland wrote:


My basic points regarding the quality of the data are that (1) before 1900 there were really no accurate thermometers in widespread use and those that were in sporadic use were not well calibrated with each other; (2) even since 1900, the actual temperature data are quite sparse, and are compromised by such things as the locations of the recording stations --most of which, in the United States at least, are mostly in urbanized areas -- and changes in their construction; and (3) less than 100 years of very spotty and questionable data are not sufficient in order to say anything definite at all about climate trends. Moreover, as you surely know, the mathematical formulae and computer programs that the climate meisters used to aggregate and smooth the data are highly suspect.


Woland
[/quote]

But you are prepared to comment on the temperatures of other planets, where we have no thermometers at all. Why the double standard?

John
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jul 30, 2010 01:26PM)
I don't think I've seen the following considered: what if global warming is happening and it is not caused significantly by human activity. Should any action be taken?

Until we get the ethics on that question sorted out, we will continue to talk past each other.

Suppose we know that a huge meteor, bound to do enormous destruction--through no fault of our own-- is headed our way in 25 years. Should we take action?
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jul 30, 2010 02:44PM)
John,

Those criticisms of the surface station temperature data are valid because those are the data used by the climate hysterics to promote their agenda. We do not have thermometers on most of the planets in the solar system, but we do have ways of measuring the temperature of those bodies. If those methods are unchanged, then changes observed are relevant.We also have ways of measuring temperatures on the earth from space. It is interesting that the satellite temperature data shows far less warming than the surface station data.

Woland
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jul 30, 2010 03:18PM)
Woland. If you insist on calling people who disagree with you "climate hysterics" you are not worthy of further response.

John
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jul 30, 2010 03:25PM)
Heidelberg Appeal. Authored in 1992 and signed by at least 4,000 scientists, including 72 Nobel Prize winners-all skeptics of man made global warming.

Also look at the Oregon Petition. This was eventually signed by 30,000 American scientists who "have formal training in the analysis of information in physical science". (Sort of what John claims huh?)

To save time, I guess they are all disgruntled right? All paid for by big business and have been paid for the opinion.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jul 30, 2010 03:26PM)
[quote]
On 2010-07-30 16:18, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Woland. If you insist on calling people who disagree with you "climate hysterics" you are not worthy of further response.

John
[/quote]

Well John in all fairness you throw about the term 'deniers' to disparage those you disagree with.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jul 30, 2010 03:37PM)
I believe the evidence for mankind caused global warming is very convincing. The contradicting evidence seems to be provided largely by scientists and organizations funded by the right wing and major energy corporations.

The 'deniers' are all out to destroy the planet. Take for example Qing-Bin Lu.

http://thepeoplescube.com/peoples-blog/qing-bin-lu-is-trying-to-destroy-the-planet-t4603.html
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 30, 2010 04:00PM)
[quote]
On 2010-07-30 14:20, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-07-30 13:47, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-07-30 11:18, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Whether the earth has been warmer or cooler is irrelevant to the question of whether human activity is having an effect today.
[/quote]

Wow, really? What if we new definitively that the earth's climate hadn't changed for 10,000 years prior to the industrial revolution, and since then, it's been rising steadily? Conceptually, it's hard for me to imagine attributing, with any confidence, X amount of temperature change to human causes while treating the temperatures prior to those believed causes as irrelevant.
[/quote]

Lobo you are responding only to the first clause of my statement. Natural cycles of warming and cooling are relevant data. They do not, however, make any difference to whatever impact humans have or have not had. When climate is measured and modelled, natural variations are important; but they certainly don't wipe out all other possible causal factors.

John
[/quote]

ok, it wasn't entirely clear to me what you meant by "the question of whether human activity is having an effect today." I agree that they don't make any difference to whatever impact humans have or have not had, but I think they're certainly relevant to discerning what that impact might be.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 30, 2010 04:11PM)
[quote]
On 2010-07-30 14:17, Whit Haydn wrote:
Maybe everyone should just state their actual position on the matter, rather than engage in fruitless argument with those who will not change their positions regardless or argument or evidence. At least then, when the planet is slowly dying, we can at least have some fun saying, "I told you so!"
[/quote]

I encouraged an (albeit imperfect) approximation of this, late last year (Dec. 7, 2009 post under "The Copenhagen Diagnosis"):

Here's a question for all of us regular posters on the thread. On a scale from 0 to 100, how would you quantify your position on Global Warming? Here's a rough breakdown of how I see the continuum:

0: Completely convinced that it's all crap.

20: It seems the planet's getting warmer, but I believe fairly strongly that it's
part of a cycle of warming and cooling that isn't related to man's activities
(belief in "global warming" but not "Global Warming")

Anything from 0-30 or so probably believes that the strongest Global Warming proponents are coming from a place of financial/professional bias, political agenda, etc.

40: I'm not really adamantly opposed to the possibility of Global Warming, but my best guess is it's being disproportionately hyped. Seen too many "doomsday" scenarios, from Y2K to Global Cooling to everything else.

50: Who the hell knows?

60: The planet is getting warmer, more likely than not from man-made reasons,
though I don't that it's critical. Maybe the extent or certainty is
overstated, and besides, the cure could be worse than the disease.

80: Very sure about Global Warming. Not 100% positive, but pretty darn sure, and
the disease is worse than any proposed cure. To do nothing now is to ruin
the planet for future human life at a time when maybe it's still not too late.

100: 99.999% positive about Global Warming. Anyone who opposes it is ignorant,
has been bought off, has a strong political agenda, or is too selfish to
care about future generations as long as he can do what he wants now.


Those who responded:
Magnus: 60-80
DannyDoyle: 20-30
JonTownsend: 50
Payne: 70
TomBartlett: 20-30
LobowolfXXX: 60

I may have missed a few people in there.
Message: Posted by: Whit Haydn (Jul 30, 2010 04:15PM)
Put me down for 80-100. Though I think this is a biased measure.
Message: Posted by: Whit Haydn (Jul 30, 2010 04:17PM)
[quote]
On 2010-07-30 16:25, Dannydoyle wrote:
Heidelberg Appeal. Authored in 1992 and signed by at least 4,000 scientists, including 72 Nobel Prize winners-all skeptics of man made global warming.

Also look at the Oregon Petition. This was eventually signed by 30,000 American scientists who "have formal training in the analysis of information in physical science". (Sort of what John claims huh?)

To save time, I guess they are all disgruntled right? All paid for by big business and have been paid for the opinion.
[/quote]

Here is the Heidelberg Statement:

Addressed to the chiefs of state and governments

Heidelberg, April 14, 1992

"We want to make our full contribution to the preservation of our common heritage, the Earth.

"We are, however, worried at the dawn of the twenty-first century, at the emergence of an irrational ideology which is opposed to scientific and industrial progress and impedes economic and social development.

"We contend that a Natural State, sometimes idealized by movements with a tendency to look towards the past, does not exist and has probably never existed since man's first appearance in the biosphere, insofar as humanity has always progressed by increasingly harnessing Nature to its needs and not the reverse.

"We fully subscribe to the objectives of a scientific ecology for a universe whose resources must be taken stock of, monitored and preserved. But we herewith demand that this stock-taking, monitoring and preservation be founded on scientific criteria and not on irrational pre-conceptions.

"We stress that many essential human activities are carried out either by manipulating hazardous substances or in their proximity, and that progress and development have always involved increasing control over hostile forces, to the benefit of mankind. We therefore consider that scientific ecology is no more than an extension of this continual progress toward the improved life of future generations. We intend to assert science's responsibility and duty towards society as a whole. We do however forewarn the authorities in charge of our planet's destiny against decisions which are supported by pseudo-scientific arguments or false and non-relevant data.

"We draw everybody's attention to the absolute necessity of helping poor countries attain a level of sustainable development which matches that of the rest of the planet, protecting them from troubles and dangers stemming from developed nations, and avoiding their entanglement in a web of unrealistic obligations which would compromise both their independence and their dignity.

"The greatest evils which stalk our Earth are ignorance and oppression, and not Science, Technology and Industry whose instruments, when adequately managed, are indispensable tools of a future shaped by Humanity, by itself and for itself, overcoming major problems like overpopulation, starvation and worldwide diseases."


Here is what Wikipedia says about it:

"The Heidelberg Appeal has been enthusiastically embraced by critics of the environmental movement such as S. Fred Singer of the Science and Environmental Policy Project. Conservative think tanks frequently cite the Heidelberg Appeal as proof that scientists reject the theory of global warming as well as a host of other environmental health risks associated with modern science and industry. Its name has subsequently been adopted by the Heidelberg Appeal Nederland Foundation, which was founded in 1993 and disputes health risks related to nitrates in foods and antibiotic-resistant bacteria."

"Parts of the Heidelberg Appeal endorse environmental concerns, such as a sentence that states, "We fully subscribe to the objectives of a scientific ecology for a universe whose resources must be taken stock of, monitored and preserved." Its 72 Nobel laureates include 49 who also signed the "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity", which was circulated that same year by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and attracted the majority of the world's living Nobel laureates in science along with some 1,700 other leading scientists. In contrast with the vagueness of the Heidelberg Appeal, the "World Scientists' Warning" is a very explicit environmental manifesto, stating that "human beings and the natural world are on a collision course" and citing ozone depletion, global climate change, air pollution, groundwater depletion, deforestation, overfishing, and species extinction among the trends that threaten to "so alter the living world that it will be unable to sustain life in the manner that we know." Moreover the Heidelberg Appeal has been, if not specifically misrepresented, at least broadly interpreted out of context, for example, by The National Center for Public Policy which asserts "The appeal warns industrialized nations that no compelling scientific consensus exists to justify mandatory greenhouse gas emissions cuts." Although the Heidelberg Appeal may be open to such an interpretation, as the text below shows it is not what the document said."

Here are some fairly recent reports:

U.S. Global Change Research Program
formerly the Climate Change Science Program

The U.S. Global Change Research Program reported in June, 2009 that:

Observations show that warming of the climate is unequivocal. The global warming observed over the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases. These emissions come mainly from the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas), with important contributions from the clearing of forests, agricultural practices, and other activities.
The report, which is about the effects that climate change is having in the United States, also says:

Climate-related changes have already been observed globally and in the United States. These include increases in air and water temperatures, reduced frost days, increased frequency and intensity of heavy downpours, a rise in sea level, and reduced snow cover, glaciers, permafrost, and sea ice. A longer ice-free period on lakes and rivers, lengthening of the growing season, and increased water vapor in the atmosphere have also been observed. Over the past 30 years, temperatures have risen faster in winter than in any other season, with average winter temperatures in the Midwest and northern Great Plains increasing more than 7°F. Some of the changes have been faster than previous assessments had suggested.



Arctic Climate Impact Assessment

In 2004, the intergovernmental Arctic Council and the non-governmental International Arctic Science Committee released the synthesis report of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment:

Climate conditions in the past provide evidence that rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are associated with rising global temperatures. Human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas), and secondarily the clearing of land, have increased the concentration of carbon dioxide, methane, and other heat-trapping ("greenhouse") gases in the atmosphere...There is international scientific consensus that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jul 30, 2010 04:41PM)
I'm telling you...this is all leading up to the enviromentalist sponsered genocide.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jul 30, 2010 05:25PM)
[quote]
On 2010-07-30 16:26, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-07-30 16:18, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Woland. If you insist on calling people who disagree with you "climate hysterics" you are not worthy of further response.

John
[/quote]

Well John in all fairness you throw about the term 'deniers' to disparage those you disagree with.
[/quote]

Danny. I use the word deniers for those who deny the research. Do you really believe that that is in any way comparable to calling people "hysterics"?

John
Message: Posted by: Payne (Jul 30, 2010 05:45PM)
[quote]
On 2010-07-30 16:25, Dannydoyle wrote:
Heidelberg Appeal. Authored in 1992 and signed by at least 4,000 scientists, including 72 Nobel Prize winners-all skeptics of man made global warming.

Also look at the Oregon Petition. This was eventually signed by 30,000 American scientists who "have formal training in the analysis of information in physical science". (Sort of what John claims huh?)

To save time, I guess they are all disgruntled right? All paid for by big business and have been paid for the opinion.
[/quote]

No, the signers of the so called "Oregon Petition" are mostly unknown. No checks have been done to validate the identities of any of the signers and the list sports the names of Ginger Spice, Hawkeye Pierce and Bozo the Clown.
The original petition was sent out under questionable and possibly fraudulent conditions to anyone holding any kind of academic degree. You could be a veterinarian and qualify to sign the original petition. It is doubtful that many qualified Climate Scientist signatures are actually on this document.

See more about this matter here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9mgT-xJNFA
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jul 30, 2010 05:48PM)
When is the focus schedule to shift from climate stuff to Mayan calender stuff?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jul 30, 2010 09:11PM)
[quote]
On 2010-07-30 18:45, Payne wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-07-30 16:25, Dannydoyle wrote:
Heidelberg Appeal. Authored in 1992 and signed by at least 4,000 scientists, including 72 Nobel Prize winners-all skeptics of man made global warming.

Also look at the Oregon Petition. This was eventually signed by 30,000 American scientists who "have formal training in the analysis of information in physical science". (Sort of what John claims huh?)

To save time, I guess they are all disgruntled right? All paid for by big business and have been paid for the opinion.
[/quote]

No, the signers of the so called "Oregon Petition" are mostly unknown. No checks have been done to validate the identities of any of the signers and the list sports the names of Ginger Spice, Hawkeye Pierce and Bozo the Clown.
The original petition was sent out under questionable and possibly fraudulent conditions to anyone holding any kind of academic degree. You could be a veterinarian and qualify to sign the original petition. It is doubtful that many qualified Climate Scientist signatures are actually on this document.

See more about this matter here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9mgT-xJNFA
[/quote]

Wow shocking you disagree and have bad things to say about all of them. Interesting.

John, you know full well the imiages that the term "deniers" conjures up, or at least should with your command of language. It is an intentional term and you full well know it. Every time it is used it is despiration. The whole cloth is ripping apart at the seams.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jul 30, 2010 09:14PM)
Danny I don't think that the word "deniers" has anything remotely like the word "hysterics". And I do not use it from desperation as I have nothing to despair.

You are grasping at straws.

John
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jul 30, 2010 10:55PM)
You know, I have noticed that in the last couple months it has gotten warmer....
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jul 30, 2010 11:10PM)
The believers believe what they they don't understand and the denies have no faith.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jul 30, 2010 11:46PM)
John,

I have not used the term climate hysteric to indicate those with whom I disagree, or those who disagree with me.

I use the term to designate those who stridently proclaim that western industrial civilization needs to be shut down, while they themselves continue to travel by private jet, etc., and make millions peddling phony and worthless "carbon credits" to their gullible pigeons.

Woland
Message: Posted by: Nosher (Jul 31, 2010 12:23AM)
[quote]
On 2010-07-31 00:10, tommy wrote:
The believers believe what they they don't understand and the denies have no faith.
[/quote]

You might want to check the carbon monoxide in that mine...

:)
Message: Posted by: Payne (Jul 31, 2010 01:42AM)
[quote]
On 2010-07-30 22:11, Dannydoyle wrote:

Wow shocking you disagree and have bad things to say about all of them. Interesting.

[/quote]

No, I am showing you that the validity of the signers of the Oregon petition have never been verified. Thus the document is completely worthless. Petitions boasting such numbers could be and have been leveled against other established sciences as well.

Show me a document signed by verified experts in the field of climate science and the peer reviewed materials to support their claims and then we'll talk.

Until that time your just employing Argumentum ad populum which bears no weight in the debate.

Show us the science to support your claims. Then we'll talk
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jul 31, 2010 08:26AM)
Wow I wish you held that same sort of strict adherance to your own beliefs, yet when it comes to promoting socialism (your stated intent) the rules seem to be a bit lax.

Fact is that if anything happened on the opposite side of any arguement you promote such as those emails it would be trumpeted from the rooftops as failure and fake and all that such stuff and you full well know it. You cherry pick and call it "science" when in reality it is at best belief and religion.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jul 31, 2010 08:29AM)
[quote]
On 2010-07-31 00:46, Woland wrote:
John,

I have not used the term climate hysteric to indicate those with whom I disagree, or those who disagree with me.

I use the term to designate those who stridently proclaim that western industrial civilization needs to be shut down, while they themselves continue to travel by private jet, etc., and make millions peddling phony and worthless "carbon credits" to their gullible pigeons.

Woland
[/quote]

You were responding to something I wrote. Nobody in this forum, indeed no one referred to in this discussion fits that description. It is at best gratuitous.

John
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jul 31, 2010 08:49AM)
John the fact is that many people have come forth and said that creating a "hysteria" is needed. It is a technique used by politicians to advance the global warming cause. You reel from it but fact is you fall for the technique. My god better than 20 years ago we were to reach a point of no return. Hmm hasn't happened.

Payne himself admits that it is a technique used. Hysteria is the easiest and most efficient way to move people. Problem is it blinds those who really care (like you) to any other opinion. It solidifies your belief. You may not part take in it, but you do fall for it.

Don't worry, the populace has a short memory. Your religion may indeed have an upsurge soon.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jul 31, 2010 08:57AM)
Danny name one who is relevant to the discussion here.

The fact is, many people say stupid things about any topic you can name. It is simply not honest to introduce them into a conversation where they don't belong.

Feel free to do it; but I'll call it for what it is. I'm interested in ideas, facts and interpretations. If you or anyone else wishes to play rhetorical games that amount to nothing more than name-calling, count me out.

John
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jul 31, 2010 09:46AM)
They came up with idea of creating the threat Global Warming to create hysteria to fill the Vacuum. Read chapter five.
Message: Posted by: Dennis Michael (Jul 31, 2010 10:40AM)
One thing is certain...The world has change from the beginning of time and it will continue for many thousands of years.

Our orbit around the Sun changes and with it so does the climate, that's basic Science 101.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jul 31, 2010 11:32AM)
[quote]
On 2010-07-31 11:40, Dennis Michael wrote:
One thing is certain...The world has change from the beginning of time and it will continue for many thousands of years.


[/quote]
Probably true, the question is, are humans going to maximize our time here?

So, I go back to my question which no one has yet answered:

If global warming were shown to be occurring significantly, but not largely man-made, should we take steps to try and change it?

Let's deal with first things first.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jul 31, 2010 12:19PM)
[quote]
On 2010-07-31 12:32, landmark wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-07-31 11:40, Dennis Michael wrote:
One thing is certain...The world has change from the beginning of time and it will continue for many thousands of years.


[/quote]
Probably true, the question is, are humans going to maximize our time here?

So, I go back to my question which no one has yet answered:

If global warming were shown to be occurring significantly, but not largely man-made, should we take steps to try and change it?

Let's deal with first things first.
[/quote]

I think most of use (wisely) chose to deal with "first things first". There are undoubtedly dilemmas regarding our appropriate use of this planet. How much oil contamination are we willing to tolerate in order to get at the earth's reserves in a timely and cost effective manner? To what extent are we committed to preserving ecosystems? To preserving the earth itself? These are great questions, worthy of discussion. But they do get in the way of the current discussion.

John
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jul 31, 2010 12:27PM)
The very idea that man has the ability that allows him to control the climate of planet is ridicules. The idea that man is doing so is a lie. The men that think we can or are must be suffering from delusions of grandeur. If we were going into a ice age all we do is prepare as we do for Christmas time. Its purely a political lie. Read chapter five . The real and whole purpose of of lie is control the people not the climate. Yes the climate changes as always and will. So what?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jul 31, 2010 06:02PM)
So John what do YOU do to contribute to the solution? Ride a bike to work? Don't use heating oil during the winter in Canada?

What level are YOU willing to drop your lifestyle to in order for your religion to be relevant?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jul 31, 2010 06:50PM)
In the meantime:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEPT6evZlhA&feature=player_embedded
Message: Posted by: Whit Haydn (Jul 31, 2010 06:56PM)
[quote]
On 2010-07-31 13:27, tommy wrote:
The very idea that man has the ability that allows him to control the climate of planet is ridicules. The idea that man is doing so is a lie. The men that think we can or are must be suffering from delusions of grandeur. If we were going into a ice age all we do is prepare as we do for Christmas time. Its purely a political lie. Read chapter five . The real and whole purpose of of lie is control the people not the climate. Yes the climate changes as always and will. So what?
[/quote]

Actually, we put a hole in the Ozone Layer, and eventually fixed it by cutting back on fluorocarbons. Man can have an effect the weather:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jul 31, 2010 07:03PM)
[quote]
On 2010-07-31 19:02, Dannydoyle wrote:
So John what do YOU do to contribute to the solution? Ride a bike to work? Don't use heating oil during the winter in Canada?

What level are YOU willing to drop your lifestyle to in order for your religion to be relevant?
[/quote]

Curious questions, Danny. The debate so far has been about the science.

But since you asked, I do walk and ride a bike as much as possible. I take (and like) public transit. But I do also own a car, and I use it when I have to.

As you note, home heating is a big concern in northern countries. I have a high-efficiency natural gas furnace (very few people use heating oil in this country) and I have the thermostat programmed to lower the house temperature at night and when the house is empty. I am currently beginning a renovation to improve overall heat efficiency, including replacing old windows with newer, more efficient ones.

As for the cheap crack about religion, Danny you really should be above that.

John
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jul 31, 2010 07:10PM)
I will not be using my heater this Winter! Okay, it is because it is broken and if I don't get a job I won't able to replace it...but still it sounds good!

Heating is a problem up North, say, wouldn't it be great if we could figure a way to make it warmer?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jul 31, 2010 07:29PM)
It seems John will be doing nothing different then.

Santa that would be cool.

Taking about religion, that is one of very reasons they came up with the lie of the threat of global warming: People are no longer going to church and they need something to unite them again and the threat of global warming fit’s the bill, they said. It is in fact a religion that they gave the idiot public. Read chapter five.

Hoe about that for a bit of irony, Payne as seen the light and does not know it. :)
Message: Posted by: Whit Haydn (Jul 31, 2010 08:00PM)
Tommy:

You sure find a lot of weird non-scientist "experts" for your theory. From Wikipedia on Webster Tarpley:

"Tarpley earned a BA at Princeton University in 1966 in English and Italian, summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa. Fulbright Scholar at University of Turin, Italy. Master of Arts in humanities from Skidmore College. He was born in Pittsfield, Massachusetts in 1946."

"Webster Griffin Tarpley is an author, journalist, lecturer, and critic of US foreign and domestic policy. Tarpley maintains that the September 11 attacks were engineered by a rogue network of the military industrial complex and intelligence agencies."

"His writings and speeches describe a model of false flag terror operations by a rogue network in the military/intelligence sector working with moles in the private sector and in corporate media, and locates such contemporary false flag operations in a historical context stretching back in the English speaking world to at least the "gunpowder plot" in England in 1605. He also maintains that "The notion of anthropogenic global warming is a fraud."

"He is a critic of the Dalai Lama, and opposed to support for a free Tibet."
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jul 31, 2010 08:03PM)
[quote]
On 2010-07-31 13:19, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-07-31 12:32, landmark wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-07-31 11:40, Dennis Michael wrote:
One thing is certain...The world has change from the beginning of time and it will continue for many thousands of years.


[/quote]
Probably true, the question is, are humans going to maximize our time here?

So, I go back to my question which no one has yet answered:

If global warming were shown to be occurring significantly, but not largely man-made, should we take steps to try and change it?

Let's deal with first things first.
[/quote]

I think most of use (wisely) chose to deal with "first things first". There are undoubtedly dilemmas regarding our appropriate use of this planet. How much oil contamination are we willing to tolerate in order to get at the earth's reserves in a timely and cost effective manner? To what extent are we committed to preserving ecosystems? To preserving the earth itself? These are great questions, worthy of discussion. But they do get in the way of the current discussion.

John
[/quote]
The reason I say this question comes first is this:

If you take the position a) that Nature or God must be allowed to take its course without human interference, or b) that nothing humans can do would make a difference anyway, then whether global warming is caused by man or is occurring at all becomes moot.

It is wise not to conflate the positions of a) and b) with the question of whether or not manmade global warming is occurring. Inevitably in these threads I have seen this happening.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jul 31, 2010 08:04PM)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCFCeJTEzNU

By the way Phil Jones and the rest then alarmists climate scientist and so called experts that you rely on are utterly incompetent.
Message: Posted by: Dennis Michael (Jul 31, 2010 10:22PM)
Doesn't it say in Revelations that the world will be consumed by fire? (Or something like that)

Maybe we pollute the oceans with oil spills, and let the lightning ignite it!

Wa-La...The worlds on fire! It won't be that beer can or recycling that gets us, it will most likely something much bigger and we will have no control over it.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jul 31, 2010 10:47PM)
[quote]
On 2010-07-31 23:22, Dennis Michael wrote:
Doesn't it say in Revelations that the world will be consumed by fire? (Or something like that)...[/quote]

Not sure we need to worry about the sun going nova this year, but still - just one more reason to get the space program back up and running.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Aug 1, 2010 08:25AM)
When it comes to the world's climate, let's not be so northern-hemisphere-centric:

[url]http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/13/2624141.htm[/url]

"An extreme spell of cold weather in Peru has killed almost 250 children under the age of five in the past four months."

The present winter is very cold. Note that the story ends: "Experts blame climate change for the early arrival of intense cold, which began in March, even though winter in the region does not usually begin until June."

Of course "experts" now talk about "climate change" rather than "global warming" because with the term "climate change" you can now blame anything at all on anything you want. Perfect, eh?

Woland
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 1, 2010 08:27AM)
Woland, do you have a clue? The experts have always spoken of change; the overall warming has led to large regions of greater variation than before. You are confusing journalists with experts. Again. Read some science.

John
Message: Posted by: Nosher (Aug 1, 2010 08:42AM)
These threads will be a great resource for anyone studying the Dunning–Kruger effect...
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 1, 2010 09:44AM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-01 09:42, Nosher wrote:
These threads will be a great resource for anyone studying the Dunning–Kruger effect...
[/quote]

Ha! Problem is we all think it's the other guy that suffers from miscalibration.

John
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 1, 2010 09:51AM)
[quote]
On 2010-07-31 20:03, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-07-31 19:02, Dannydoyle wrote:
So John what do YOU do to contribute to the solution? Ride a bike to work? Don't use heating oil during the winter in Canada?

What level are YOU willing to drop your lifestyle to in order for your religion to be relevant?
[/quote]

Curious questions, Danny. The debate so far has been about the science.

But since you asked, I do walk and ride a bike as much as possible. I take (and like) public transit. But I do also own a car, and I use it when I have to.

As you note, home heating is a big concern in northern countries. I have a high-efficiency natural gas furnace (very few people use heating oil in this country) and I have the thermostat programmed to lower the house temperature at night and when the house is empty. I am currently beginning a renovation to improve overall heat efficiency, including replacing old windows with newer, more efficient ones.

As for the cheap crack about religion, Danny you really should be above that.

John
[/quote]

Well John, it is a religion with you. It really is. There is absolutely NOTHING that can be shown to you that you will not discount which would counter your belief. No matter what happens no matter what is discovered you are a true believer. It is about cherry picking science, it is not about science. It never is.

As for what you are doing cool. Those things will in the long run save you money. I actually had a choice between 2 houses, and chose the one better insulated, and more modern systems so they do not use as much energy. Fantastic.

But if things are SO bad, even public transit is certainly harmful. Having a car at all is evil isn't it? How far are you willing to go? The real question though John is how far are you willing to force others to go? Oh and is it the right thing to force others, when there is still doubt?

Most of the issues are those of freedom. There is a difference between my buying the house I did by choice, and being forced to buy it because of poilcy. That is where my main complaint lies.
Message: Posted by: spatlind (Aug 1, 2010 10:11AM)
Hyperbole
Message: Posted by: Woland (Aug 1, 2010 10:19AM)
Thank you, John, but I do have a clue.

As a worldwide phenomenon, the whole "global warming" or as some prefer "climate change" movement is not a merely scientific discussion or debate, but a political action movement devoted to dismantling western industrial civilization.

And it is all based on the famous "hockey stick" graphic which purportedly demonstrated that the apparent climate warming of the recent past would continue without wavering until, in Al Gore's hyperbolic hysteria, the temperature of the earth approached that of the planet Venus.

Well, it has now been shown that the temperature elevation in the latter end of the "hockey stick" graphic was either a mistaken or a deliberate artefact, and caused by (1) inaccurate surface temperature readings and decisions made to edit both satellite temperature readings and inconvenient surface temperature readings out of the model, (2) elimination of the medieval warm period from the model, and (3) "fudge factors" in the model itself.

If the extreme temperature rise in the latter end of the "hockey stick" graphic is not real, what is there left to worry about?

The world's climate may be on the warm side of its variability right now. If so -- enjoy it! When it gets colder, as it inevitably will, since what we are observing is just variation around the mean, you will find the world less hospitable than you find it now --- in many ways.

Woland
Message: Posted by: balducci (Aug 1, 2010 10:45AM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-01 11:19, Woland wrote:

As a worldwide phenomenon, the whole "global warming" or as some prefer "climate change" movement is not a merely scientific discussion or debate, but a political action movement devoted to dismantling western industrial civilization.

And it is all based on the famous "hockey stick" graphic ...
[/quote]
Not true. Also, I guess you missed these reports from last week:

Associated Press

WASHINGTON-Scientists from around the world are providing even more evidence of global warming.

“A comprehensive review of key climate indicators confirms the world is warming and the past decade was the warmest on record,” the annual State of the Climate report declares.

Compiled by more than 300 scientists from 48 countries, the report said its analysis of 10 indicators that are “clearly and directly related to surface temperatures, all tell the same story: Global warming is undeniable.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/science/the-earth-is-hotter-than-ever-global-warming-is-real-researchers-warn/article1655436/

“The conclusion is unmistakable – yes, the planet is warming,” said Derek Arndt, a co-editor of the report, called State of the Climate, which was published by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA.

“The facts speak for themselves, and speak simultaneously,” said Mr. Arndt, who runs the Climate Monitoring Branch at NOAA. “And, they all point toward the same conclusion – the globe is warming.”

The report – co-edited by researchers in the United States, Canada, Britain and Australia – pulled together data from 10 climate indicators measured by 160 research groups in 48 countries. The scientists compared the figures decade by decade as far back as possible, more than 100 years in some cases. They concluded 2000 to 2009 was the warmest decade ever, and the Earth has been growing warmer for 50 years. Each of the past three decades – 1980s, 1990s and 2000s – was the hottest on record, the researchers said.

This year is shaping up to be even warmer. For the first six months of 2010, the combined global land and ocean temperature was the warmest on record, according to the NOAA.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams-state-of-the-climate/

[For those who care, the above report makes no claim that this warming is due to man's activity.]
Message: Posted by: Woland (Aug 1, 2010 10:51AM)
Balducci,

All I have claimed is that (1) the observed apparent warming of the recent past (and present) is well within the limits of variability of the natural climate as far as we can tell from various forms of data about the historical climate, (2) that the presented evidence that the warming observed is due to human activity is unconvincing and that it is not necessary to bring human activity into the model in order to account for the climate changes that have been observed, (3) that the "hockey stick" graphic, which has been used to show that there is something out of the ordinary about the current period of warming, is an artefact, and (4) that in any event, living in periods of a warmer global climate is much to be preferred over living during periods of colder global climate. Nothing in the articles you have presented refutes any of those 4 points.

Woland
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 1, 2010 10:56AM)
Woland, please provide credible [b]scientific[/b] evidence to support your position. I promise to read it and comment appropriately.

John
Message: Posted by: Nosher (Aug 1, 2010 11:36AM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-01 11:51, Woland wrote:
Balducci,

All I have claimed is that.......

Woland
[/quote]

Not quite.

You also claimed that "...the whole "global warming" or as some prefer "climate change" movement is not a merely scientific discussion or debate, but a political action movement devoted to dismantling western industrial civilization."

Which, quite frankly, places you in the set of tin foil hat wearers.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Aug 1, 2010 11:50AM)
John,

Thanks for your generous offer. I will present the sources upon which I base my comments in a stepwise fashion.

First, let's examine whether the historical surface temperature data is of any value.

In the pages of the following site, you will find the information showing that data from >70% of the surface stations in the United States is seriously flawed:

http://www.surfacestations.org/

1003 of the stations in the USHCN have been surveyed and photographed so far.

Please review and comment as you deem appropriate.

Woland
Message: Posted by: Woland (Aug 1, 2010 11:59AM)
John,

On the deliberate removal of the medieval warm period from climate models, please see:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/10/when-the-ipcc-disappeared-the-medieval-warm-period/

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/324/5923/78

Woland
Message: Posted by: Woland (Aug 1, 2010 12:00PM)
John,

For a demonstration of how the "hockey stick" was artefactually modeled, you might start with this recent exposition:

http://climateaudit.org/2010/07/30/make-a-stick-make-a-stick/#more-11591

Woland
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 1, 2010 12:03PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-01 12:50, Woland wrote:
John,

Thanks for your generous offer. I will present the sources upon which I base my comments in a stepwise fashion.

First, let's examine whether the historical surface temperature data is of any value.

In the pages of the following site, you will find the information showing that data from >70% of the surface stations in the United States is seriously flawed:

http://www.surfacestations.org/

1003 of the stations in the USHCN have been surveyed and photographed so far.

Please review and comment as you deem appropriate.

Woland
[/quote]

I've seen this one before. Nothing on it appears to have passed any scientific review at all. And it focuses only on the US. Does this somehow invalidate ocean measurement? Satellite data? Other countries?

Further, there is nothing here that isn't accounted for in the scientific papers. IPCC even makes direct reference to the issue.

John
Message: Posted by: Woland (Aug 1, 2010 12:04PM)
John,

For a discussion of the overall climate change paradigm, this article by Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P Sloan Professor of Climate Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is of interest:

http://gazettextra.com/news/2010/apr/08/con-earth-never-equilibrium/

Quote:

"Earth has had ice ages and warmer periods when alligators were found in Spitzbergen. Ice ages have occurred in a 100,000-year cycle for the last 700,000 years, and there have been previous interglacials that appear to have been warmer than the present despite lower carbon-dioxide levels. More recently, we have had the medieval warm period and the little ice age. During the latter, alpine glaciers advanced to the chagrin of overrun villages. Since the beginning of the 19th century, these glaciers have been retreating. Frankly, we don’t fully understand either the advance or the retreat, and, indeed, some alpine glaciers are advancing again."

-and-

"The IPCC claim that most of the recent warming (since the 1950s) is due to man assumed that current models adequately accounted for natural internal variability. The failure of these models to anticipate the fact that there has been no statistically significant warming for the past 14 years or so contradicts this assumption. This has been acknowledged by major modeling groups in England and Germany.

However, the modelers chose not to stress this. Rather they suggested that the models could be further corrected, and that warming would resume by 2009, 2013, or even 2030.

"Global warming enthusiasts have responded to the absence of warming in recent years by arguing that the past decade has been the warmest on record. We are still speaking of tenths of a degree, and the records themselves have come into question. Since we are, according to these records, in a relatively warm period, it is not surprising that the past decade was the warmest on record. This in no way contradicts the absence of increasing temperatures for over a decade.

"Given that the evidence (and I have noted only a few of many pieces of evidence) suggests that anthropogenic warming has been greatly exaggerated, so too is the basis for alarm. However, the case for alarm would still be weak even if anthropogenic global warming were significant. Polar bears, arctic summer sea ice, regional droughts and floods, coral bleaching, hurricanes, alpine glaciers, malaria, etc., all depend not on GATA but on a huge number of regional variables including temperature, humidity, cloud cover, precipitation, and direction and magnitude of wind and the state of the ocean.

"The fact that some models suggest changes in alarming phenomena will accompany global warming does not logically imply that changes in these phenomena imply global warming. This is not to say that disasters will not occur; they always have occurred, and this will not change in the future. Fighting global warming with symbolic gestures will certainly not change this. However, history tells us that greater wealth and development can profoundly increase our resilience.

"One may ask why there has been the astounding upsurge in alarmism in the past four years. When an issue like global warming is around for more than 20 years, numerous agendas are developed to exploit the issue. The interests of the environmental movement in acquiring more power, influence and donations are reasonably clear. So, too, are the interests of bureaucrats for whom control of carbon dioxide is a dream come true. After all, carbon dioxide is a product of breathing itself.

"Politicians can see the possibility of taxation that will be cheerfully accepted to save Earth. Nations see how to exploit this issue in order to gain competitive advantages. So do private firms. The case of Enron (a now bankrupt Texas energy firm) is illustrative. Before disintegrating in a pyrotechnic display of unscrupulous manipulation, Enron was one of the most intense lobbyists for Kyoto. It had hoped to become a trading firm dealing in carbon-emission rights. This was no small hope. These rights are likely to amount to trillions of dollars, and the commissions will run into many billions.

"It is probably no accident that Al Gore himself is associated with such activities. The sale of indulgences is already in full swing with organizations selling offsets to one’s carbon footprint while sometimes acknowledging that the offsets are irrelevant. The possibilities for corruption are immense.

"Finally, there are the well-meaning individuals who believe that in accepting the alarmist view of climate change, they are displaying intelligence and virtue. For them, psychic welfare is at stake.

"Clearly, the possibility that warming may have ceased could provoke a sense of urgency. For those committed to the more venal agendas, the need to act soon, before the public appreciates the situation, is real indeed. However, the need to courageously resist hysteria is equally clear. Wasting resources on symbolically fighting ever-present climate change is no substitute for prudence."

(end quotes)

Woland
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 1, 2010 12:08PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-01 12:59, Woland wrote:
John,

On the deliberate removal of the medieval warm period from climate models, please see:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/10/when-the-ipcc-disappeared-the-medieval-warm-period/[/quote]

The guy is a retired TV weatherman; this is hardly compelling evidence. Maybe an appeal to peer-reviewed science is in order.

[quote]
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/324/5923/78
[/quote]

Did you read this paper? It has nothing whatsoever to do with the questions of anthropogenic climate change. The paper proposes some mechanisms that may have been causally important in the Medieval Climate Anomaly. Nobody has ever denied that this fluctuation occurred.
[quote]
Woland
[/quote]

Thanks for the links, but these are not particularly helpful.

John
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 1, 2010 12:16PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-01 13:04, Woland wrote:
John,

For a discussion of the overall climate change paradigm, this article by Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P Sloan Professor of Climate Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is of interest:

http://gazettextra.com/news/2010/apr/08/con-earth-never-equilibrium/

Quote:

"Earth has had ice ages and warmer periods when alligators were found in Spitzbergen. Ice ages have occurred in a 100,000-year cycle for the last 700,000 years, and there have been previous interglacials that appear to have been warmer than the present despite lower carbon-dioxide levels. More recently, we have had the medieval warm period and the little ice age. During the latter, alpine glaciers advanced to the chagrin of overrun villages. Since the beginning of the 19th century, these glaciers have been retreating. Frankly, we don’t fully understand either the advance or the retreat, and, indeed, some alpine glaciers are advancing again."

-and-

"The IPCC claim that most of the recent warming (since the 1950s) is due to man assumed that current models adequately accounted for natural internal variability. The failure of these models to anticipate the fact that there has been no statistically significant warming for the past 14 years or so contradicts this assumption. This has been acknowledged by major modeling groups in England and Germany.

However, the modelers chose not to stress this. Rather they suggested that the models could be further corrected, and that warming would resume by 2009, 2013, or even 2030.

"Global warming enthusiasts have responded to the absence of warming in recent years by arguing that the past decade has been the warmest on record. We are still speaking of tenths of a degree, and the records themselves have come into question. Since we are, according to these records, in a relatively warm period, it is not surprising that the past decade was the warmest on record. This in no way contradicts the absence of increasing temperatures for over a decade.

"Given that the evidence (and I have noted only a few of many pieces of evidence) suggests that anthropogenic warming has been greatly exaggerated, so too is the basis for alarm. However, the case for alarm would still be weak even if anthropogenic global warming were significant. Polar bears, arctic summer sea ice, regional droughts and floods, coral bleaching, hurricanes, alpine glaciers, malaria, etc., all depend not on GATA but on a huge number of regional variables including temperature, humidity, cloud cover, precipitation, and direction and magnitude of wind and the state of the ocean.

"The fact that some models suggest changes in alarming phenomena will accompany global warming does not logically imply that changes in these phenomena imply global warming. This is not to say that disasters will not occur; they always have occurred, and this will not change in the future. Fighting global warming with symbolic gestures will certainly not change this. However, history tells us that greater wealth and development can profoundly increase our resilience.

"One may ask why there has been the astounding upsurge in alarmism in the past four years. When an issue like global warming is around for more than 20 years, numerous agendas are developed to exploit the issue. The interests of the environmental movement in acquiring more power, influence and donations are reasonably clear. So, too, are the interests of bureaucrats for whom control of carbon dioxide is a dream come true. After all, carbon dioxide is a product of breathing itself.

"Politicians can see the possibility of taxation that will be cheerfully accepted to save Earth. Nations see how to exploit this issue in order to gain competitive advantages. So do private firms. The case of Enron (a now bankrupt Texas energy firm) is illustrative. Before disintegrating in a pyrotechnic display of unscrupulous manipulation, Enron was one of the most intense lobbyists for Kyoto. It had hoped to become a trading firm dealing in carbon-emission rights. This was no small hope. These rights are likely to amount to trillions of dollars, and the commissions will run into many billions.

"It is probably no accident that Al Gore himself is associated with such activities. The sale of indulgences is already in full swing with organizations selling offsets to one’s carbon footprint while sometimes acknowledging that the offsets are irrelevant. The possibilities for corruption are immense.

"Finally, there are the well-meaning individuals who believe that in accepting the alarmist view of climate change, they are displaying intelligence and virtue. For them, psychic welfare is at stake.

"Clearly, the possibility that warming may have ceased could provoke a sense of urgency. For those committed to the more venal agendas, the need to act soon, before the public appreciates the situation, is real indeed. However, the need to courageously resist hysteria is equally clear. Wasting resources on symbolically fighting ever-present climate change is no substitute for prudence."

(end quotes)

Woland
[/quote]

This one is an op-ed piece by a qualified scientist. He presents a minority view, but fair enough; at least it is a qualified minority view. Now my question to you Woland is this: why do you believe him? When he is out-numbered by at least 100 to 1 by qualified scientists who disagree, what makes Richard S. Lindzen the guy you believe? Is it because he presents compelling arguments that the others don't? Or is it that he happens to agree with you?

As I have said numerous times, I am not a climate scientist. Why choose one expert over others? This is a crucial question.

My belief (which Danny Doyle insists is a religion) is that I am more convinced by the majority of experts than the minority. Because I am not qualified to critique the climate models, I have to rely on something else; in this case it is a clear and obvious scientific consensus. Why do you choose Lindzen over, say, the IPCC?

John
Message: Posted by: Woland (Aug 1, 2010 12:40PM)
John,

I knew I posted too much at one time. I should have stuck to just my first post, the surface staion project.

Let's look at the data before we get into a debate over champions of different points of view.

Did you look at the detailed information about over 1,000 of the ~1200 surface weather stations in the US?

If -as is amply demonstrated with an on-line database of photographs that you can see with your own eyes- >70% of them are compromised according to NOAA standards, of what value is *any* model that extrapolates global climate predictions based on these surface stations' data?

Woland
Message: Posted by: Woland (Aug 1, 2010 12:44PM)
John,

Science has never been decided by a majority vote of "experts." If that was the correct scientific procedure, we'd still be calculating planetary orbits according to Ptolemy and applying leeches to treat infectious diseases. Scientists are just as vulnerable as anyone else to what Mackay called "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds."

Woland
Message: Posted by: Whit Haydn (Aug 1, 2010 01:09PM)
From http://arthur.shumwaysmith.com/life/who :

"I recently commented on a proposed "commentary" from the American Physical Society on their climate change statement - what I didn't note there was that many of the worst confusions in the proposed commentary echo some of the claims by Lindzen - and Lindzen was one of the four or five respected scientists who APS asked to help come up with that commentary. The final version of the commentary is much improved - but it still includes the range "1 C to 3 C" for the sensitivity of climate to doubling of CO2, when the actual consensus range from the IPCC is 2 to 4.5 C. Chopping the lower bound in half (and also dramatically lowering the upper limit - but with at least a verbal caveat) is completely scientifically indefensible, and I can only conclude that Richard Lindzen continued to play a role in the re-drafting process. Given his extreme message in the Wall Street Journal articles, it looks like a major scientific society has (in perhaps a small but significant way) fallen prey to something between a crank and outright duplicity."
Message: Posted by: Woland (Aug 1, 2010 01:26PM)
Whit,

Thanks for that comment.

Have you looked at the data which show that 70% to 80% of the surface temperature records in the US are historically worthless?

Woland
Message: Posted by: balducci (Aug 1, 2010 01:49PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-01 14:26, Woland wrote:
Whit,

Thanks for that comment.

Have you looked at the data which show that 70% to 80% of the surface temperature records in the US are historically worthless?

Woland
[/quote]
Even if you are correct about that, did you look at the report I directed you to that used data from 10 different climate indicators measured by 160 research groups in 48 countries? All of which indicate increasing temperatures.

"Of the 10 measurements, the report said seven are rising – air temperature over land, sea-surface temperature, air temperature over oceans, sea level, ocean heat, humidity and the temperature of the troposphere, which is the atmosphere closest to the Earth’s surface. Three indicators are declining – Arctic sea ice, glaciers and spring snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere. ALL OF WHICH point to a warming trend."
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Aug 1, 2010 01:51PM)
All this from folks who can't teach evolution in schools, and say they don't have a clue where more than half the matter/energy in the universe is. And at a time when the carbon footprint of our adventures in the middle east or even of stopping forest fires goes unreported?

Sorry - huge credibility gap. Kindly get back to arguing over how many angels are doing the Charleston on the head of a spark plug - but quietly please - you don't want to wake up Cth****.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Aug 1, 2010 02:11PM)
Balducci,

I've offered nothing to contradict any of those observations.

But the detailed climate models are not based on all of those disparate observations, they are based on temperature records.

There are basically two kinds of temperature records, first, and only within the last century, records of actually recorded temperatures, and then second, for previous periods, extrapolations from observations of, for example, tree ring thickness.

Note that in many cases, the correlation between tree ring thickness and theoretically determined temperatures in previous eras is based on correlations between tree ring thickness and actually recorded temperatures in the post-thermometer era.

But if the historical record of recorded temperatures is based on the 70-80% of surface stations that are no good, even without considering the way surface station data has been cherry-picked, of what value are the extrapolations made for previous eras?

Let alone the cherry-picking of tree ring data in the Yamal data set.

Woland
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 1, 2010 02:13PM)
[quote]
On 2010-07-30 18:45, Payne wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-07-30 16:25, Dannydoyle wrote:
Heidelberg Appeal. Authored in 1992 and signed by at least 4,000 scientists, including 72 Nobel Prize winners-all skeptics of man made global warming.

Also look at the Oregon Petition. This was eventually signed by 30,000 American scientists who "have formal training in the analysis of information in physical science". (Sort of what John claims huh?)

To save time, I guess they are all disgruntled right? All paid for by big business and have been paid for the opinion.
[/quote]

No, the signers of the so called "Oregon Petition" are mostly unknown. No checks have been done to validate the identities of any of the signers and the list sports the names of Ginger Spice, Hawkeye Pierce and Bozo the Clown.
The original petition was sent out under questionable and possibly fraudulent conditions to anyone holding any kind of academic degree. You could be a veterinarian and qualify to sign the original petition. It is doubtful that many qualified Climate Scientist signatures are actually on this document.

See more about this matter here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9mgT-xJNFA
[/quote]

I'm sure it's legit; ACORN handled the sign-ups.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 1, 2010 02:57PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-01 13:44, Woland wrote:
John,

Science has never been decided by a majority vote of "experts." If that was the correct scientific procedure, we'd still be calculating planetary orbits according to Ptolemy and applying leeches to treat infectious diseases. Scientists are just as vulnerable as anyone else to what Mackay called "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds."

Woland
[/quote]

Actually you are very much incorrect, Woland. Science is ALWAYS decided by the majority of experts. Expert opinion is based on observation, theory and argumentation. This is the only way that science can be done. Scientists believe that, say, the Sun's energy is a consequence of the fusion of hydrogen atoms. The agreement doesn't make it true; the agreement is a consequence of the best trained people being convinced by the best available evidence. Fortunately, when new evidence comes forward, the majority change their minds (sometimes quickly and sometimes slowly) and a new consensus emerges.

What else can non-experts like you and I rely on?

John
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 1, 2010 02:58PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-01 13:40, Woland wrote:
John,

I knew I posted too much at one time. I should have stuck to just my first post, the surface staion project.

Let's look at the data before we get into a debate over champions of different points of view.

Did you look at the detailed information about over 1,000 of the ~1200 surface weather stations in the US?

If -as is amply demonstrated with an on-line database of photographs that you can see with your own eyes- >70% of them are compromised according to NOAA standards, of what value is *any* model that extrapolates global climate predictions based on these surface stations' data?

Woland
[/quote]

I have seen this site before and have skimmed much of it; of course I have not looked at every datum.

For one informed response to the site, check out

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/07/no-man-is-an-urban-heat-island/

John
Message: Posted by: Woland (Aug 1, 2010 03:19PM)
John,

You won't be surprised that I don't find those arguments convincing.

I'm going to go outside and enjoy what remains of this beautiful warm interglacial weather while it lasts.

Woland
Message: Posted by: Whit Haydn (Aug 1, 2010 04:42PM)
I think some of the information from John's citing ( http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/07/no-man-is-an-urban-heat-island/ ) is worth noting:

"Mistaken Assumption No. 4: Global mean trends are simple averages of all weather stations

As discussed above, each of the groups making gridded products goes to a lot of trouble to eliminate problems (such as UHI) or jumps in the records, so the global means you see are not simple means of all data (this NCDC page explains some of the issues in their analysis). The methodology of the GISS effort is described in a number of papers – particularly Hansen et al 1999 and 2001.

Mistaken Assumption No. 5: Finding problems with individual station data somehow affects climate model projections.

The idea apparently persists that climate models are somehow built on the surface temperature records, and that any adjustment to those records will change the model projections for the future. This probably stems from a misunderstanding of the notion of a physical model as opposed to statistical model. A statistical model of temperature might for instance calculate a match between known forcings and the station data and then attempt to make a forecast based on the change in projected forcings. In such a case, the projection would be affected by any adjustment to the training data. However, the climate models used in the IPCC forecasts are not statistical, but are physical in nature. They are self-consistent descriptions of the whole system whose inputs are only the boundary conditions and the changes in external forces (such as the solar constant, the orbit, or greenhouse gases). They do not assimilate the surface data, nor are they initiallised from it. Instead, the model results for, say, the mean climate, or the change in recent decades or the seasonal cycle or response to El Niño events, are compared to the equivalent analyses in the gridded observations. Mismatches can help identify problems in the models, and are used to track improvements to the model physics. However, it is generally not possible to ‘tune’ the models to fit very specific bits of the surface data and the evidence for that is the remaining (significant) offsets in average surface temperatures in the observations and the models. There is also no attempt to tweak the models in order to get better matches to regional trends in temperature.

Mistaken Assumption No. 6: If only enough problems can be found, global warming will go away

This is really two mistaken assumptions in one. That there is so little redundancy that throwing out a few dodgy met. stations will seriously affect the mean, and that evidence for global warming is exclusively tied to the land station data. Neither of those things are true. It has been estimated that the mean anomaly in the Northern hemisphere at the monthly scale only has around 60 degrees of freedom – that is, 60 well-place stations would be sufficient to give a reasonable estimate of the large scale month to month changes. Currently, although they are not necessarily ideally placed, there are thousands of stations – many times more than would be theoretically necessary. The second error is obvious from the fact that the recent warming is seen in the oceans, the atmosphere, in Arctic sea ice retreat, in glacier recession, earlier springs, reduced snow cover etc., so even if all met stations were contaminated (which they aren’t), global warming would still be “unequivocal”. Since many of the participants in the latest effort appear to really want this assumption to be true, pointing out that it doesn’t really follow might be a disincentive, but hopefully they won’t let that detail damp their enthusiasm…"

**************************************


It seems to me that when 97% of the world's climate scientists--regardless of employment--agree on the existence and nature of global warming, and the 3% that disagree are largely in the employ of energy companies and multi-national corportations; then the burden of proof should be on the 3%. They need to do more than try to poo-poo the statistics like the Tobacco Industry did.

--Whit
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 1, 2010 05:14PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-01 16:19, Woland wrote:
John,

You won't be surprised that I don't find those arguments convincing.

Woland
[/quote]

On what grounds?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 1, 2010 06:04PM)
John than you so much for proving my point for me. Let me ask you something. Do you deny that the global warming crowd is a political movement? If so, then I guess there is really nothing else to say.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Aug 1, 2010 06:18PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-01 19:04, Dannydoyle wrote:
John than you so much for proving my point for me. Let me ask you something. Do you deny that the global warming crowd is a political movement? If so, then I guess there is really nothing else to say.
[/quote]

Creighton warned about the sheeple getting stampeded by this issue years ago. He then wrote a pirate caper - just in case we have a posterity and get to explore psychohistory.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Aug 1, 2010 06:56PM)
John,

You ask why I don't find the arguments in the link you posted convincing. OK, let's start with those that Mr. Haydn kindly posted to this thread.

1) "Mistaken Assumption No. 4: Global mean trends are simple averages of all weather stations"

I have not assumed that. What I have said is that the historical surface station temperature records are unreliable. Therefore, no matter how you incorporate them into a model, no matter how apparently sophisticated, the results will be unreliable.

2) "Mistaken Assumption No. 5: Finding problems with individual station data somehow affects climate model projections."

Again, that mis-states the point. The point is not that any one individual station's data are bad, but that 80% of the surface stations in the database are by NOAA standards unreliable for historical data. The whole dataset is bad, not just an individual station's results.

And so on.

Look.

The United States is arguably the richest, most technologically advanced country in the world. And in the United States, when carefully and impartially examined, 80% of the weather stations are improperly sited and constructed, so that their temperature readings are unduly affected by artefact. Am I then supposed to believe that weather stations in Russia are somehow more reliable? Or in Mongolia? The more the actual data are examined, the worse they look in terms of quality and reliability.

Let alone the way that climate modelers add and subtract particular weather stations from their models.

And the extrapolated data from earlier eras, e.g. the tree ring data, are even worse. Surely you are aware of the problems in the influential Yamal tree ring data.

Again, I am not convinced that the current relatively warm climate is anything more than a pleasant interglacial. I am enjoying it!

Woland
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Aug 1, 2010 07:18PM)
I think the global warming crowd is basing a lot of their data on psychics.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Aug 1, 2010 08:00PM)
That would give new meaning to the term "cold reading."
Message: Posted by: landmark (Aug 1, 2010 08:13PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-01 15:13, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-07-30 18:45, Payne wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-07-30 16:25, Dannydoyle wrote:
Heidelberg Appeal. Authored in 1992 and signed by at least 4,000 scientists, including 72 Nobel Prize winners-all skeptics of man made global warming.

Also look at the Oregon Petition. This was eventually signed by 30,000 American scientists who "have formal training in the analysis of information in physical science". (Sort of what John claims huh?)

To save time, I guess they are all disgruntled right? All paid for by big business and have been paid for the opinion.
[/quote]

No, the signers of the so called "Oregon Petition" are mostly unknown. No checks have been done to validate the identities of any of the signers and the list sports the names of Ginger Spice, Hawkeye Pierce and Bozo the Clown.
The original petition was sent out under questionable and possibly fraudulent conditions to anyone holding any kind of academic degree. You could be a veterinarian and qualify to sign the original petition. It is doubtful that many qualified Climate Scientist signatures are actually on this document.

See more about this matter here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9mgT-xJNFA
[/quote]

I'm sure it's legit; ACORN handled the sign-ups.
[/quote]
Now, Andrew Breibart, there's a reliable source for you.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 1, 2010 08:16PM)
Woland, what about the notion that these heat islands are mathematically compensated in the models? Does that have no weight with you?

As for the Yamal tree ring data, I am aware that

1. The original data was gathered and analyzed by Hantemirov and Shiyatov. Their careful work was peer reviewed and published.

2. Hantemirov and Shiyatov's data was used by Keith Briffa in 2000. This paper was peer reviewed and published in 2000. You can read it [url=http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/qsr1999/]here.[/url]

3. Steve McIntyre wrote an alleged rebuttal to Briffa's reconstruction. He did not seek peer review, but published it on the web [url=http://climateaudit.org/2009/09/27/yamal-a-divergence-problem/]here.[/url]

4. Briffa published an on-line non-peer reviewed response to McIntyre [url=http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/]here.[/url]

Who are all these people?

*Hantemirov and Shiyatov are scientists from the Institute of Plant and Animal Ecology, Ural Division of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

*Briffa is a dendroclimatologist at the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia.

*McIntyre works mainly in the mining industry. He has a BSc in mathematics and a graduate degree (I can't find out what it is) in Philosophy, Politics and Economics.

John
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 1, 2010 08:21PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-01 19:04, Dannydoyle wrote:
John than you so much for proving my point for me. Let me ask you something. Do you deny that the global warming crowd is a political movement? If so, then I guess there is really nothing else to say.
[/quote]

Your question is loaded. Let me answer it in an honest and straightforward way.

1. I believe that many political movements are informed by opinions on climate change. Yes, there are political groups that believe the science (some for good and some for bad reasons) and are trying to effect change. Yes there are political groups that do not believe the science (some for good and some for bad reasons) and are trying to effect change.

2. I believe that the science of global climate change is good science. This is evidenced by the continual challenges to findings and testing and restesting of models.

3. I'm not sure what you mean by the "global warming crowd". If you mean all people that believe the claims that human activity is having an effect on the global climate, then I do not believe that they are a single political group. And I do not believe that those who do not believe the science are a single political group.

Now tell me, why is this important to you?

John
Message: Posted by: Woland (Aug 1, 2010 09:53PM)
John,

Briffa was one of the climatologists who engaged in a conspiracy to silence opposing views and conceal some of their own results ("hide the decline").

But for the sake of the argument, let me stipulate for the moment that the climate in the northern hemisphere has become warmer than it has been in the past 1,000 years.

You still haven't proven that human activity, specifically CO2 production from industrial processes, has anything to do with it.

And even if it did, what do you propose to do about it?

In order significantly to affect the climate, if the models you believe are correct, CO2 production worldwide would have to be cut to pre-1940 levels. Who reading these words would be able to get by on the energy use levels of 75 years ago? More importantly, could the world economy survive on such an energy starvation level?

Actually it's worse than that. Since the world's population in 1940 was roughly 1/3 of what it is today, the world would in effect have to go back to energy consumption levels of the pre-electrical, pre-industrial era in order to achieve the drastic CO2 reductions demanded by the climate models you believe.

Two things should be evident: (1) that to achieve such a reduction in CO2 production would condemn the world to a dark age of poverty, famine, and war. (Now since more than a few "environmentalists" are open advocates of human extinction, that may not be an undesirable outcome to them.) And (2) it just isn't going to happen. CO2 production in the United States is actually declining. But China, India, and Russia are not going to cripple themselves to please environmentalists in the west.

Finally, the majority of internationally prominent figures advocating drastic political measures to "save the world" have not shown in their own behavior the slightest evidence that they actually believe their own rhetoric is worth putting into personal action. Why should I do what they say, instead of what they do?

Woland
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 1, 2010 10:03PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-01 22:53, Woland wrote:
John,

Briffa was one of the climatologists who engaged in a conspiracy to silence opposing views and conceal some of their own results ("hide the decline"). [/quote]

He was accused of that. You may have noticed that an independent inquiry found no evidence of wrongdoing.

[quote]

But for the sake of the argument, let me stipulate for the moment that the climate in the northern hemisphere has become warmer than it has been in the past 1,000 years.

You still haven't proven that human activity, specifically CO2 production from industrial processes, has anything to do with it.

And even if it did, what do you propose to do about it?

In order significantly to affect the climate, if the models you believe are correct, CO2 production worldwide would have to be cut to pre-1940 levels. Who reading these words would be able to get by on the energy use levels of 75 years ago? More importantly, could the world economy survive on such an energy starvation level?

Actually it's worse than that. Since the world's population in 1940 was roughly 1/3 of what it is today, the world would in effect have to go back to energy consumption levels of the pre-electrical, pre-industrial era in order to achieve the drastic CO2 reductions demanded by the climate models you believe.

Two things should be evident: (1) that to achieve such a reduction in CO2 production would condemn the world to a dark age of poverty, famine, and war. (Now since more than a few "environmentalists" are open advocates of human extinction, that may not be an undesirable outcome to them.) And (2) it just isn't going to happen. CO2 production in the United States is actually declining. But China, India, and Russia are not going to cripple themselves to please environmentalists in the west.

Finally, the majority of internationally prominent figures advocating drastic political measures to "save the world" have not shown in their own behavior the slightest evidence that they actually believe their own rhetoric is worth putting into personal action. Why should I do what they say, instead of what they do?

Woland
[/quote]

Well you've made a number of assertions, but have provided no evidence. If you provide evidence I'll look at it.

But let's be honest Woland, you haven't provided compelling evidence for any of your earlier claims either. All you are doing is changing the topic every time the going gets tough.

John
Message: Posted by: Woland (Aug 1, 2010 10:10PM)
John,

The inquiry wasn't independent.

In my field, if I had done what their own emails documented, I would be banned for life, and quite possibly imprisoned.

Woland
Message: Posted by: balducci (Aug 1, 2010 10:12PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-01 22:53, Woland wrote:

And (2) it just isn't going to happen. CO2 production in the United States is actually declining. But China, India, and Russia are not going to cripple themselves to please environmentalists in the west.
[/quote]
Who says they have to cripple themselves?

Have you heard of this venture in China?

http://www.smartplanet.com/business/blog/smart-takes/chinas-solar-valley-biggest-solar-energy-production-base-in-world/7326/

http://www.chinasolarcity.cn/Html/dezhou/151533954.html

http://www.chinasolarcity.cn/Html/dezhou/index.html

Sure, it may not be easy to wean China off of less green energy sources, but it is making an effort. And in time, who knows.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 1, 2010 10:20PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-01 23:10, Woland wrote:
John,

The inquiry wasn't independent.

In my field, if I had done what their own emails documented, I would be banned for life, and quite possibly imprisoned.

Woland
[/quote]

Ok Woland, why wasn't the inquiry independent?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Aug 1, 2010 10:34PM)
Woland

I hope you are not suggesting that the Al Gore documentary film Inconvenient Truth is a work of propaganda! Don’t you know all the believers climate science experts that seen the film said Gore accurately conveyed the science? Those expert climate scientists not only authenticated the Al Gore Incontinent Truth but applauded, praising it on high, to such an extent that Al Gore received a noble prize! The believers rely on and constantly cite those experts as their proof. Calling this film into question, calls into question the competency and honesty of the believers climate experts. Do you really think those climate scientists would endorse Inconvenient Truth if it was something that was littered with lies? How dare you!

:)
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Aug 1, 2010 10:56PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-01 23:12, balducci wrote:...
Sure, it may not be easy to wean China off of less green energy sources, but it is making an effort. And in time, who knows.
[/quote]

Sure, it may not be easy to wean outsiders off such language and the thinking that provokes it but some appear to be making an effort. And in time, who knows?

We live in interesting times.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Aug 1, 2010 10:59PM)
Tommy,

How could I have forgotten all that! I would never suggest any such thing! :lol:

John,

The British parliamentary (Oxburgh) panel's 5 page report did not involve any significant evaluation of the evidence. Moreover, it has been recently revealed that the 11 papers that the panel reviewed were selected for Lord Oxburgh by . . . Phil Jones. And only representatives of the CRU were interviewed. This panel was as "blue ribbon" as a "blue ribbon" panel gets. And about as far from a thorough inquiry as it is possible to be.

Woland
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 1, 2010 11:36PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-01 23:59, Woland wrote:
Tommy,

How could I have forgotten all that! I would never suggest any such thing! :lol:

John,

The British parliamentary (Oxburgh) panel's 5 page report did not involve any significant evaluation of the evidence. Moreover, it has been recently revealed that the 11 papers that the panel reviewed were selected for Lord Oxburgh by . . . Phil Jones. And only representatives of the CRU were interviewed. This panel was as "blue ribbon" as a "blue ribbon" panel gets. And about as far from a thorough inquiry as it is possible to be.

Woland
[/quote]

And the other panel?
Message: Posted by: Payne (Aug 1, 2010 11:50PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-01 12:50, Woland wrote:
John,

Thanks for your generous offer. I will present the sources upon which I base my comments in a stepwise fashion.

First, let's examine whether the historical surface temperature data is of any value.

In the pages of the following site, you will find the information showing that data from >70% of the surface stations in the United States is seriously flawed:

http://www.surfacestations.org/

1003 of the stations in the USHCN have been surveyed and photographed so far.

Please review and comment as you deem appropriate.

Woland
[/quote]

As the guys on Mythbusters say, This ones Busted

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/15/climate-sceptic-us-weather-data

http://www.skepticalscience.com/On-the-reliability-of-the-US-Surface-Temperature-Record.html

After investigating the claims made by SurfaceStations.org it was discovered that the bias (yes there was one) was for cooler temperature readings, not warmer

But thanks for playing
Message: Posted by: Payne (Aug 2, 2010 12:00AM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-01 13:00, Woland wrote:
John,

For a demonstration of how the "hockey stick" was artefactually modeled, you might start with this recent exposition:

http://climateaudit.org/2010/07/30/make-a-stick-make-a-stick/#more-11591

Woland
[/quote]

Whoop's, another strike!

You might actually like to get your information from a site that features articles from peer reviewed writings of real climate researchers instead those based on the questionable and unsupported opinion pieces written by a semi retired mining engineer

Here are some of the more common misconceptions and myths about the so-called "Hockey Stick" Graph.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/myths-vs-fact-regarding-the-hockey-stick/
Message: Posted by: Woland (Aug 2, 2010 04:33AM)
Payne,

The articles you linked are based on analyses of partial data sets. Not convincing.

Selection of partial data is a major problem.

Woland
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 2, 2010 08:13AM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-02 00:50, Payne wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-08-01 12:50, Woland wrote:
John,

Thanks for your generous offer. I will present the sources upon which I base my comments in a stepwise fashion.

First, let's examine whether the historical surface temperature data is of any value.

In the pages of the following site, you will find the information showing that data from >70% of the surface stations in the United States is seriously flawed:

http://www.surfacestations.org/

1003 of the stations in the USHCN have been surveyed and photographed so far.

Please review and comment as you deem appropriate.

Woland
[/quote]

As the guys on Mythbusters say, This ones Busted

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/15/climate-sceptic-us-weather-data

http://www.skepticalscience.com/On-the-reliability-of-the-US-Surface-Temperature-Record.html

After investigating the claims made by SurfaceStations.org it was discovered that the bias (yes there was one) was for cooler temperature readings, not warmer

But thanks for playing
[/quote]

So you admit the data is wrong, and still call this good science? Are you making a joke? Don't you see that bad data for ANY REASON is bad data and bad methodology? If the other side of any arguement you make said something this crazy you would have at least a 5 paragraph responce littered with passive aggressive insults and belittiling comments.

This is the "science" John claims is sound? I guess by that you guys mean something you tend to agree with and will further your political views.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 2, 2010 08:15AM)
I like it how you guys consider those opinions who agree with you as "peer reviewed". The whole science of global climate nonsense is in question. Don't worry as I said the people have a short term memory problem. You guys with your friends in the media will have it back on top in no time.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 2, 2010 08:26AM)
Danny, I have used the phrase "peer reviewed" in its technical sense and in no other. And it has nothing to do with whether I agree with the article.

Do you have any meaningful contribution to the discussion, or are you simply going to continue with baseless accusations?

If you can find a single instance of my using the term "peer reviewed" in any sense other than the technical sense of all academic publishing, provide evidence.

John
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 2, 2010 08:26AM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-02 09:26, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Danny, I have used the phrase "peer reviewed" in its technical sense and in no other. And it has nothing to do with whether I agree with the article.

Do you have any meaningful contribution to the discussion, or are you simply going to continue with baseless accusations?

If you can find a single instance of my using the term "peer reviewed" in any sense other than the technical sense of all academic publishing, provide evidence and I'll retract.

John
[/quote]
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 2, 2010 09:52AM)
John, the idea that the articles are reviewed by those who agree with the premise in the first place, puts the whole concept of "peer reviewed" in question. You will never admit this though. Oh and it is not a baseless accusation sorry. It is an accusation made by many of those who have credentials who disagree with the concept of man made global climate change. You know, those you choose not to read.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Aug 2, 2010 10:03AM)
While passing the peer review process is often considered in the scientific community to be a certification of validity, it is not without its problems. Drummond Rennie, deputy editor of Journal of the American Medical Association is an organizer of the International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication, which has been held every four years since 1986. He remarks,

There seems to be no study too fragmented, no hypothesis too trivial, no literature too biased or too egotistical, no design too warped, no methodology too bungled, no presentation of results too inaccurate, too obscure, and too contradictory, no analysis too self-serving, no argument too circular, no conclusions too trifling or too unjustified, and no grammar and syntax too offensive for a paper to end up in print.

Richard Horton, editor of the British medical journal The Lancet, has said that

The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability — not the validity — of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.

Are these criticisms of the peer review system valid?
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 2, 2010 10:26AM)
Of course they are, Tommy. Peer review means that you have met a minimum standard of evidence and analysis; it by no means guarantees truth.

The great thing about peer review is that it invites review. If you fail to meet the standard, you have to rewrite. If you get published, then your critics have to go through the same process to get their critiques aired.

In every living discipline there are ongoing debates, discussions, acceptances and rejections of current ideas. Peer review is likely the very best way to have this happen.

Contrast peer review with blogs (or the magic Café). There is no standard for evidence, and there is no responsibility to produce honest data or competent analysis. I could post something true about, say, climate here, but how much credibility should it have? Very little I would think. If I go through the rigours of peer-reviewed publication, it doesn't make me right; but it does put the ideas in a forum where informed debate and retesting of the data and analysis can be properly carried out.

The point of peer review isn't that it is perfect; the point is that it is responsible. Rather like a court of law.

John
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 2, 2010 12:03PM)
Oh not even CLOSE John.

Are you telling me that global climate change has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty?

Are you telling me that each side is following strict rules of ethics with no agenda?

Are you saying there are not those who push the idea of climate chamge for their own benifit?

Indeed no John it is nothing like law. It should be, but hasn't been for quite some time.
Message: Posted by: Whit Haydn (Aug 2, 2010 12:25PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-02 13:03, Dannydoyle wrote:
Oh not even CLOSE John.

Are you telling me that global climate change has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty?

Are you telling me that each side is following strict rules of ethics with no agenda?

Are you saying there are not those who push the idea of climate chamge for their own benifit?

Indeed no John it is nothing like law. It should be, but hasn't been for quite some time.
[/quote]

I don't agree with this at all. But giving the benefit of the doubt, what you are suggesting in its place is bedlam, with scientists with specific agendas posting directly to the public without peer review in order to influence public opinion.

At least in peer review, articles that are published are subject to review and challenge in the same journal. Everyone gets to watch the unfolding debate. If someone is proved to be wrong, his reputation will suffer for it.

That is why so many denier scientists hesitate to publish in peer reviewed articles.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Aug 2, 2010 12:35PM)
Glad to see we have a new candidate to vote for who will represent the views of the scamming class.

And in other news, Pop Hayden opened up his new campaign today.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Aug 2, 2010 12:42PM)
John,

A word on peer review.

When you look at the peers who reviewed the work of the CRU, you see that peer review in this field, as in many scientific fields, is decidedly incestuous. The leading experts in the field review each other's papers; mentors review their students' papers; students review their mentors' papers; collaborators review each other's papers.

That's true in many fields, and it doesn't really matter all that much, unless you are a scientist whose data goes against the views of those who dominate the field, since most scientific fields are not asking the world's taxpayers to ante up trillions of dollars.

When you look at the history of the CRU climate model you find:

1) The data sets were created retrospectively.
2) The original data sets were massaged and changed and altered many times, and to make it worse, no records were kept of the changes that were made. There is no audit trail of the changes, and the original "original" data have in some cases disappeared.
3) The formulae used to derive the model from the data were adjusted with ad hoc corrections many times, and again, the records of those changes are at best incomplete. No systematic record was made, making it impossible for an outsider to check the results.
4) The authors are on record, in their own communications with each other, that they manipulated that data in order to make the findings come out the way they wanted them to come out.
5) The authors are on record, in their own communications with other, that they conspired to prevent alternative or dissenting interpretations and criticisms out of the scientific literature.

I work in a scientific field that is regulated by the Federal government. A scientist in my field who did the sorts of things that were done by the CRU would have his results rejected, be barred from ever again working in the field, and might very well spend time in the hoosegow.

If you want to see what a genuinely thorough audit of scientific conduct looks like, go to the FDA site and check out the records of disbarment proceedings against fraud-committing medical investigators who have been caught, convicted, and sentenced. The microscopic level of detail that an FDA investigation produces is the antithesis of the superficial blue-ribbon survey that the CRU scandal has received to date.

Woland
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 2, 2010 01:14PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-02 13:42, Woland wrote:
John,

A word on peer review.

When you look at the peers who reviewed the work of the CRU, you see that peer review in this field, as in many scientific fields, is decidedly incestuous. The leading experts in the field review each other's papers; mentors review their students' papers; students review their mentors' papers; collaborators review each other's papers.

That's true in many fields, and it doesn't really matter all that much, unless you are a scientist whose data goes against the views of those who dominate the field, since most scientific fields are not asking the world's taxpayers to ante up trillions of dollars. [/quote]

Woland have you ever been involved in the peer review process? I have and frankly, you don't have a clue.

[quote]
When you look at the history of the CRU climate model you find:

1) The data sets were created retrospectively.[/quote]

Would you prefer they created data before they gathered it? What in the world are you talking about?

[quote]
2) The original data sets were massaged and changed and altered many times, and to make it worse, no records were kept of the changes that were made. There is no audit trail of the changes, and the original "original" data have in some cases disappeared.[/quote]

This is an interesting assertion. Do you have any evidence of this? The fact is that their published papers are very explicit about how the data is handled. Have you read ANY of their published peer-reviewed papers? Do you have the mathematical competence to assess their data handling?

[quote]
3) The formulae used to derive the model from the data were adjusted with ad hoc corrections many times, and again, the records of those changes are at best incomplete. No systematic record was made, making it impossible for an outsider to check the results.[/quote]

Where is your evidence of this? Tell me which formulae in which papers so I can look it up. All you are doing (still) is making accusations without bothering to provide a scrap of evidence.

[quote]
4) The authors are on record, in their own communications with each other, that they manipulated that data in order to make the findings come out the way they wanted them to come out.[/quote]

More BS. This has been thoroughly discussed. But again, if you provide evidence we can talk about it. You are simply accusing without substance AGAIN.

[quote]
5) The authors are on record, in their own communications with other, that they conspired to prevent alternative or dissenting interpretations and criticisms out of the scientific literature.[/quote]

This is more web gossip. The emails do not indicate this. Of course the independent inquiries (Have you read the Muir Russell report yet?) clear them of wrongdoing. My guess is that you will claim that the report is corrupt in some way.

[quote]
I work in a scientific field that is regulated by the Federal government. A scientist in my field who did the sorts of things that were done by the CRU would have his results rejected, be barred from ever again working in the field, and might very well spend time in the hoosegow.[/quote]

If you are any kind of scientist you will have better regard for evidence and argumentation. The guys at the CRU (who, by the way are only a tiny fragment of the scientists working on the questions of climate change) were accused. They were cleared by an inquiry. What sort of dictatorship do you work for where the accused are stripped of their rights without fair hearings?

[quote]If you want to see what a genuinely thorough audit of scientific conduct looks like, go to the FDA site and check out the records of disbarment proceedings against fraud-committing medical investigators who have been caught, convicted, and sentenced. The microscopic level of detail that an FDA investigation produces is the antithesis of the superficial blue-ribbon survey that the CRU scandal has received to date.

Woland
[/quote]

If you want relevant information read the Muir Russell report.

but honestly, Woland, you have shown no regard for evidence or analysis. You have done nothing but throw accusations. As soon as the accusations are challenged, you simply throw more dirt. Unless you provide something of substance, this is my last response to you.

good day

John
Message: Posted by: Woland (Aug 2, 2010 01:23PM)
John,

Thank you for your comments. You have chosen to disparage me and simply contradict me rather than address the points that I made. I will review the Muir Russell report and comment here within a few days.

Woland
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Aug 2, 2010 01:27PM)
Beware fanatics Woland mi amigo
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 2, 2010 01:46PM)
Yeah, we scientific fanatics insist on evidence and coherent argumentation. We're such jerks.

John
Message: Posted by: tommy (Aug 2, 2010 02:27PM)
Notes should be made contemporaneously.

This is defined as an accurate record, made at the time, or as soon after the event as practicable. It is a record of relevant evidence which is seen, heard or done, by the maker of the note.

Any cop will tell you that John.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 2, 2010 02:36PM)
And your point is, Tommy?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Aug 2, 2010 03:51PM)
[quote]

When you look at the history of the CRU climate model you find:

1) The data sets were created retrospectively.

[/quote]

[quote]
Would you prefer they created data before they gathered it? What in the world are you talking about?
[/quote]


If you made notes of an happening days after the event. what you would be doing is creating retrospective data. Such notes would not be as reliable as notes contemporaneously. You would not be allowed in a law court to use such notes as evidence. Cops carry note books to write the evidence in while its still fresh in their mind, contemporaneously, as the good scientist would do.


The nature of the work the climate science is problematic and tricky because they have to or are using old data which may or may not be as reliable and comparing with the reliable or more reliable contemporaneous data. It seems to me that Woody is merely suggesting if they only used the contemporaneous data it may give a truer or more picture of temperatures etc.

But as I never went to school I am not sure if that is what he does mean.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 2, 2010 03:52PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-02 14:46, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Yeah, we scientific fanatics insist on evidence and coherent argumentation. We're such jerks.

John
[/quote]

High horse is such a tough fall John.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Aug 2, 2010 05:54PM)
Beware fanatics who pick and choose.

I officially give up on global warming. It is just a cottage industry.
Message: Posted by: Nosher (Aug 2, 2010 10:32PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-02 15:27, tommy wrote:
Notes should be made contemporaneously.

This is defined as an accurate record, made at the time, or as soon after the event as practicable. It is a record of relevant evidence which is seen, heard or done, by the maker of the note.

Any cop will tell you that John.
[/quote]

*off topic*

If only certain magicians had this attitude to their notebooks, the true originators of certain card tricks would be (and would have been) a lot happier...
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 3, 2010 07:50AM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-02 18:54, MagicSanta wrote:
Beware fanatics who pick and choose.

I officially give up on global warming. It is just a cottage industry.
[/quote]

Yea you know those religious fanatics who believe something SO much they are willing to lie, and like to act all superior and claim evidence where none exists and anyone who does not believe what they believe is an idiot and the standard of proof for others is much higher than it is for their side? Oh and then they want to DEMAND the rest of the world sees what they see, even though there is no real proof and the proof they have is corupted.

Oh wait that is how the scientific fanatics are acting. It is getting tough to tell the difference.

John, certainly when you submit an idea for peer review, and it is simply reviewed by those who have a vested interest in it being put forth as an idea, the peer review process is suspect at best, and corrupt at worst. It is somehwat akin to having to submit the spousal abuse standards to OJ Simpson and Mel Gibson for review. The process itself is corrupt, right down to the media who willingly promotes the idea for them. Naturally you never will admit this and maybe you can't even see it through your religious glasses but the public is starting to.

So lets step back and actually do SCIENCE for a while and lets see where that gets us. The only good thing about the recession is it has put things like cap and trade on the back burner for now.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 3, 2010 08:11AM)
Danny do you have one SCRAP of evidence that peer review is corrupted in climate science? You are making accusations but you are providing zero evidence.

And if what you say is true, how do contrary articles get accepted by major journals?

John
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 3, 2010 08:39AM)
John every time someone posts ANYTHING you and Payne and the true believers say "Oh they are bought and paid for by big oil". You act as if those who are on your side are in white robes and nto corupted by money of any sort. This is where your blindness is handy.

EVERY time we post anything about how the system is corrupted, you try to find some way to wiggle out of it. It is an old arguement, it is tiresome. You and the crowd will keep banging the drum till you get what you want. It works and people get worn down, but then something happens. People wake up and say to themselvs "I thought we only had 10 years, and that was 20 years ago". Maybe it is not as urgent as they are claiming.

You seem to think that badly collected evidence is really science. You defend it as "well it is only a small portion of scientists who do that" and yada yada yada. Well John if you add up all the little things, they certainly begin to add up.

Sorry but all religions lose their shine. Keep hitting the drum though John.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 3, 2010 08:54AM)
Danny, use the search engine. I have NEVER said that anybody was bought and paid for by big oil.

This is so typical of your posts. You make blanket accusations, but you refuse to ever come up with evidence.

No matter what you say, Danny, I look at evidence. I do my best to honestly evaluate it.

I expect a retraction, and (if you've got it in you) an apology.

John
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 3, 2010 09:53AM)
Ok lets start here again John. Sorry and retracted. Seriously.

Now have you EVER attacked those who you disagree with? (Not ATTACKED as in demeaned, but attacked credentials, or said that they have an agenda of sorts)

Do you use tactics like this or not? While you claim to evaluate evidence, when you see evidence that completely contradicts your position you ignore and obviscate.

See John while you claim to "evaluate" you already think you know what the truth is. Turns out John that the truth is a hard thing to find, when you already know what that truth is supposed to be. So any "evaluation" you give it is tainted by an already deeply held belief. This does not make you (or for that matter ANYONE) the best arbiter of truth now does it?

Now that I think of it when scientists already have a conclusion, and of late they have a vested interest in the conclusion, it does not make for good science. If you were truly dedicated to TRUTH and SCIENCE as you claim, then this would be obvious.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 3, 2010 10:26AM)
Thank you Danny.

What amuses me about all this is that I have consistently maintained that I am not an expert in the science and that my judgments about the details of climate science are not very valuable.

What I have responded to are strong statements by a few people even less qualified than I am, who claim that all climate science is either a)wrong or b)corrupt. I continue to push for evidence for these strong claims. Invariably the evidence comes in three forms: links to irrelevant articles, links to unsubstantiated claims or flat assertions. And I call them on it.

I continue to champion peer-reviewed research. Unfortunately, most people have very wrong-headed notions of what this is. Peer-reviewed research is not iron-clad; you cannot assume that it is THE TRUTH. It has, however, met a standard of evidence and argumentation that establishes it as worthy of attention. If the questions were settled, the papers would not be published, as there would be nothing worthy of further study.

As imperfect as peer-review is, there is nothing better. It is rather like criminal courts: courts can give wrong verdicts, but they are far more trustworthy than anything else we can come up with.

Let me close with a relevant example of peer-review in action: the famous hockey-stick graph.

The graph first came to light in the 2001 IPCC report, which was put together by experts but was not peer-reviewed. Steve McIntyre (discussed earlier in the thread), a non-expert with some mathematical sophistication, re-analyzed the graph and found problems with the data. McIntyre did two things: first he submitted his critique to a peer-reviewed journal (with McKintrick as co-author); second he filled the internet with his views. His critique was published in the journal [i]Energy and Environment[/i]. (It is worth noting that this is a social science policy journal, not a scientific journal. The peers reviewing McIntyre's work would be social scientists not mathematicians or climatologists.) Rutherford et. al. published a detailed rebuttal of McIntyre and McKintrick's article in the peer-reviewed climate science journal [i]Journal of Climate[/i]. I suspect other articles have been written, but the point is clear: peer-review is a way to get meaningful, disciplined discussion happening. And for the umpteenth time, I do not have the expertise to adjudicate the debate about the hockey stick graph.

John
Message: Posted by: Payne (Aug 3, 2010 02:43PM)
This would all be laughable if it wasn’t so sad. The deniers continually find themselves on the wrong side of the issues. They’ve been proven wrong time and time again. Yet every time a scientific issue is brought to the forefront they whine and moan and sing the same old song.
“The science is wrong”
“The Scientists are tainted”
“It’s not as bad as they say”
“It’s too expensive to fix”
“It will ruin the economy”
The corporatists were positive the EPA would be the end of life as we know it. There was no need to remove lead from paint and petrol as the science was shaky and the industry just couldn’t afford to do it. The same with CFS. Banning the use of these served little purpose and would all but destroy the refrigeration industry. Or so said Big Business. Cap and trade to help control the acid rain caused by emissions from coal fired plants in the north east was said to be certain doom for that industry as well. Odd, that never happened either.
So you can see why we question the evidence put forth by the deniers. They’ve simply been wrong each and ever time. They’re the proverbial “Boy who cried wolf”.
They also seem to rely on the same old tired tactics. With no substantiated evidence to support their claims they rely strictly on arguments from authority and hyperbole. Sadly too they’ve started to employ the same battle plan as the creationists. They find a single point of data they perceive as questionable and then try to discount the entire discipline as false.
They’ve tried and failed to do this with the US Weather Station Data, the Hacked E-mails and the Hockey Stick Graph. Each time they’ve failed to prove their case. So now all they are left with is whining and complaining that no one takes the evidence they don’t have seriously. Even resorting to the creationists mantra of calling anyone they perceive as being a “true believer” a follower whose been blinded by the religion of Darwin or in this case Global Warming.
We’ve given all of you deniers ample opportunity to prove your case and back up your claims with evidence. So far all we’ve heard is crickets. Well that and the same tired old “evidence” that has been roundly shown to be false, opinion or out right fraudulent.
Sorry to say all evidence is not equal. To be accepted as evidence it has to meet with certain criteria. Simply putting it into an op-ed or on a webpage does not make it true. As it has been said many times before, You are welcome to your own opinion; you are not welcome to your own facts.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Aug 3, 2010 03:16PM)
Creationist “Peer-Review”

http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2010/05/01/discovery-institute-creationist-peer-review/
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 3, 2010 10:46PM)
Yea Payne wrong side of the issues. Turns out that Rachel Carson was right. Oh wait turns out she was wrong, and just a true believer and the science was on her side too huh? MILLIONS dead who didn't have to be. But that fits into the plan doesn't it?
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Aug 3, 2010 11:08PM)
I bet that they won't burn the bodies because it could cause pollution I am figuring that they will bury us alive around trees then loop our heads off so our bodies fertalize the trees and our heads can be fed to crabs or made into drinking cups or something.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Aug 3, 2010 11:09PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-03 23:46, Dannydoyle wrote:
Yea Payne wrong side of the issues. Turns out that Rachel Carson was right. Oh wait turns out she was wrong, and just a true believer and the science was on her side too huh? MILLIONS dead who didn't have to be. But that fits into the plan doesn't it?
[/quote]
FWIW ...

"Many critics repeatedly asserted that she was calling for the elimination of all pesticides. Yet Carson had made it clear she was not advocating the banning or complete withdrawal of helpful pesticides, but was instead encouraging responsible and carefully managed use with an awareness of the chemicals' impact on the entire ecosystem. In fact, she concludes her section on DDT in Silent Spring not by urging a total ban, but with advice for spraying as little as possible to limit the development of resistance."

"In the 2000s, critics have claimed that Carson is responsible for millions of malaria deaths, because of the DDT bans her work prompted. Biographer Mark Hamilton Lytle claims these estimates unrealistic, even assuming that Carson can be "blamed" for worldwide DDT policies, and John Quiggin and Tim Lambert have written that "the most striking feature of the claim against Carson is the ease with which it can be refuted." Carson never actually called for an outright ban on DDT."

Lytle 2007, pp. 217–220; Jeffrey K. Stine, "Natural Resources and Environmental Policy" in The Reagan Presidency: Pragmatic Conservatism and Its Legacies, edited by W. Elliott Browlee and Hugh Davis Graham. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press, 2003. ISBN 0-7006-1268-8
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 3, 2010 11:25PM)
Hogwash. Right where the rubber meets the road she is directly the cause of MILLIONS of African deaths. Simple as that. But at least she was on the right side of the issue huh?

Now we can play "lets pretend" some more. You are saying she never called for the ban? Ok. Lets pretend this is the truth. I am not certain but I take you at your word. Her "cause" was directly responsible for 1 death SHE WAS WRONG and the science was on her side! Even 1 is too many. For such a caring group it amazes me that you libs simply disregard human life so easily. Babies killed, disease spreads, no biggie.

Oh and it it is so "easily refuted" why isn't it? Well don't worry I am certain that the paper "refuting" it will be "peer reviwed" and accepted by all who don't care that she killed so many.

Personally if I am on the "wrong side" of that arguement, I am happy.

Naaa don't let things like a fact get in the way of true belief though. It can cause a headache.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Aug 3, 2010 11:44PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-04 00:25, Dannydoyle wrote:

Now we can play "lets pretend" some more. You are saying she never called for the ban? Ok. Lets pretend this is the truth. I am not certain but I take you at your word.
[/quote]
It's not MY word, it is the word of people who have examined her writings and public statements on the matter.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Aug 3, 2010 11:53PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-04 00:25, Dannydoyle wrote:

Oh and it it is so "easily refuted" why isn't it?

Naaa don't let things like a fact get in the way of true belief though. It can cause a headache.
[/quote]
Where is it refuted? In the reference I gave you in my earlier message. Not to mention in her book, Silent Spring. She never called for a ban on DDTs there, she called for them to be used less (but NOT BANNED) in order to limit the development of resistance.

She wrote "Malaria programmes are threatened by resistance among mosquitoes" (p. 267) and emphasized the advice given by the director of Holland's Plant Protection Service: "Practical advice should be 'Spray as little as you possibly can' rather than 'Spray to the limit of your capacity'…Pressure on the pest population should always be as slight as possible." (p. 275)

(The excerpts above are taken off the web.)
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Aug 4, 2010 12:25AM)
Let's be honest, what are the odds that any of those people who died from maleria would have donated to the foundations fighting against global warming? No harm no foul, right fellas?
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 4, 2010 08:24AM)
Evidence 1-0 Assertion
Message: Posted by: tommy (Aug 4, 2010 08:58AM)
Hard luck John. :)
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 4, 2010 09:47AM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-04 09:24, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Evidence 1-0 Assertion
[/quote]

High horse again huh? Arse you saying she never antwhere called for an outright ban on DDT? Is anyone making that contention? Seriously?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 4, 2010 09:58AM)
Here argue with Al Gore who says SPACIFICALLY that

"Today, because Carson's work led to the ban on DDT, some of the species that were her special concern- eagles and peregrine falcons, for example- are no longer at the edge of extinction. It may be that the human species, too, or at least countless human lives, will be saved because of the words she wrote."


http://clinton2.nara.gov/WH/EOP/OVP/24hours/carson.html

So which is it, did she get DDT banned or not? Oh wait she is a lib icon so when it is a good thing to point out, then she got it banned, when it is not convienent she didn't. I keep forgetting.

Hmmm John is that evidence? I suppose not huh? Got a snarky remark for that John?
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 4, 2010 10:12AM)
Since you brought Carson into the discussion, Danny, the onus is on YOU to find the citation where she advocates a complete ban on DDT. Can you find it in anything she wrote or said?

Balducci has produced a second-hand claim that she advocated reductions, not a ban. You have produced a second hand claim that her work led to a ban on DDT. These are consistent with one another. But Balducci then produced the real deal: Carson's own words. So unless you have words written by Carson that contradict that passage, all you have is hearsay.

John

PS Perhaps I'm dense; I don't see how this relates to the theme of the thread. Or is this a tangent that was inspired by a previous comment?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 4, 2010 11:14AM)
I could produce Rachel herself saying it and because it disagrees with your belief you won't care.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 4, 2010 11:46AM)
What is my belief on this issue, Danny?

Frankly, I'd never heard of her until I read your exchange with Balducci this morning. Apparently she's been dead since 1964 and had nothing to say about global climate change.

I'm only chirping in because it appears to be yet another case of "make an accusation and refuse to provide evidence."

John
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 4, 2010 12:40PM)
It is a case of keep moviingthe goal posts when evidence is produced. A favorite tactic of each side.

You and Payne are great at holding others to much higher standards than required of those who promote your ideas.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Aug 4, 2010 01:01PM)
Rachel Carson, Mass Murderer?

[url]http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3186[/url]

Even if you object to the site in general, the article raises some good points. And it actually cites references for these.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Aug 4, 2010 01:22PM)
I recall a time when ol' Rachel Carson was praised for stopping DDT (in fact my school was named after her, she was our hero) so those birds wouldn't have crooked beaks, so now she didn't do it. Make up your mind Rachel you @#$#@%.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 4, 2010 02:39PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-04 13:40, Dannydoyle wrote:
It is a case of keep moviingthe goal posts when evidence is produced. A favorite tactic of each side.

[/quote]

How so? You introduced her to the conversation and you made an accusation. Balducci provided some contrary evidence and I have asked for your evidence.

How is that moving the goal posts, Danny?

John
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 4, 2010 02:54PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-04 14:22, MagicSanta wrote:
I recall a time when ol' Rachel Carson was praised for stopping DDT (in fact my school was named after her, she was our hero) so those birds wouldn't have crooked beaks, so now she didn't do it. Make up your mind Rachel you @#$#@%.
[/quote]

Like I said praised when needed for it, and she didn't do it when convienent.
Message: Posted by: Payne (Aug 4, 2010 03:19PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-04 14:22, MagicSanta wrote:
I recall a time when ol' Rachel Carson was praised for stopping DDT (in fact my school was named after her, she was our hero) so those birds wouldn't have crooked beaks, so now she didn't do it. Make up your mind Rachel you @#$#@%.
[/quote]

George Washington is hailed as the "Father of our Nation" and many schools are named after him as well. But if you actually study the matter Mr. Washington, while playing a role in the foundation of our nation was in now way solely responsible nor the "Father" we try to make him.

Same with Ms. Carson. She played a role in the eventual banning of DDT but she was not solely responsible for it. And, has already been pointed out, likely was not for it herself. She however became one of the rallying points around which the Ban DDT movement was built upon. Like Washington, the myth of her involvement most likely is greater than her actual involvement.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Aug 4, 2010 03:30PM)
Hey! I'm for malaria, keeps the population down.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Aug 4, 2010 05:11PM)
It will not be a matter of choice how much you use. We the elite will decide that, by giving everyone a credit card. You can have 1000 credit’s a month. No sorry you can’t save them up. Your card will revert back to 1000 each mouth. No there will be no money. How do you like that idea to control the climate Payne?
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Aug 4, 2010 05:33PM)
Payne, kids need their heroes, villains, boogeymen etc. The idea that Bruce Wayne is a dumba$$ or that Clarke Kent is interfering with Lex Luthor's efforts to clean up Metropolis can't exist for them - they need absolutes - and ... cues.

Remember, these are the same people who will still spout the story about George Washington and the Cherry tree, or Newton and the Apple tree.
Message: Posted by: Payne (Aug 4, 2010 06:08PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-04 18:33, Jonathan Townsend wrote:

Remember, these are the same people who will still spout the story about George Washington and the Cherry tree, or Newton and the Apple tree.

[/quote]

But what if George Washington had cut down Newton's Apple Tree? I doubt even Tommy could grasp the gravity of that situation.
Message: Posted by: Payne (Aug 4, 2010 06:09PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-04 18:11, tommy wrote:
It will not be a matter of choice how much you use. We the elite will decide that, by giving everyone a credit card. You can have 1000 credit’s a month. No sorry you can’t save them up. Your card will revert back to 1000 each mouth. No there will be no money. How do you like that idea to control the climate Payne?
[/quote]

It's time to take your meds now Tommy. Two blue ones, a red one and three yellow ones should do it.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Aug 4, 2010 06:12PM)
Useful myths, anchors, cherished lies, self deceit, overcompensation.

Much more efficient than brute force on a per-capita/labor unit basis.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Aug 4, 2010 07:02PM)
I don't like the red ones.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzzRXB5H9JI&feature=channel

:)
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 5, 2010 08:35AM)
Talk about myths. Rachel Carson is now on par with George Washington.
Message: Posted by: Nosher (Aug 5, 2010 12:52PM)
I don't usually like getting involved in these threads. It's bad for my blood pressure and is usually [url=http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:oXnw33PBJMwJ:www-personal.umich.edu/~bnyhan/nyhan-reifler.pdf+brendan+nyhan+university+of+michigan&hl=en&gl=au&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgJrgWtpwO2HlqjI4RYOwW48GDVXQtqKvJ8dUkRhXO7SwOBawsOv-lu61478rm_gEJ2Syozk3BRE0MIi_eURQUi60xoAwpm818L-qEex_rxAI-bWnQ-nr-Y-h9pnEuWXd34fvXV&sig=AHIEtbQGG3lqpL-nDeZRFToEkUM2CAm6Dw]pointless[/url]. Sometimes though, the level of contumely and cant rises to such a level I can't help myself.

[quote]
On 2010-08-04 10:47, Dannydoyle wrote:

High horse again huh? Arse you saying she never antwhere called for an outright ban on DDT? Is anyone making that contention? Seriously?
[/quote]

Magnus might not be saying it, seeing as he says he was unfamiliar with Carson, but I certainly am saying it. She did not call for an outright ban in Silent Spring, nor, as far as I'm aware, in any of her published works. If you have a source for such a statement I would certainly be interested in seeing it.

There is no "outright ban" on DDT. In the US DDT was prohibited for general use in 1972. DDT can still, and has been used for public health and quarantine reasons in the US. The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants also allowed signatory countries to use DDT for disease vector control. The WHO position paper on IRS (Indoor Residual Spraying)2006, states that "effective implementation of IRS with DDT or other recommended insecticides should be a central part of national malaria control strategies". DDT is still manufactured and exported.

As balducci posted, Carson and others were concerned that in addition to the adverse environmental impacts, the general use of DDT agriculturally would lead to resistance to DDT and reduce its efficacy as an insecticide. This had already happened when Silent Spring was written. In the book she gives examples of this resistance including where,due to mosquito resistance, DDT was replaced for malaria control work with dieldrin (another nasty organochlorine she was not keen on - now banned in many countries).

Carson was not alone in her concerns. From the late '50s the USDA prohibited the use of DDT near aquatic areas and began to phase it out, they reduced spraying of DDT from 4.9 million acres in 1957 to just over 100,000 acres in 1967. "In 1964, the Secretary of the Interior issued a directive stating that the use of chlorinated hydrocarbons on Interior lands should be avoided unless no other substitutes were available." (EPA - DDT Regulatory History)

There are many causes for malarial deaths in Africa. Increased resistance of mosquitoes to pesticides, increased resistance of resistance of malaria parasites to chloroquine and the other quinolines, civil unrest/war/camps, dam construction, government health budgets, early cessation of pesticide controls and, of course, Rachel Carson who is, apparently "...directly the cause of MILLIONS of African deaths. Simple as that."

And why does Rachel Carson shoulder all the blame for malaria deaths in Africa I wonder?. Why not blame the USDA, or the Director of the EPA in 1972, or Nixon administration, or the judges that denied court cases brought by the pesticide manufacturers, or the pesticide manufactures themselves who targeted the African market when the US market dried up, or the governments of the African countries who used DDT agriculturally with the predicted results, or the WHO who sometimes stopped the use of DDT too soon or used ineffective alternatives?

Well, Rachel died in 1964, so not much chance of an argument.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Aug 5, 2010 01:24PM)
It certainly seems you are saying it but how do we know what you are saying is certainly true? Or more to the point, how do we know what we know? Do we know what we know because some one or many told us what we think we know?
Message: Posted by: Nosher (Aug 5, 2010 01:27PM)
Very Bishop Berkeley of you, tommy. Nice one.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Aug 5, 2010 02:14PM)
Thanks, Nosher, for posting the paper. An interesting read. It points to why the Rove-ian tactics are so effective, even when so transparent.

My theory is that whether a "fact" is true or not, once the mind processes it as true, one's true emotions and feelings are engendered. Though the facts can be corrected, it is difficult to deny the true emotions that one experienced, and we conflate the truth of our emotions with the truth of the original fact.

I wonder if those versed in the academic study of psychology have ever run across this idea before?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Aug 5, 2010 02:29PM)
What I know is I have been observing the climate where I live for more than half a century and I know I have not noticed any change. Year in and year out it’s the same on average. There was a lot more smoke about when I was kid, I guess because everyone had a coal fire. I still have coal fire but not many do now. They didn’t call London The Smoke for nothing.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 6, 2010 08:29AM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-05 15:14, landmark wrote:
Thanks, Nosher, for posting the paper. An interesting read. It points to why the Rove-ian tactics are so effective, even when so transparent.

My theory is that whether a "fact" is true or not, once the mind processes it as true, one's true emotions and feelings are engendered. Though the facts can be corrected, it is difficult to deny the true emotions that one experienced, and we conflate the truth of our emotions with the truth of the original fact.

I wonder if those versed in the academic study of psychology have ever run across this idea before?
[/quote]

As I said, the truth is a tough thing to find when you already know ahead of time what that truth is supposed to be. That is the very problem with science today. The scientists have a vested interest in outcome, not simply in the research.

John KNOWS his truth, which is why we keep saying it is his religion.

I have no problem with these things, evolution is a fine debate to have as the outcome will not be devistating to global markets as we know it. The problem with the climate change nonsense is the "truth" keeps changing. You can not make policy when this is what is going on. More research, and proper research is needed.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 6, 2010 08:44AM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-06 09:29, Dannydoyle wrote:

As I said, the truth is a tough thing to find when you already know ahead of time what that truth is supposed to be. That is the very problem with science today. The scientists have a vested interest in outcome, not simply in the research.

John KNOWS his truth, which is why we keep saying it is his religion.


[/quote]

Danny you are either dishonest or a fool. You make assertion after assertion and provide no evidence. One last chance, Danny. Provide a quotation or other serious evidence of this most recent assertion of yours.



John
Message: Posted by: landmark (Aug 6, 2010 10:27AM)
John, the interesting about Karl Rove is that though his tactics have been effective, the overuse of them inures the public as they realize that the same techniques are being used over and over again. The endless assertions without evidence, the accusing the other side of exactly what they themselves are doing, the appeals to patriotism, the anti-intellectualism and anti-rationalism are all well known. What I find most interesting is that the lies have to become bigger and bigger to cover their other lies, and so a whole new alternate reality is created. Fortunately, though most people can be fooled by artfully created lies, a whole new world is too much to swallow for most.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Aug 6, 2010 10:45AM)
John,

I haven't visited this thread for a while, since I have been reviewing the Muir Russell report, which I had not previously read. I see that the discussion has moved on to other topics.

But, if you are interested in my opinion, I think the Muir Russell report, like Lord Oxburgh's report, is inadequate.

Muir Russell's team interviewed only "CRU and other UEA staff." The investigation was limited to delving into the CRU's explanations for what was discussed in the leaked emails.

The emails should be looked at as the tip of the iceberg, and should be the starting point, rather than the endpoint, of an investigation.

Both of these reports are what we call, in America, "blue ribbon panels." In my experience, in the life sciences rather than geophysical sciences, "blue ribbon panels" have been hoodwinked time and time again. The most egregious scientific fraud case I can think of, the Tom D'Arcy scandal, was completely whitewashed by a "blue ribbon panel" whose findings were triumphantly published in the New England Journal.

Climate science and climate predictions are very interesting. The statistical process needed to convert many kinds of disparate data into a coherent model of a complex process are very interesting.

The political use of those models, however, in order to destroy industrial civilization, and plunge the world into an epoch of poverty, misery, famine, and war, requires that we subject those models to more than the usual level of scrutiny and skepticism.

From the very concept of a "global climate" to discrepancies within the various datasets that are used to define various aspects of climatic data in various parts of the world at various times in history, to the mathematical underpinnings of the models themselves -- all of these elements appear to flawed. If the use to which the results were to be put were not so critical, those flaws would not matter. But when you are asking for such earth-shattering changes, the burden is really on the global warming advocates.

That the global warming panic is more of a religious phenomenon than a scientific phenomenon, can be illustrated by the example of Australia.

Australia emits less than 2% of the world's industrially originating CO2. Yet Kevin Rudd was elected Prime Minister in part because of his advocacy of making big changes to reduce Australia's level of CO2 production, and like-minded Australians have devoted endless columns of ink to various activities, such as shutting off the lights in Australian cities for a couple of hours on a designated evening. It is clear that nothing Australia or Australians do will have any material effect on world levels of CO2. If every Australian were to commit suicide tomorrow, as many environmentalist extremists would wish (every non-Aboriginal Australian, of course, the effect on the world climate would be negligible. There is no rational reason for Australia to do anything about this problem at all, even if you believe in it (which of course I don't).

one can only conclude that the Australians who want to disrupt their lives to reduce their CO2 emissions are motivated by concerns for their personal salvation, as it were, rather than by a reasonable estimation of the likely effect those drastic disruptions will produce.

Woland
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 6, 2010 11:32AM)
Woland. Now that you've looked at the Muir Russell report, I have two questions for you.

1. What is the stated purpose of the report?

2. In what way is it inadequate? Inadequate for what?

3. You earlier asserted [quote]Briffa was one of the climatologists who engaged in a conspiracy to silence opposing views and conceal some of their own results ("hide the decline").[/quote] The onus is now on you. If you do not believe that he has been properly cleared of wrongdoing then you, the accuser, should be able to bring forth a case against him. Can you?

4. You made an even stronger assertion: [quote]I work in a scientific field that is regulated by the Federal government. A scientist in my field who did the sorts of things that were done by the CRU would have his results rejected, be barred from ever again working in the field, and might very well spend time in the hoosegow.[/quote] Do you have evidence of this? Real evidence, not hearsay, blogs or gossip.

John
Message: Posted by: Woland (Aug 6, 2010 12:05PM)
John,

No new evidence is necessary. I don't agree with the Russell or Oxburgh conclusions. I don't find the excuses and therefore the exculpation convincing. Based on the same emails that they reviewed, I think the CRU members acted improperly and I find the conduct illustrated by their emails to be egregiously bad.

I know that you and the IPCC and Ban Ki-Moon and Albert Gore all disagree with me.

That's fine.

I am not going to convince you.

Perhaps the next ice age will convince you.

As for me, I hope it doesn't begin for a few more decades.

Woland
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 6, 2010 12:26PM)
Woland, evidence is everything.

I'm afraid I was right the first time. You are not to be taken seriously.

John
Message: Posted by: Woland (Aug 6, 2010 01:45PM)
Nothing like an insult to end a discussion.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 6, 2010 03:32PM)
Well when you get him to the point where he must try to see something he does not agree with he mounts the high horse, changes goal posts, insists your experts are not qualified, are disgruntled and simpy do not know anything.

John, are you looking for me to back up my contention that you are a "true believer"? Is that what you want me to post? Do you want me to post proof that you are? I think you have in this thread pretty clearly. Do I need to post proof of pre concieved notions John and how dangerous they are to science or investigation of any sort? What is it that you are stamping your foot demanding proof of exactly?

Do you want proof that scientists on each side of the debate have a vested interest in research grants? Come on John that is goofy. Indeed you are the one who must be a fool if you do not know that this is the way things work. But it is far easier to call those who disagree with you names. I thought you were above that? So high and mighty on your high horse and all and you reduce this to name calling? Wow your arguement must really be losing steam when someone of your vast intellect must resort to simple name calling and insults. To both of us. Gotcha.

Do you have it in YOU to appologise John? Tough from the high horse.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 6, 2010 05:19PM)
In the original post, I quoted an op-ed that said
[quote]
Like Watergate, the real scandal of Climategate was not likely to be found in the communications of those who had their emails illegally hacked (or in the case of Watergate, their phones illegally tapped). Rather, the real scandal can be found by looking to those who were behind the hacking (or wire-tapping), in the first place, and to those who have been so eager to butcher the truth and assault the professional reputations of respected scientists for short-term political gain. [/quote]

Two or three posters have consistently butchered the truth and assaulted the professional reputations of respected scientists.

Where I have taken a stand is to point this out and to push for the accusers to provide any evidence for their claims.

Take the time to reread the entire 8 pages of the thread Danny. See if you can find me making any claims about the science (apart from who published where and under what conditions). And I haven't called anyone names. I have commented that two discussants were not serious enough to warrant further discussion.

As far as research grants go, Danny, they are there regardless of your conclusions. When you apply for a research grant, you apply to investigate something. Nobody every applies to produce a conclusion. If I were a climate scientist and I got a grant to reconstruct temperature gradients over the Ellesmere Island (to pick an arbitrary example) I would be under no pressure to come up with any particular conclusion. That's just the way it works. Perhaps one day you'll read a research grant proposal for yourself.

I did say that you were either a fool or that you were being dishonest. This was stronger than necessary and I apologize. I stand behind the sentiment that your posts have been neither cogent nor faithful to evidence, but I should not have typed that phrase and I am sorry.

John
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 6, 2010 06:23PM)
Nobody applies to produce a conclusion? Do you really believe this?
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Aug 6, 2010 06:37PM)
Danny has produced as solid of evidence as the faithful have.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 6, 2010 06:42PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-06 19:23, Dannydoyle wrote:
Nobody applies to produce a conclusion? Do you really believe this?
[/quote]

I have applied for research grants, and I assure you that it is true. Have you applied for research grants?

John
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Aug 6, 2010 07:28PM)
Yes, the GREEN planet (or whatever color Canadian money is)
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Aug 6, 2010 07:56PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-06 19:23, Dannydoyle wrote:
Nobody applies to produce a conclusion? Do you really believe this?
[/quote]

? to produce evidence or rhetoric in support of a presupposed conclusion?
Message: Posted by: Nosher (Aug 6, 2010 08:12PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-06 16:32, Dannydoyle wrote:
Well when you get him to the point where he must try to see something he does not agree with he mounts the high horse, changes goal posts, insists your experts are not qualified, are disgruntled and simpy do not know anything.

[/quote]

For some, self awareness is difficult to come by it seems.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Aug 6, 2010 08:58PM)
Mr. Michaels, a professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia from 1980-2007, is now a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. Said I am sure if I am more qualified to give an opinion of the reports in question than John at the Magic Café but for what its worth:

The Climategate Whitewash Continues

Global warming alarmists claim vindication after last year's data manipulation scandal. Don't believe the 'independent' reviews.


By PATRICK J. MichaelS
Last November there was a world-wide outcry when a trove of emails were released suggesting some of the world's leading climate scientists engaged in professional misconduct, data manipulation and jiggering of both the scientific literature and climatic data to paint what scientist Keith Briffa called "a nice, tidy story" of climate history. The scandal became known as Climategate.

Now a supposedly independent review of the evidence says, in effect, "nothing to see here." Last week "The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review," commissioned and paid for by the University of East Anglia, exonerated the University of East Anglia. The review committee was chaired by Sir Muir Russell, former vice chancellor at the University of Glasgow.


.Mr. Russell took pains to present his committee, which consisted of four other academics, as independent. He told the Times of London that "Given the nature of the allegations it is right that someone who has no links to either the university or the climate science community looks at the evidence and makes recommendations based on what they find."

No links? One of the panel's four members, Prof. Geoffrey Boulton, was on the faculty of East Anglia's School of Environmental Sciences for 18 years. At the beginning of his tenure, the Climatic Research Unit (CRU)—the source of the Climategate emails—was established in Mr. Boulton's school at East Anglia. Last December, Mr. Boulton signed a petition declaring that the scientists who established the global climate records at East Anglia "adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity."

This purportedly independent review comes on the heels of two others—one by the University of East Anglia itself and the other by Penn State University, both completed in the spring, concerning its own employee, Prof. Michael Mann. Mr. Mann was one of the Climategate principals who proposed a plan, which was clearly laid out in emails whose veracity Mr. Mann has not challenged, to destroy a scientific journal that dared to publish three papers with which he and his East Anglia friends disagreed. These two reviews also saw no evil. For example, Penn State "determined that Dr. Michael E. Mann did not engage in, nor did he participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community."

Readers of both earlier reports need to know that both institutions receive tens of millions in federal global warming research funding (which can be confirmed by perusing the grant histories of Messrs. Jones or Mann, compiled from public sources, that are available online at freerepublic.com). Any admission of substantial scientific misbehavior would likely result in a significant loss of funding.

It's impossible to find anything wrong if you really aren't looking. In a famous email of May 29, 2008, Phil Jones, director of East Anglia's CRU, wrote to Mr. Mann, under the subject line "IPCC & FOI," "Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4 [the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report]? Keith will do likewise . . . can you also email Gene [Wahl, an employee of the U.S. Department of Commerce] to do the same . . . We will be getting Caspar [Amman, of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research] to do likewise."

Mr. Jones emailed later that he had "deleted loads of emails" so that anyone who might bring a Freedom of Information Act request would get very little. According to New Scientist writer Fred Pearce, "Russell and his team never asked Jones or his colleagues whether they had actually done this."

The Russell report states that "On the allegation of withholding temperature data, we find that the CRU was not in a position to withhold access to such data." Really? Here's what CRU director Jones wrote to Australian scientist Warrick Hughes in February 2005: "We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it[?]"

Then there's the problem of interference with peer review in the scientific literature. Here too Mr. Russell could find no wrong: "On the allegations that there was subversion of the peer review or editorial process, we find no evidence to substantiate this."

Really? Mr. Mann claims that temperatures roughly 800 years ago, in what has been referred to as the Medieval Warm Period, were not as warm as those measured recently. This is important because if modern temperatures are not unusual, it casts doubt on the fear that global warming is a serious threat. In 2003, Willie Soon of the Smithsonian Institution and Sallie Baliunas of Harvard published a paper in the journal Climate Research that took exception to Mr. Mann's work, work which also was at variance with a large number of independent studies of paleoclimate. So it would seem the Soon-Baliunas paper was just part of the normal to-and-fro of science.

But Mr. Jones wrote Mr. Mann on March 11, 2003, that "I'll be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor," Chris de Freitas of the University of Auckland. Mr. Mann responded to Mr. Jones on the same day: "I think we should stop considering 'Climate Research' as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues . . . to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board."

Mr. Mann ultimately wrote to Mr. Jones on July 11, 2003, that "I think the community should . . . terminate its involvement with this journal at all levels . . . and leave it to wither away into oblivion and disrepute."

Climate Research and several other journals have stopped accepting anything that substantially challenges the received wisdom on global warming perpetuated by the CRU. I have had four perfectly good manuscripts rejected out of hand since the CRU shenanigans, and I'm hardly the only one. Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama, Huntsville, has noted that it's becoming nearly impossible to publish anything on global warming that's nonalarmist in peer-reviewed journals.

Of course, Mr. Russell didn't look to see if the ugly pressure tactics discussed in the Climategate emails had any consequences. That's because they only interviewed CRU people, not the people whom they had trashed.

Mr. Michaels, a professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia from 1980-2007, is now a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704075604575356611173414140.html
Message: Posted by: tommy (Aug 6, 2010 09:09PM)
Why? Don't you like what he said?

Just askin'

PS

Seems like my learned friend John has deleated his last remark.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 6, 2010 09:18PM)
I've avoided following the money, but maybe I'll allow it this time. Did you know that Mr. Michaels' company New Hope Environmental received $122,100 from the Cato Institute in [url=http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2008/237/432/2008-237432162-049ed179-9.pdf]2006[/url] and $120,800 in [url=http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2008/237/432/2008-237432162-049ed179-9.pdf]2007[/url] (page 10 of each document).

Of course, he may or may not be providing ethical or sound opinion; I'm not sure.

What do you think, Tommy? Does Mr. Michaels have a financial interest in having the "right opinion"? How about you, Danny? Are Mr. Michaels' opinions free and open, or does the money talk? Just askin'

John
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 6, 2010 09:26PM)
Oh [url=http://www.realclimate.org/irea_letterJul06.pdf]look[/url] The Intermountain Rural Electric Association paid Patrick Michaels $100,000 to help them develop an information strategy to combat those scientists who support anthropogenic climate change.

But wait, there's more. The letter mentions a group CEI that "has been running two ads in ten states that were financed by General Motors and the Ford Motor Company. …. We have met with Koch [Industries], CEI and Dr. Michaels and they meet among themselves periodically to discuss their activities."

But I'm sure none of this has any influence on Patrick Michaels' conclusions.

John
Message: Posted by: landmark (Aug 6, 2010 10:53PM)
For you conspiracy buffs, follow Koch's trail...we now resume our regularly scheduled program.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 6, 2010 11:34PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-06 22:09, tommy wrote:
Why? Don't you like what he said?

Just askin'

PS

Seems like my learned friend John has deleated his last remark.
[/quote]

Sorry about that. I thought I'd give more content by following the money.

The original question was this: of the hundreds of people you could quote, why do you choose him? What about his opinion makes him worthy of this space and not someone else?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 7, 2010 07:23AM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-06 19:42, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-08-06 19:23, Dannydoyle wrote:
Nobody applies to produce a conclusion? Do you really believe this?
[/quote]

I have applied for research grants, and I assure you that it is true. Have you applied for research grants?

John
[/quote]

What does this straw man have to do with anything John? You are losing steam. Oh and still obviously don't have it in you to appologize for insults and name calling huh?

For the record John, all that you can conclude from your application is why YOU apply for grants. You can make no general statement about why others do. I certainly hope that if you get your grant you use better methods than this. (Nice straw man you have constructed though.)

What if I had applied for grants John and did it only for the money? Would that make my point more or less valid? Come on use some of that great research brain power and tell me.

All you have done here is shown your bias and true believer status. In all seriousness I think it pulls into question your ability to do research once you already have made up your mind. You are either a fool or dishonest about your work.(Isn't acondecending attitude from a high horse fun?)

John I will tell you this and provide no real proof for it. In police work one of the things they warn about is not having any pre concieved notions about a crime. When you do this your tendencey is to see all evidence through that prizm and all evidence tends to support your conclusion. In other words as Arthur Conan Doyle once wrote "It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."

Here is another favorite of mine from him. "It is a capital mistake to theorize before you have all the evidence. It biases the judgment." Climate science does not have all the evidence, nowhere near yet theories abound! It is bias judgement. Then a bias judgement leads to helping the evidence as cops call it. OOPS. Go ahead tell me I am wrong John. (Oh and by the way it is MONEY that is biasing judgement in case you miss that point.)

Naw but the quote you seem to be wanting to follow is "No no no, not THOSE facts".
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 7, 2010 07:42AM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-06 22:26, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Oh [url=http://www.realclimate.org/irea_letterJul06.pdf]look[/url] The Intermountain Rural Electric Association paid Patrick Michaels $100,000 to help them develop an information strategy to combat those scientists who support anthropogenic climate change.

But wait, there's more. The letter mentions a group CEI that "has been running two ads in ten states that were financed by General Motors and the Ford Motor Company. …. We have met with Koch [Industries], CEI and Dr. Michaels and they meet among themselves periodically to discuss their activities."

But I'm sure none of this has any influence on Patrick Michaels' conclusions.

John
[/quote]

Naturally John the ONLY side influenced by money is those stupid enough to disagree with you right?
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 7, 2010 08:33AM)
Ok Danny, how many research proposals have you read? Or even glanced at?

Why are you so certain that conclusions are even mentioned in the proposals? Tell you what, go to http://www.nsf.gov and you will see the workings of the largest scientific research granting agency in the USA. Look through their application materials. See for yourself if there is a line on the form for conclusions.

And in case you haven't noticed, nowhere in the 8 pages (and counting) of this thread have I supported any position on global warming. I have championed EVIDENCE. I have criticised empty accusations. In agreement with the original op-ed, I believe that the real scandal is the way that certain people and groups are airing their opinions and accusations without being held accountable for them.

John
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 7, 2010 08:33AM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-07 08:42, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-08-06 22:26, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Oh [url=http://www.realclimate.org/irea_letterJul06.pdf]look[/url] The Intermountain Rural Electric Association paid Patrick Michaels $100,000 to help them develop an information strategy to combat those scientists who support anthropogenic climate change.

But wait, there's more. The letter mentions a group CEI that "has been running two ads in ten states that were financed by General Motors and the Ford Motor Company. …. We have met with Koch [Industries], CEI and Dr. Michaels and they meet among themselves periodically to discuss their activities."

But I'm sure none of this has any influence on Patrick Michaels' conclusions.

John
[/quote]

Naturally John the ONLY side influenced by money is those stupid enough to disagree with you right?
[/quote]

Still not reading for detail and context, Danny?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 7, 2010 09:24AM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-07 09:33, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Ok Danny, how many research proposals have you read? Or even glanced at?

Why are you so certain that conclusions are even mentioned in the proposals? Tell you what, go to http://www.nsf.gov and you will see the workings of the largest scientific research granting agency in the USA. Look through their application materials. See for yourself if there is a line on the form for conclusions.

And in case you haven't noticed, nowhere in the 8 pages (and counting) of this thread have I supported any position on global warming. I have championed EVIDENCE. I have criticised empty accusations. In agreement with the original op-ed, I believe that the real scandal is the way that certain people and groups are airing their opinions and accusations without being held accountable for them.

John
[/quote]

No John, you champion evidence YOU AGREE WITH! Never so blind as one who will not see. But it is obvious. IF the climate gate email scandal was on the opposing side from yourself, you would be on it like a white on rice and if you are honest for a second you would admit that.

Who cares how many grants I have applied for, looked at or whatever? Lots of straw men you construct John. You decry name calling while you yourself do it. (But that is ok because it is for a good cause right?)

Are you telling me John that say a tobacco company that funds a study does not pick and choose the people who conduct it? Are you trying to tell me that when the government goes to find an economist for an opinion it is not searching for one who agrees with them? Naive is the word that comes to mind John. Big money, big business and there is no bigger business than the government. If you don't think that conclusions matter you need to wake up and smell the toast burning. Governments are some of the largest and most corrupt business entities on the face of the planet. Keep "attacking the evidence" as you call it if it helps you, but John, step into reality for just a second. Do you think that the ONLY part of government NOT corrupted is the part of the government that deals with science?

Oh wait do I have to post EVIDENCE of government corruption?

(Still wondering if you will man up and appologise for name calling like you demand others do and for insults. But obviously you are not to be taken seriously anyhow. True believer and all.) You are a more feverish believer than any religious person I have ever met. That is a title with a lot of competition John, I live in the Bible Belt.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 7, 2010 09:37AM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-07 10:24, Dannydoyle wrote:


(Still wondering if you will man up and appologise for name calling like you demand others do and for insults. But obviously you are not to be taken seriously anyhow. True believer and all.) You are a more feverish believer than any religious person I have ever met. That is a title with a lot of competition John, I live in the Bible Belt.
[/quote]

Read, Danny. It's been up since 6:19 on August 6.

Small wonder you don't understand my posts; you don't read them.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 7, 2010 09:50AM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-06 13:26, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Woland, evidence is everything.

I'm afraid I was right the first time. You are not to be taken seriously.

John
[/quote]

Well in reality John, I was talking of THIS.

Now you let another high horse snarky remark come out that you will burry another appology at the end of a long bloviating post.

Small wonder you never know how many people you insult with your condecending attitude. You seem to do it so regularly it would be tough to keep up with. Seems that anyone who disagrees with you is worthy of only condesention from the great John. Got it.

I hope you keep track of your research better John or you may never get that grant.

Obviously YOU are not to be taken seriously.
Message: Posted by: Nosher (Aug 7, 2010 10:13AM)
So you don't agree that somebody who believes "...the whole "global warming" or as some prefer "climate change" movement is not a merely scientific discussion or debate, but a political action movement devoted to dismantling western industrial civilization." should not be taken seriously?

Interesting.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 7, 2010 11:27AM)
Danny you are amusing. I do think your heart is in the right place, however.

Let me state this categorically: I give NO credence to accusations or generalizations that have no evidence to support them. Those who make these accusations and generalizations with no evidence (in this thread, that means Danny Doyle and Woland) do not warrant serious consideration.

Call me whatever you want, Danny. On the principle of accountability for one's words I will not budge.

John
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 7, 2010 11:30AM)
Yet you take none for your own words and hold those you agree with to a less strict standard.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 7, 2010 11:31AM)
Evidence, please, Danny.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 7, 2010 11:31AM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-07 11:13, Nosher wrote:
So you don't agree that somebody who believes "...the whole "global warming" or as some prefer "climate change" movement is not a merely scientific discussion or debate, but a political action movement devoted to dismantling western industrial civilization." should not be taken seriously?

Interesting.
[/quote]

I don't think I said that did I ?
Message: Posted by: Nosher (Aug 7, 2010 07:35PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-07 12:31, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-08-07 11:13, Nosher wrote:
So you don't agree that somebody who believes "...the whole "global warming" or as some prefer "climate change" movement is not a merely scientific discussion or debate, but a political action movement devoted to dismantling western industrial civilization." should not be taken seriously?

Interesting.
[/quote]

I don't think I said that did I ?
[/quote]

No Danny, you didn't. Woland did, which is why I don't think it's a terrible insult to say he's not serious.

It was quoted earlier in the thread, apologies for any lack of clarity.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Aug 7, 2010 07:44PM)
Yes it is designed to bring down Western industrial might...clearly.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Aug 7, 2010 08:19PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-07 20:44, MagicSanta wrote:
Yes it is designed to bring down Western industrial might...clearly.
[/quote]
What might?
Message: Posted by: Whit Haydn (Aug 7, 2010 08:21PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-07 20:44, MagicSanta wrote:
Yes it is designed to bring down Western industrial might...clearly.
[/quote]

Designed by who, MagicSanta? What evidence can you offer? I know some climate scientists personally who are very big believers in global warming. They work for NASA. They have no monetary investment in the theory. They are not anxious to bring down Western industrial might--they depend on government funding, and it has nothing to do with issues of global warming. They send up satelites.

Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists from 48 different countries believe that global warming is real, a threat, and man caused. Do you really believe that all these people are working for organizations, colleges and universities, and governments that seek to destroy Western industrial might?

Doesn't it seem unlikely that these governments who depend so much on the money and support of multi-national corporations like big oil, coal and energy companies, would do anything to disturb the profits and success of their supporters? Why would they fund research that their patrons don't like, don't agree with, and want stopped?

Why would they want to give over control to some outside group of scientists who just want to make money by destroying Western industry and civilization?

Who do you think employs the majority of climate scientists? And why?
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Aug 7, 2010 08:39PM)
More methane please. Do we really need this technology to come out of rural Africa or can we get with the program here now?
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Aug 7, 2010 08:50PM)
The simple fact is there are two sides to this. The "US is at fault because they are evil and need to be brought down" and the "Prove it" group. I'm in the prove it group. Could the temp be rising in some areas? Sure, why not? It goes up, goes down, the tides change, the earth wobbles. The problem is that the signers of Kyoto have exempted 'the third world' as polluters, China and India for example, while the US would have restrictions that would be the final blow needed to kill off the US manufacturing that is left (you are correct Jon, the might is gone). So while I and pretty much everyone else is saying that the earth may have temp increases our problem is with the slants given to research and the dooms day approach being taken. American companies have for decades taken great steps and invested huge amounts of time and money to reduce output of pollutants and to filtering water to the point the water is too pure to be released back into the 'wild'.

Global Warming is a battle cry of the anti US being the economic leader, and that battle has been lost. Global Warming is a great term to use to make money, which many organizations and people are doing. Their keeping the drum beating is absolutely neccessary to keep the money rolling in. Name another industrial country that has done more to reduce pollution than American companies. You can't because when all numbers come in the US has done a great job. Also the term 'scientist' is aweful loose these days. If I go to the hospital I only care what doctors and scientist who work in that specific area of my illness care, what other scientist who want to chime in mean nothing to me. Most of those scientist to me are like the 'computer experts' who screamed about Y2K and there were many people just as believing and committed to that as there were to Y2K.

So Whit if you want to embrace the whole Global Warming Is the Fault of the US and it is up to them to resolve it crowd then god bless you and good luck. I'm a member of the 'no it isn't the fault of the US' crowd.

Let's just say there is a hell of a lot of money being given to the people who are proponents of man made global warming vs the ones not making that claim.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 7, 2010 08:57PM)
Just curious, Santa. Who in this forum has ever said that Global Warming was the fault of the US? I can't recall anyone.

John
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Aug 7, 2010 09:03PM)
I don't get my information from the pack of numb nuts here John....I'm basing it on the last few years of 'experts' speaking on the subject. When an expert shows up here I'll pay attention. Followers of the BS are different than the leaders.
Message: Posted by: Whit Haydn (Aug 7, 2010 09:41PM)
Then I guess I'll have to wait for one of the leaders of the denier side to join us...no sense listening to numbnuts like me and you, MagicSanta.

Oh, wait! I have listened to leaders of both sides. That is what we have all been quoting here. The leaders of my side are 97% of the climate scientists in the world. And I have listened to the 3% of scientists that support your view.

I think I'll pay attention to the 97% until some unbiased scientist from the denier camp actually comes up with convincing evidence that everyone else is wrong.

I don't really think it makes much difference. I believe the lackeys and fellow travelers of the multi-national energy conglomerates have held back any meaningful action long enough that it will most probably now be futile.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 7, 2010 09:51PM)
I do think it matters, Whit. Healthy democracy likely does depend on an informed electorate. What we are seeing is that aggressive disinformation is much more powerful than reasoned discourse. And it worries me.



John
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Aug 7, 2010 09:58PM)
Now you got it Whit, we are all numbnuts....except John, he's a disciple.

'Travelers' are non party member supporters of communism. Specific term, specific meaning.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Aug 7, 2010 11:06PM)
I feel I'm not being fair. Please provide links to the following unbiased sites:

1. Site showing a continious warming of the earths temp.. This means a continious warming not it getting cooler and that meaning global warming, wetter and that meaning global warming, dryer and that meaning global warming, pretty much the same meaning global warming, I want to see unrelated statistics showing a steady climb in temp on earth.

2. Site showing that individual manufacturing facilities in the US produce more pollution than facilities producing the same products of the same size in China, India, and Mexico.

3. Site showing the number or percentage of the population you feel should be, uh, reduced in order to manage global warming and change the direction of said temps.

Thank you!
Message: Posted by: Nosher (Aug 8, 2010 01:09AM)
Which sort of unbiased site would you like, Santa? The "US is at fault because they are evil and need to be brought down" type or the "Prove it" type?
Message: Posted by: Payne (Aug 8, 2010 01:32AM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-07 21:50, MagicSanta wrote:

Most of those scientist to me are like the 'computer experts' who screamed about Y2K and there were many people just as believing and committed to that as there were to Y2K.

[/quote]

You do realize the Y2K was a very real problem and that the reason it didn't manifest itself was because all those "screaming computer experts" worked diligently for several years analyzing systems, rewriting code and upgrading hardware.

I should know, I worked on several systems for five years to keep the rollover problem from happening.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Aug 8, 2010 01:40AM)
Either will do. Folks pull up these sites with names like "GreenWorld.x' or "StopGlobalWarming.x", I have a feeling they have an agenda. I know that the Kyoto accord, regardless of the 'scientist' who sign it would have crippled US companies but without calling the name. The implication that companies don't care or don't do anything to reduce any pollutants they put out while exempting countries who don't care what they pump out. Hey, if you can't win playing it straight you do what you can...right Europe? It's okay, now the companies that were in the US are in China and India etc putting out more pollutants and making inferior products but they are cool cuz they are helping poor countries like China. Oh, lets congratulate China on becoming the number one energy using country in the world! Poor third world guys.

All I am asking for is a site that shows legit statistics that show over an extended period of time that worldwide temps have increased with a logical projection showing that within a specific period of time that the polar caps will melt and thus destroy the coastal regions of the world. I am, to be frank, a bit tired of the "it is colder because of global warming'. No matter what the weather does it seems to be because of global warming. It is like playing the monte, no matter which you pick, even if it is the right card, you don't win.

So let me be clearer. I want see chart that show temps have gone up beyond the standard deviation over time. Some are quite passionate about it, show me the stats without excuses. If I have a pool and it has water in it and I say "this pool is going through water depth increasing" and the level of water goes up after it rains then down after it is sunny and after time it is right around the same depth then guess what? It isn't going through a depth increase. I use to accept that maybe temps were up a little bit, which could be an issue. But I learned on the streets that if people try just a bit too hard to sell something that maybe what they are selling isn't what you think.

I expect a good solid three or four degrees a decade at least....I wait for the link...that is unless Y2K destroyed the data.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Aug 8, 2010 01:42AM)
Payne, you believed, just like the religious folks....glad you made some money off it. I was in high tech and all the computer people I knew, other than the Y2K workers, said it was a non issue. Now scurry off and find me that link! Get ye behind me Satan!
Message: Posted by: tommy (Aug 8, 2010 08:10AM)
Its true that fossil fuels are dirty and they kill people. For exmple, hundreds of thousands of people die of coal pollution every year. Do you agree that is true John?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 8, 2010 08:51AM)
I am also in the prove it group. I want proof because of what is being asked for. I look at the "solutions" and here is what we have. Leaders of the global climate change movement who are invested heavily in the "green jobs" industry. (an industry which has already destroyed the economey of Spain by the way. No link needed just open those blind eyes.) Green jobs are nonsense.

I look at some of the leaders of the global climate change movement and look at where they came from. Seems to me many of them have a pretty serious political agenda that if fufilled would hurt the United States. Hmmmm interesting. (I have said "some" not ALL by the way.) So what is to be concluded by this?

There are many who think the United States needs to be brought down to size, or the economey more "equitable" so to speak, and they are also in this movement. It seems that the movement has a lot of people in it who are looking for "social justice" or some sort of redistribution. Hmmmm again it seems odd how they are all alligned in one cause that has quite little proof.

Many of those 97% of so called scientists were the very ones who told me in the 1970's that the next ice age would be what wipes us out. Books trumpeted by the Sierra Club claimed that places like England would cease to exist because of "overpopulation" (another liberal scare myth that is nonsense). Despite England's persistant existance they STILL RECOMEND THE BOOK!

So when we ask for proof, I don't mean having all the liberal scientists agree and work to a common cause. I mean show scientific proof with decent methodology. That HAS NOT YET BEEN DONE. It is a political partizan issue. Before we put in place something stupid like cap and trade and spin us even further into a recession, lets get some real research going is all I am saying.

Like I said John is a true believer. So are a few others. Cool. No problem. Tell me you have read the books like "The politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming", or "Climate Confussion", and try "Climategate". I don't mean read a few liberal socialist blogs and try to discredit authors and sling mud about who and what they are or any of that. Read the books and tell me where they are wrong. Stop reading blogs and posting links and buy some books and do research. Read books on both sides. Not books you agree with, and blogs that discredit those you disagree with. (Actually that last remark is directed at both sides now that I think of it.)

I admit John, it challenges your religion but it is worth it. This is as much an economic political discussion as it is a weather discussion. You can not sepporate the two.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 8, 2010 08:53AM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-08 02:32, Payne wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-08-07 21:50, MagicSanta wrote:

Most of those scientist to me are like the 'computer experts' who screamed about Y2K and there were many people just as believing and committed to that as there were to Y2K.

[/quote]

You do realize the Y2K was a very real problem and that the reason it didn't manifest itself was because all those "screaming computer experts" worked diligently for several years analyzing systems, rewriting code and upgrading hardware.

I should know, I worked on several systems for five years to keep the rollover problem from happening.
[/quote]

Well this does beg some questions doesn't it Payne? For example how is it that those who invented computers, didn't know that eventually we would get to the year 2000? It was a non issue.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 8, 2010 09:17AM)
Danny your certainty never ceases to amaze me.

John
Message: Posted by: Woland (Aug 8, 2010 09:20AM)
If anyone is interested, investigators at the Helmholtz Centre, Hohenheim University, and the Moscow Institute of Geography recently published their findings on tree-ring climate data from the Kola Peninsula, in arctic Russia. They compared the data to results from the Taimyr Peninsula in Siberia, Swedish Lapland, and the Yamal (Siberia) datasets.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases_ml/2010-07/aaft-q072910.php

Although I think that we should be skeptical about a too-close correlation of historical tree-ring data with prevailing temperature, since there are many factors that influence tree growth, these data are all from the Arctic Region, and are therefore relevant to those who are concerned about the possibility of polar warming.

There was good agreement among the Kola, Taimyr, and Swedish datasets. The data indicates that, according to the correlations, the climate did become warmer in the 1990s.

That warming, however, occurred after a longer period of cooling. The warmest time in the 20th century was in the period between 1935 and 1955.

The Yamal dataset, as analyzed by the CRU differs, showing the century-long warming trend that has provided impetus for political activism and various forms of economic chicanery. Of course the selection of trees in the CRU's database has been questioned.

At least as far as the dendrochronic data from the Arctic are concerned, there should be no doubt that the warming seen in the 1990s was within normal limits of variation, and that the correlation to be made for Arctic temperatures is not with the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, but with solar activity.

Woland
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 8, 2010 09:22AM)
John, I AM NOT CERTAIN! THAT IS THE POINT. I am screaming that the research is quite incomplete. That climate models are skewed, that we need to find MORE INFORMATION so we can walk in the direction of certainty.

You are the one claiming things for certain, high horse claims about how science and peer review are the be all and end all. YOU are the one who is certain and you accuse me of it when I want more research so we CAN be certain? Oh lord you have either lost it, or got up too early.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 8, 2010 09:34AM)
Danny please quote me being certain.

John
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 8, 2010 09:43AM)
Thanks for the link, Woland.

In case you are interested, here is Briffa's (2000) abstract

[quote]Over vast areas of the world's landmasses, where climate beats out a strong seasonal rhythm, tree growth keeps unerring time. In their rings, trees record many climate melodies, played in different places and different eras. Recent years have seen a consolidation and expansion of tree-ring sample collections across the traditional research areas of North America and Europe, and the start of major developments in many new areas of Eurasia, South America and Australasia. From such collections are produced networks of precisely dated chronologies; records of various aspects of tree growth, registered continuously, year by year across many centuries. Their sensitivities to different climate parameters are now translated into ever more detailed histories of temperature and moisture variability across expanding dimensions of time and space. With their extensive coverage, high temporal resolution and rigid dating control, dendroclimatic reconstructions contribute significantly to our knowledge of late Holocene climates, most importantly on timescales ranging from 1 to 100 years. In special areas of the world, where trees live for thousands of years or where subfossil remnants of long dead specimens are preserved, work building chronologies covering many millenia continues apace. Very recently, trees have provided important new information about major modes of general circulation dynamics linked to the El Niño/Southern Oscillation and the North Atlantic Oscillation, and about the effect of large volcanic eruptions. As for assessing the significance of 20th century global warming, the evidence from dendroclimatology in general, supports the notion that the last 100 years have been unusually warm, at least within a context of the last two millenia. However, this evidence should not be considered equivocal. The activities of humans may well be impacting on the 'natural' growth of trees in different ways, making the task of isolating a clear climate message subtly difficult.[/quote]

Notice the modesty of his claims; notice especially his acknowledgment that there are likely causal factors that escaped his analysis.

The link you provide is to a press release, so I looked up the actual abstract. The 2009 article has this abstract:

[quote]
This study presents a new pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) ring-width chronology and a summer temperature reconstruction for the last 400 years from the Khibiny Low Mountains (Kola Peninsula, NW Russia). Pine trees from sites at the altitudinal timberline of Khibiny Mountains show pronounced climatic signals in tree-ring width. We found a strong positive correlation with summer temperature of July–August (r = 0.58). The reconstruction shows lower summer temperatures from A.D. 1630 to 1840, a subsequent warming up to the mid-20th century and a cooling trend afterwards. According to our data, a temperature increase is observed during the past decade. The good coherence of multi-decadal to secular trends of our reconstruction and series of observed solar activity indicate that solar activity may have been one major driving factor of past climate on Kola Peninsula.[/quote]

The Kononov et. al. study does not appear to contradict the Briffa study at all. Even more important is that NEITHER study makes grand claims about anthropogenic climate change.

John
Message: Posted by: Mr. Mystoffelees (Aug 8, 2010 10:03AM)
From HuffPo-

"WASHINGTON — A giant ice island has broken off the Petermann Glacier in northern Greenland.

A University of Delaware researcher says the floating ice sheet covers 100 square miles – more than four times the size of New York's Manhattan Island.

Not since 1962 has such a large chunk of ice calved in the Arctic..."


So, should we fret the implication, or take comfort that a bigger one must have occurred in '62?



.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Aug 8, 2010 10:12AM)
Well last time (in 62) an ice sheet broke off we found Captain America.
I wonder what's gonna be found in this one.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Aug 8, 2010 10:24AM)
Energy Carbon Credit Cards for Money.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Aug 8, 2010 10:52AM)
John,

Thank you for looking up the information I mentioned.

I'm glad you reproduced Briffa's abstract. I am not sure that I find it as "modest" as you do:

[quote]Over vast areas of the world's landmasses, where climate beats out a strong seasonal rhythm, tree growth keeps unerring time. In their rings, trees record many climate melodies, played in different places and different eras.[/quote]

That is poetry, of a sort, but it is not modest science. "Unerring time?" How would he know? How would anybody know?

Let's continue . . .

[quote]From such collections are produced networks of precisely dated chronologies; records of various aspects of tree growth, registered continuously, year by year across many centuries. Their sensitivities to different climate parameters are now translated into ever more detailed histories of temperature and moisture variability across expanding dimensions of time and space. [/quote]

I'm sorry, but that sounds like an hallucination to me.

I agree that his final comment, that "the task of isolating a clear climate message[is] subtly difficult" is a modest, and true as far as it goes. But so what?

But the abstract does show, in a way, how the global-warming mongers merchandise their polemic: they begin with rather modest claims in the scientific literature; these claims are then inflated and translated into alarming headlines by journalists and propagandists; the climate scientists then agree, in interviews, that the situation is as dire as the journalists said it was . . . and so it goes.

The level of uncertainty about the dendrochronology data is sufficient to convince me, at least, that it would be very unwise for any government or any large social enterprise to make far-reaching changes in response.

Let's be as modest in our interpretations as the data are modest in their extent and sureness.

Woland
Message: Posted by: Woland (Aug 8, 2010 10:55AM)
John,

As far as the Kononov study goes, you quoted the "money" statement:

[quote]The reconstruction shows lower summer temperatures from A.D. 1630 to 1840, a subsequent warming up to the mid-20th century and a cooling trend afterwards.[/quote]

It was warmer 50 years ago than it is now, even with the warming observed in the 1990s. And yet atmospheric CO2 continued to climb during the past 50 years.

It's the waxing and waning of energy from the mighty Sun that affects our climate, not the puny efforts of mankind.

Woland
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 8, 2010 10:58AM)
Woland, why do you feel qualified to make much stronger claims than the authors of the study do?

This is cherry picking at its worst.


As to your previous post, read the whole Briffa article. It's on line; see what he really claims.

John
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Aug 8, 2010 11:09AM)
Last generation (the one with hippies and rocket scientists) can be motivated by using the terms "environment" and "global" in the "why you should be scared and let us spend your money" standard sales pitch.

Nothing new - just better graphics this time around. Rather than having to stay up late to attend meetings we have news networks 24/7 and instead of line drawings we have movies showing us "The Day After Tomorrow" or "2012".
Message: Posted by: Woland (Aug 8, 2010 11:19AM)
Mr Townsend,

Agreed.

John,

Why shouldn't I feel free to draw any conclusions that I think are warranted?

Woland
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 8, 2010 01:03PM)
Woland: have you analyzed the data?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Aug 8, 2010 01:20PM)
What! Drawing your own conclusions? Why the last time I heard of such an idea was back in is 1983. :)
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 8, 2010 01:26PM)
Tommy, drawing conclusions is an excellent thing when the conclusions are based on evidence. Otherwise they are just hot air.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Aug 8, 2010 01:33PM)
Oh the irony. :)


In the meantime...Hungary's sale of 'used' carbon credits - or 'hot air' as environmentalists call them - had harmed the reputation of cap and trade, an industry lobby said on Friday (20 March), but analysts expected little price impact.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 8, 2010 02:02PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-08 14:26, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Tommy, drawing conclusions is an excellent thing when the conclusions are based on evidence. Otherwise they are just hot air.
[/quote]

Now we reach a problem John. Most people are not qualified to analyze anything. Therefore they listen to others. In the case of global warming, they want to sway the public so they tend to use hysteria. Can you not see how this corrupts the whole process or are you just blinded by belief?
Message: Posted by: Woland (Aug 8, 2010 02:16PM)
Tommy,

It was before 1983. In 1965, Bob Dylan wrote (and sang): "In the dime stores and bus stations - People talk of situations - Read books, repeat quotations - Draw conclusions on the wall . . ."

Woland
Message: Posted by: tommy (Aug 8, 2010 02:50PM)
I am sure John is qualified to analyse the data Phil Jones deleted.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 8, 2010 02:52PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-08 15:02, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-08-08 14:26, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Tommy, drawing conclusions is an excellent thing when the conclusions are based on evidence. Otherwise they are just hot air.
[/quote]

Now we reach a problem John. Most people are not qualified to analyze anything. Therefore they listen to others. In the case of global warming, they want to sway the public so they tend to use hysteria. Can you not see how this corrupts the whole process or are you just blinded by belief?
[/quote]

Danny, don't you see that this is the entire problem that concerns me.

On the issue of the basic science, we have two groups of experts. The much bigger group agrees on the basic data and interpretation, and is carrying on discussion and debate on the details. A very small group of experts disagrees on the basic data and interpretation and is debating those things. All of this is going on in the appropriate domain of science: peer-review.

Outside of the science we have a huge number of lobbyists, special interest groups, political groups, etc. Some of these groups are thoughtful and responsible. Some are not. Of those who are not there are the groups that push for large-scale change, whether the data justifies it or not. But there is another group. This group is also ill-informed. It is leading a huge campaign to discredit the science.

Most of what I post here is a response to the special interest group that tries to discredit science in an irresponsible way. I have had less to say about the "pro-environment" special interest group except to distance myself from it. Unfortunately, a couple of people insist on aligning me with them, much to my annoyance.

So there you have it, Danny. I agree that the uninformed special interest groups are the object of my responses. I don't care if the groups continue to promote their causes, but I do care if they abuse data and reason for their purposes.

John
Message: Posted by: tommy (Aug 8, 2010 03:58PM)
What concerns me is that John may have been deceived by his own observations.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 8, 2010 04:00PM)
H3ll, Tommy, I'm frequently mistaken. Aren't you?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Aug 8, 2010 04:04PM)
Chill out John. :)
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Aug 8, 2010 04:38PM)
I can't believe he attacked you Tommy....
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 8, 2010 05:09PM)
Jonh a very large number of scientists thought the world was flat. Did it become round once more thought it was?

A very large number of the same scientists telling of global warming now had scared us about an ice age not long ago. We are supposed to forget this? How about the doomday scenarios that have not come to pass?

Nope we are good this time. This time science has it worked out.

What if we did all the things they wanted us to because of an ice age? Ever think of that?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Aug 8, 2010 05:21PM)
:)

The experts have told John, the enemy is humanity itself, and you never expected him to attack?
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 8, 2010 05:32PM)
Danny, I don't know if any reason will get through to you, but I'll try one more time.

Scientists are not infallible. If we are to act on information, we should act on the best available. Maybe you know more than all the scientists, but I doubt it.

Given the uncertainty of the world, I advocate taking the most reliable information available and modifying as new information comes up.

John

BTW check your facts on the ice age prediction. You are blowing smoke again.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Aug 8, 2010 05:32PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-08 18:09, Dannydoyle wrote:

A very large number of the same scientists telling of global warming now had scared us about an ice age not long ago.
[/quote]
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

Whatever that very large number was, theirs was still a minority opinion at the time.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 8, 2010 05:55PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-08 18:32, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Danny, I don't know if any reason will get through to you, but I'll try one more time.


John
[quote]

Oh no John you and only those you agree with are gifted enough to reason. No the rest of are just way to stoopid to even imagine how that would work. We need to be guided by you so smart so we don't end up eating our fingers by accident during meals.

Must be fun to always look down on people huh?
Message: Posted by: balducci (Aug 8, 2010 06:16PM)
Here's a tip. When you do the "quote" thing, include a forward slash in the second of the "quote" tags. :)
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 8, 2010 06:21PM)
Or stop posting from my phone.

But yet again I must thank the elite class for pointing out how we must be guided. Now spellcheck me just to prove it further.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 8, 2010 06:26PM)
Danny, you have disagreed with me at least as many times as I have disagreed with you. Does this mean you are looking down at me? Or does it just go one way?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Aug 8, 2010 06:38PM)
The experts in the believers camp, seem to me, to be now blaming the politicians for the gross exaggerations that have given them such a bad name, rather than blaming the expert sceptics. Least I have seen a few open serious debates held in public between the two camps now over here since the scandals. The impression I got is they are almost agreeing with the sceptic experts now.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Aug 8, 2010 06:50PM)
Mandarin,

Perhaps that ice break-off is being overstated in the press. A glacier in Greenland calved a similar chunk of ice in 1962.

Data presented by the Danish Meteorological Institute show that the extent and thickness of the arctic ice sheet are on the rebound. The ice is much thicker this summer than it was during the summer of 2007. Summer in the arctic is over, and this year's has been the coldest summer since 1958, which is to say the coldest arctic summer since the D.M.I. has been keeping the current dataset.

Meanwhile, antarctic ice is at the highest levels ever recorded. It has been a very cold winter in the southern hemisphere.

Woland
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 8, 2010 07:14PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-08 19:50, Woland wrote:
Mandarin,

Perhaps that ice break-off is being overstated in the press. A glacier in Greenland calved a similar chunk of ice in 1962.

Data presented by the Danish Meteorological Institute show that the extent and thickness of the arctic ice sheet are on the rebound. The ice is much thicker this summer than it was during the summer of 2007. Summer in the arctic is over, and this year's has been the coldest summer since 1958, which is to say the coldest arctic summer since the D.M.I. has been keeping the current dataset.

Meanwhile, antarctic ice is at the highest levels ever recorded. It has been a very cold winter in the southern hemisphere.

Woland
[/quote]

Do you have a reference or a link?

John
Message: Posted by: Woland (Aug 8, 2010 07:19PM)
John,

Thanks for asking.

The D.M.I. page on the extent of arctic ice is here:

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php

Woland
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 8, 2010 07:34PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-08 20:19, Woland wrote:
John,

Thanks for asking.

The D.M.I. page on the extent of arctic ice is here:

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php

Woland[/quote]

I was looking at that earlier today. I don't see the point you are making.

[img]http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/icecover/icecover_2010.png[/img]

The graph shows the last 5 years as being very close together; I don't see that that implies that damage is being undone.

NASA's satellite imagery site has a brief bit about the slight anomaly in the arctic ice this year. Apparently some cold water postponed the date of the maximum spring cover to the latest date yet seen, but the ice is thin and porous and is melting very rapidly nonetheless. The images and article are [url=http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=43735]here[/url].

John
Message: Posted by: Whit Haydn (Aug 8, 2010 07:35PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-08 20:19, Woland wrote:
John,

Thanks for asking.

The D.M.I. page on the extent of arctic ice is here:

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php

Woland
[/quote]

[img]http://www.pophaydn.com/images/ArcticIce%20copy.jpg[/img]

"At the end of March, Arctic sea ice had re-frozen to an unusual degree – there was more ice than average. The last three months have brought the story of Arctic sea ice back on depressing track. There's never been so little ice in the Arctic in June, and there's never been more ice lost during the month of June, not since humans started measuring it anyway.

Putting this into perspective, imagine the area covered by Mexico, the United States (including Alaska) and the westernmost province of Canada, British Columbia: That's the average amount of ice that covers the Arctic in June. Now cut away Texas, New Mexico and Arizona, and you have the extent of June 2010.

Compared to the last record-low for June, there's 73,000 fewer square miles of Arctic sea ice (roughly the size of New England).

Records for minimum sea ice extent would have been set in 2008 and 2009, compared to any other year on record, if it were not for 2007, when a dramatic record low was recorded.

The seasonal melt will continue into September, so the global warming litmus test will continue through the summer. As the National Snow and Ice Data Center, which tracks sea ice conditions, put it, whether or not we witness a new record-low this summer will depend largely on "weather conditions, atmospheric patterns, and cloud cover over the next month." Right now, it isn't looking good. Then again, most of the ice lost to this point was young one-year-old ice. Further melting will encounter thick, multi-year-old ice that is tougher to melt, so the rate of melting could well slow down.

Satellite records date to 1979, but ice cores and other data indicate that the rate of melting is unprecedented and can only be explained by the heat-trapping accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. As ice melts, the darker water that is revealed absorbs more heat than the reflective ice, reinforcing the melting trend."

Read more: http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/arctic-sea-ice-melt-0528#ixzz0w44SsMEz
Message: Posted by: tommy (Aug 8, 2010 08:17PM)
The temperature of ice within a glacier changes with depth. Snow falling on the surface of a glacier is the same temperature as the air at the surface. As more snow falls, the older snow is pushed down into the glacier, taking that surface temperature with it. In polar regions, where air temperatures are very cold, ice near the surface of a glacier is also very cold. But with depth, ice temperature increases because the ice is being warmed from below by geothermal energy from Earth. Many alpine glaciers are isothermal (of a nearly uniform temperature), and are very near the melt temperature throughout.
Message: Posted by: spatlind (Aug 8, 2010 10:30PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-08 20:35, Whit Haydn wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-08-08 20:19, Woland wrote:
John,

Thanks for asking.

The D.M.I. page on the extent of arctic ice is here:

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php

Woland
[/quote]

[img]http://www.pophaydn.com/images/ArcticIce%20copy.jpg[/img]

"At the end of March, Arctic sea ice had re-frozen to an unusual degree – there was more ice than average. The last three months have brought the story of Arctic sea ice back on depressing track. There's never been so little ice in the Arctic in June, and there's never been more ice lost during the month of June, not since humans started measuring it anyway.

Putting this into perspective, imagine the area covered by Mexico, the United States (including Alaska) and the westernmost province of Canada, British Columbia: That's the average amount of ice that covers the Arctic in June. Now cut away Texas, New Mexico and Arizona, and you have the extent of June 2010.

Compared to the last record-low for June, there's 73,000 fewer square miles of Arctic sea ice (roughly the size of New England).

Records for minimum sea ice extent would have been set in 2008 and 2009, compared to any other year on record, if it were not for 2007, when a dramatic record low was recorded.

The seasonal melt will continue into September, so the global warming litmus test will continue through the summer. As the National Snow and Ice Data Center, which tracks sea ice conditions, put it, whether or not we witness a new record-low this summer will depend largely on "weather conditions, atmospheric patterns, and cloud cover over the next month." Right now, it isn't looking good. Then again, most of the ice lost to this point was young one-year-old ice. Further melting will encounter thick, multi-year-old ice that is tougher to melt, so the rate of melting could well slow down.

Satellite records date to 1979, but ice cores and other data indicate that the rate of melting is unprecedented and can only be explained by the heat-trapping accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. As ice melts, the darker water that is revealed absorbs more heat than the reflective ice, reinforcing the melting trend."

Read more: http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/arctic-sea-ice-melt-0528#ixzz0w44SsMEz
[/quote]

Whit, I really wish you would quit doing this. It's as though you are telling everyone that they can't win in a game of 3 card monte. That's loser talk, get over yourself :arg:
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Aug 8, 2010 10:43PM)
How do you get those lil charts to appear?
Message: Posted by: balducci (Aug 8, 2010 10:50PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-08 23:43, MagicSanta wrote:
How do you get those lil charts to appear?
[/quote]
Wishing makes it so. :)

Actually, we could tell you the real way, but then Danny would go on again about the "elite class ... pointing out how we must be guided". :bwink:
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 8, 2010 11:29PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-08 23:43, MagicSanta wrote:
How do you get those lil charts to appear?
[/quote]

[quote]
On 2010-08-08 23:43, MagicSanta wrote:
How do you get those lil charts to appear?
[/quote]

Find a picture you like somewhere on the internet. Right click it and choose "Copy Image Location".

Now when you make your post go <img>PASTE YOUR IMAGE LOCATION HERE</img>

and when you submit, the picture will be there.


[b]NOTE: Do NOT use <>, use [] instead. Because they are part of the code I couldn't use them to illustrate what I meant.[/b]

Have fun

John
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Aug 9, 2010 01:01AM)
Cool! Now I can join in!

[img]http://www.earthwatch2.org/LFF/Livingston/uploaded_images/diving_ocean-792387.jpg[/img]

Photo of polar cap taken in mid January
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Aug 9, 2010 01:04AM)
Way too big....
Message: Posted by: Payne (Aug 9, 2010 01:10AM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-08 09:53, Dannydoyle wrote:

Well this does beg some questions doesn't it Payne? For example how is it that those who invented computers, didn't know that eventually we would get to the year 2000? It was a non issue.

[/quote]

This was a known issue for decades. A friend of mine who works for IBM remembers bringing up the issue in the seventies when he was learning to code.

Back then memory and media space were extremely expensive and it was more cost effective to save the date in a two digit format instead of a four. The logic was that by the time the roll over occurred all the computer systems and programs would have been replaced. It didn't happen that way.
Five years out people started realizing there was still a lot of equipment and hardware out there that wouldn't handle the date change correctly. My first work on th Y2K issue was with POS equipment. The software needed to be changed so that it recognized credit cards with an expiration date of 00 as being greater than 99. To accomplish this we needed to work with the banks and credit card authorization companies and agree on a new format for the information on the magnetic strip of your credit card. They implemented more complex anti fraud solutions in the strip at the same time.
After this I worked with billing and financial systems as well as checking hardware on GPS, video and various computer systems to assure that it would rollover without issue and replace the hardware that failed to do so.
In the end it was cheapness and lack of foresight that caused the Y2K issue. And yes, the media did blow it completely out of proportion. It was a problem for many businesses. But the world wide shutdown of all computer systems that was popularized by the press was mostly a myth. Primarily because any vital systems that might have failed because of the Y2K problem were recoded or replaced.
Message: Posted by: Nosher (Aug 9, 2010 03:44AM)
On images :

It's not considered polite to 'hotlink' images, especially from smaller non-government sites. If you paste an image url, everytime that image is accessed, it's that site that pays for the bandwidth. They may delete the image or change it so that your image of two dolphins playing becomes an image of a sign saying "Stop stealing my bandwidth you inconsiderate *********".

http://imgur.com/ is a free site where you post images and then post the imgur link to message boards and blogs. They don't care about you using their bandwidth, nice chaps that they are.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Aug 9, 2010 07:18AM)
Nobody can claim this was caused by global warming. On the other hand nobody can claim that it wasn't. Said Andreas Muenchow, professor of ocean science and engineering at the University of Delaware. But not doubt they will and go on from that and claim its man that made global warming, thought Tommy.
Message: Posted by: Nosher (Aug 9, 2010 07:35AM)
Where did she say that?

The only quote I read was "Prof Muenchow said it was difficult to be sure the event occurred due to global warming because records on the sea water around the glacier have only been kept since 2003."
Message: Posted by: tommy (Aug 9, 2010 07:40AM)
'Nobody can claim this was caused by global warming. On the other hand nobody can claim that it wasn't,' Muenchow said.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1301062/Huge-ice-island-breaks-Greenland-glacier-100-sq-mile-chunk-contains-fresh-water-U-S-supplied-months.html#ixzz0w72bqnzC
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 9, 2010 08:29AM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-09 02:04, MagicSanta wrote:
Way too big....
[/quote]

But it does capture the spirit at that size.

Well learned, Grasshopper.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 9, 2010 08:30AM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-09 04:44, Nosher wrote:
On images :

It's not considered polite to 'hotlink' images, especially from smaller non-government sites. If you paste an image url, everytime that image is accessed, it's that site that pays for the bandwidth. They may delete the image or change it so that your image of two dolphins playing becomes an image of a sign saying "Stop stealing my bandwidth you inconsiderate *********".

http://imgur.com/ is a free site where you post images and then post the imgur link to message boards and blogs. They don't care about you using their bandwidth, nice chaps that they are.
[/quote]

I was not aware of this. I will hotlink cautiously.

John
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 9, 2010 08:34AM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-09 09:30, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-08-09 04:44, Nosher wrote:
On images :

It's not considered polite to 'hotlink' images, especially from smaller non-government sites. If you paste an image url, everytime that image is accessed, it's that site that pays for the bandwidth. They may delete the image or change it so that your image of two dolphins playing becomes an image of a sign saying "Stop stealing my bandwidth you inconsiderate *********".

http://imgur.com/ is a free site where you post images and then post the imgur link to message boards and blogs. They don't care about you using their bandwidth, nice chaps that they are.
[/quote]

I was not aware of this. I will hotlink cautiously. (Though a link at the Café is likely only to produce 10-100 links in the lifetime of the thread, so it's probably a very small deal.)

John
[/quote]
Message: Posted by: Nosher (Aug 9, 2010 08:50AM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-09 08:40, tommy wrote:
'Nobody can claim this was caused by global warming. On the other hand nobody can claim that it wasn't,' Muenchow said.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1301062/Huge-ice-island-breaks-Greenland-glacier-100-sq-mile-chunk-contains-fresh-water-U-S-supplied-months.html#ixzz0w72bqnzC
[/quote]

Thanks, Tommy.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 9, 2010 09:46AM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-08 23:50, balducci wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-08-08 23:43, MagicSanta wrote:
How do you get those lil charts to appear?
[/quote]
Wishing makes it so. :)

Actually, we could tell you the real way, but then Danny would go on again about the "elite class ... pointing out how we must be guided". :bwink:
[/quote]

Naw I am pretty sure you know the difference between being asked a question and providing an answer and just spouting off like an obnoxious jerk then hiding behind a little wink smiley face to pass it off as if nobody notices.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 9, 2010 09:52AM)
[quote]
On 2010-07-31 12:32, landmark wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-07-31 11:40, Dennis Michael wrote:
One thing is certain...The world has change from the beginning of time and it will continue for many thousands of years.


[/quote]
Probably true, the question is, are humans going to maximize our time here?

So, I go back to my question which no one has yet answered:

If global warming were shown to be occurring significantly, but not largely man-made, should we take steps to try and change it?

Let's deal with first things first.
[/quote]

No, because we have no business INTENTIONALLY changing a natural cycle. Besides periods of warmth have historically been shown to be benificial to mankind.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Aug 9, 2010 11:33AM)
May I ask the believers here, how much doubt they have that man is causing significant amounts of global warming? Or are you 100% sure?
Message: Posted by: Whit Haydn (Aug 9, 2010 11:54AM)
I am 97% sure.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Aug 9, 2010 02:23PM)
Whit

What is your 3% doubt based on?

:)
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 9, 2010 06:27PM)
Junk science.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Aug 9, 2010 06:43PM)
Just science you mean Dan his 97% sureness is based on junk. :)

I am 103% sure its a scam.

I am 97% sure Whit invented it.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Aug 9, 2010 07:02PM)
But if 90% of anything is junk...
Message: Posted by: tommy (Aug 9, 2010 07:19PM)
This con is better than the movie The Sting.

It’s a con within con within a con within con within con, within……..well its got more layers than an onion.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Aug 9, 2010 07:42PM)
It's an apple if you like red shiny things
It's an onion of you want layers of truth/meaning
It's a distraction plain and simple
Message: Posted by: Whit Haydn (Aug 9, 2010 08:02PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-09 15:23, tommy wrote:
Whit

What is your 3% doubt based on?

:)
[/quote]

The 3% of climate scientists who don't believe in global warming. I have to at least give some credence to their position. So I couldn't be 100% sure. I have read as much as I can of their positions, but seriously haven't found any of their critiques to hold up. I have found many of them to be obvious shills for the monopoilistic energy industries. Still, I think it is only fair to weigh their disbelief against people whose knowledge and dispassionate analysis I actually do trust.

I have actually read some books on the subject. I have some friends who are climatologists. I believe they are honest and sincere, knowledgeable, and have no profit motive for supporting and promoting the cause of fighting global warming.

I am only 97% sure that global warming is real, dangerous, and man-caused.

That is good enough for me.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 9, 2010 08:08PM)
I am 97% certain of few things.
Message: Posted by: Whit Haydn (Aug 9, 2010 08:11PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-09 21:08, Dannydoyle wrote:
I am 97% certain of few things.
[/quote]

You should be 97% certain about global warming. It will do a lot more damage to this country and people around the world than any of the possible cures.

from http://climateprogress.org/2010/07/13/climate-scientists-politico-urgent-need-to-act/

"How we as a society use what we have learned from climate science could define our generation.

Right now, our nation — and the world — are at a crossroads. Yet we seem stalled — despite an increasingly clear picture of what human-induced global warming is doing to our planet.

The scientific community — often working closely with governments — has produced numerous, carefully reviewed, international and national assessments of the scientific understanding behind climate change. The latest, “America’s Climate Choices,” recently released by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, states that “scientific evidence that the Earth is warming is now overwhelming.”

"U.S. National Academy of Sciences labels as “settled facts” that “the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities”

Their new report confirms failure to act poses "significant risks":

May 19, 2010

"A strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems….

"Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, [b]that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small.[/b]

Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities."
Message: Posted by: tommy (Aug 9, 2010 09:36PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-09 21:02, Whit Haydn wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-08-09 15:23, tommy wrote:
Whit

What is your 3% doubt based on?

:)
[/quote]

The 3% of climate scientists who don't believe in global warming. I have to at least give some credence to their position. So I couldn't be 100% sure. I have read as much as I can of their positions, but seriously haven't found any of their critiques to hold up. I have found many of them to be obvious shills for the monopoilistic energy industries. Still, I think it is only fair to weigh their disbelief against people whose knowledge and dispassionate analysis I actually do trust.

I have actually read some books on the subject. I have some friends who are climatologists. I believe they are honest and sincere, knowledgeable, and have no profit motive for supporting and promoting the cause of fighting global warming.

I am only 97% sure that global warming is real, dangerous, and man-caused.

That is good enough for me.
[/quote]



Whit

Do you know how sure each the 97% are that man is causing significant amounts of global warming?

I putt it to you that you would be hard pressed to find one genuine climate scientist that was as sure as 97% sure of it.

If I am correct, then you are more sure than your own experts.

One may be a climate scientist and believe man is the cause but be only 60% of it.

I can tell you that your experts are not that sure at all Whit based on the ones I heard speak lately.

How sure each one is varies of course.

The point I am tying to make to you is the believers scientist may be a lot more sceptical or less sure than you think.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 9, 2010 09:51PM)
Whit, sorry but those are not exactly impartial opinions.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Aug 9, 2010 10:28PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-09 10:52, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-07-31 12:32, landmark wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-07-31 11:40, Dennis Michael wrote:
One thing is certain...The world has change from the beginning of time and it will continue for many thousands of years.

[/quote]
If global warming were shown to be occurring significantly, but not largely man-made, should we take steps to try and change it?
[/quote]

No, because we have no business INTENTIONALLY changing a natural cycle. Besides periods of warmth have historically been shown to be benificial to mankind.
[/quote]
Interesting comment. Are you talking about the natural warming / cooling cycle of the earth in particular, or any natural cycle?

If it is the latter, who says we have no business intentionally changing a natural cycle?

Because we've been doing that for hundreds if not thousands of years. By diverting rivers and putting up dams, mankind has disrupted / changed countless natural flood cycles. Some of these might have been mistakes, but for the most part it is probably agreed that this has been a good thing.

With a little thought, I'm pretty sure we can come up with other natural cycles we've (beneficially) disrupted around the world.

The fear with global warming / global climate change is that this is not a change that is beneficial to us, but rather detrimental (i.e. in an overall sense - obviously there will be local winners and losers, as not all parts of the world would be affected equally or in the same manner).
Message: Posted by: balducci (Aug 9, 2010 10:36PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-08 02:40, MagicSanta wrote:

It's okay, now the companies that were in the US are in China and India etc putting out more pollutants and making inferior products but they are cool cuz they are helping poor countries like China. Oh, lets congratulate China on becoming the number one energy using country in the world! Poor third world guys.
[/quote]
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/china-starts-a-green-attack/article1666916/

Amid an ugly, sprawling stretch of razed land in this developing city rises a hulking new facility that represents the future of China’s steel industry.

The Shougang Jingtang United Steel Co. Ltd. mill ranks among the largest steel plants ever built in China and uses state-of-the-art technology that not only improves efficiency but keeps carbon emissions to a minimum.

The Caofeidian mill is just the kind of modern facility that China hopes will provide the steel needed to fulfill its massive infrastructure construction plans over the next decade. And for the country’s thousands of small, dirty and inefficient steel producers, the Caofeidian plant stands as a reminder that their days are numbered.

In a surprise move, China ordered more than 2,000 steel, cement and other energy-intensive factories be shut down by the end of September. The heavy-handed decree offers evidence that the central government is serious about abolishing its inefficient, power-hungry factories, despite the potential to hinder economic growth and create a backlash from powerful local officials.

The unprecedented order is aimed at reducing China’s energy consumption and its growing reliance on foreign oil as well as shifting its booming economy toward modern production methods that are less harmful to the environment.

...

James Miller, professor of Chinese religion and environment at Queen's University, said the tension between economic growth and environmental concerns have long been a major issue for Chinese policy makers.

“Closing down these factories is a sign that things have shifted in favour of the environment,” he said.

China has offered billions of dollars in incentives for companies to develop so-called green energy technologies such as wind and solar power. However, the country’s massive population of 1.3 billion people, rapid economic growth and rising industrialization have made achieving its ambitious environmental goals extremely difficult.

China managed to reduce energy intensity by 14.4 per cent by the end of 2009 from 2005 levels ...
Message: Posted by: tommy (Aug 9, 2010 10:45PM)
BEIJING: Despite China's pledges to improve energy efficiency, its carbon emissions could double by 2020 as compared with 2005 levels, surpassing limits seen as key to fighting global warming, experts say.


Read more: China emissions could double by 2020: Experts - China - World - The Times of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/china/China-emissions-could-double-by-2020-Experts/articleshow/5321352.cms#ixzz0wAfPjUJY


Another Onion layer?
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Aug 9, 2010 11:04PM)
I stand corrected, China is leading the universe in green while it is a good thing the evil manufacturing in the US is dead....
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 10, 2010 07:51AM)
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a2PHwqAs7BS0

http://greeneconomypost.com/debunk-spanish-study-green-jobs-1582.htm

That is what I love about the internet. One study says no, another says they are crazy YES!

http://www.cnsnews.com/Public/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=46453

Now these are about "green jobs" and what nonsense/savior like tools they are, depending on which you want to read.

People who believe in global warming and green jobs, like the second article, the non believers will use the other two. (there are more on each side, I simply posted these to illustrate the point)

So is the idea now to simply count the number of economists who agree with a particular position? Is that what science has become?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Aug 10, 2010 08:11AM)
I demand that you Americans pay our Phil Jones now!

Sir Alastair Muir Russell report is the now subject an enquiry by the USA Gov. The US Department of Energy peer review panel will now sift through the report to see if American taxpayers should continue to pay the unit the hundreds of thousands of dollars that they have been paying the Phil Jones den every year since 1990 but which was suspended a few months ago pending The US Department of Energy peer review panel enquiry into the matter.

Whats the matter our British inquiries not good enough for you Americans?

You don’t expect us to pay him do you?
Message: Posted by: Whit Haydn (Aug 10, 2010 12:31PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-10 08:51, Dannydoyle wrote:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a2PHwqAs7BS0

http://greeneconomypost.com/debunk-spanish-study-green-jobs-1582.htm

That is what I love about the internet. One study says no, another says they are crazy YES!

http://www.cnsnews.com/Public/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=46453

Now these are about "green jobs" and what nonsense/savior like tools they are, depending on which you want to read.

People who believe in global warming and green jobs, like the second article, the non believers will use the other two. (there are more on each side, I simply posted these to illustrate the point)

So is the idea now to simply count the number of economists who agree with a particular position? Is that what science has become?
[/quote]

Excuse me, Danny. The second report about the 2.2 job loss that you quoted is just a news report on the first by a right-wing "alternative to the liberal news."

I think the first story is pretty well knocked down by the response to it you cited:

"President Obama has framed part of his recovery plan around the creation of new jobs. He has used Spain and other European countries’ green jobs creation endeavors as inspiration (not necessarily models). However, a study , entitled “Study of the effects on employment of public aid to renewable energy sources,” by researchers at Spain’s King Juan Carlos University questions whether “green jobs” are worth the public investments. Lead author, Gabriel Calzada Alvarez, uses Spain’s investments in such jobs during the past decade as a case study to demonstrate that sustainable energy investment destroys jobs and the economy. I think there are numerous flaws in Calzada’s study. For one, he deviates from the traditional research peer-reviewed methodologies used to estimate jobs impacts, which tend to yield more accurate results.

In this update, we have Spain’s response to his claims, proof that his data was falsified, an explanation of how the renewable energy investment did not have the major negative impact on business that Calzada claims, that his analysis was too simplistic to be applied in any real world model, and what most economists believe is the cause of Spain’s high unemployment rate. I will also bring to light extremely relevant facts, that Calzada fails to mention or factor in to the study."

He then goes on to debunk the study thoroughly.
Message: Posted by: Payne (Aug 10, 2010 02:07PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-10 08:51, Dannydoyle wrote:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a2PHwqAs7BS0

[/quote]

You got to love that un biased reporting there Danny

I especially love this line

“Microsoft and Google moved their servers up to the Canadian border because they benefited from cheaper energy there,” said the professor of applied environmental economics."

The question is, what side of the border? I'll wager it's the stateside side. As if they'd actually moved them into Canada proper I have no doubt that they'd have taken no amount of glee in reporting it thusly. However they have phrased it to make it sound as if they have left the states in search of cheaper, less cap and tax encumbered energy costs.

Also it is highly amusing that an article attacking green energy jobs fails to mention that the reason the electricity there is cheaper is because it is created by the very green jobs they are rallying against. Cheap, renewable, hydro electricity.

Or do you simply blindly agree with the shaky conclusions of this poorly researched article because it reenforces your faith in your religion of denialism? :)
Message: Posted by: balducci (Aug 10, 2010 02:23PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-10 15:07, Payne wrote:

“Microsoft and Google moved their servers up to the Canadian border because they benefited from cheaper energy there,” said the professor of applied environmental economics."

The question is, what side of the border? I'll wager it's the stateside side.
[/quote]
You would probably be correct.

http://www.techvibes.com/blog/cheap-b.c.-hydro-power-attracting-major-data-centres-to-the-province

"The region’s main appeal to data centre operators is the cheap hydro power supplied by the Columbia River and its tributaries."

"Not far south of the border, Microsoft Corp., Google and Yahoo Inc. operate data centres near Columbia River-fed dams."

[ If they ever did move servers to Canada, it would probably be to take advantage of our cheaper and more efficient health care system. :) ]
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Aug 10, 2010 02:28PM)
[quote]On 2010-08-10 15:07, Payne wrote:
I'll wager it's the stateside side.[/quote]
That reminds me of a scene in [i]MASH[/i] (the TV series, not the movie), where Lt. Col. Henry Blake describes something as a real test of his [i]leadershipmanship[/i].

;)
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Aug 10, 2010 02:30PM)
[quote]On 2010-08-10 15:23, balducci wrote:
[If they ever did move servers to Canada, it would probably be to take advantage of our cheaper and more efficient health care system. :)][/quote]
Do servers require an unusually large amount of health care? I wouldn't have thought so.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 10, 2010 02:31PM)
There is a beautiful symmetry between the Gabriel Calzada report and much of the climate science noted above.

First, Caldaza et. al's report does not appear to be a peer-reviewed publication. Giving the draft a quick scan [url=http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf]here[/url] it isn't clear why this report exists or who paid for it. But the "Debunking" article is just an article on an internet newspaper; not much of big deal there. The credibility edge should go to the economists, but not by much.

So rather than picking sides in a race between losers, why not look deeper. What's in the data? Has anyone published supporting or critical analysis in a high quality peer-reviewed publication?

John
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 10, 2010 03:02PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-10 15:28, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On 2010-08-10 15:07, Payne wrote:
I'll wager it's the stateside side.[/quote]
That reminds me of a scene in [i]MASH[/i] (the TV series, not the movie), where Lt. Col. Henry Blake describes something as a real test of his [i]leadershipmanship[/i].

;)
[/quote]

Have you seen Nationwide Insurance's ad campaign that features "The World's Greatest Spokesperson in The World"?
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 10, 2010 03:39PM)
Here's one more bit on the Calzada report. The National Energy Renewal Laboratory published a (white paper) response to the report shortly after it came out in 2009. NERL is under the umbrella of the U.S. Department of energy. The full report is [url=http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy09osti/46261.pdf]here[/url].

The white paper concludes:

[quote]The recent report from King Juan Carlos University deviates from the traditional research methodologies used to estimate jobs impacts. In addition, it lacks transparency and supporting statistics, and fails to compare RE technologies with comparable energy industry metrics. It also fails to account for important issues such as the role of government in emerging markets, the success of RE exports in Spain, and the fact that induced economic impacts can be attributed to RE deployment. Finally, differences in policy are significant enough that the results of analysis conducted in the Spanish context are not likely to be indicative of workforce impacts in the United States or other countries.

Energy policy has always been a politically charged subject. And in today’s economy, where job creation is at a premium, questions pertaining to the impact of energy policy on employment magnify the sensitive nature of this debate. Measuring long-term economic and employment impacts is a complex task, sensitive to an array of unknowns, including future prices for both conventional fuel and
renewable energy. Because this work is highly sensitive to assumptions and the quality of research, it is critical that policy makers seriously evaluate the work presented to them; and even after careful scrutiny, place jobs estimates within the broader context of energy, the economy, the environment, and the future.[/quote]

Of course the usual disclaimers apply: I'm no economist.

John
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Aug 10, 2010 04:13PM)
[quote]On 2010-08-10 16:02, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Have you seen Nationwide Insurance's ad campaign that features "The World's Greatest Spokesperson in The World"?[/quote]
I just saw one on YouTube where he interviews a woman who says she's never had an accident, and he phones the office to see if there's anything they can do for her. I was half-expecting they'd send out a car to run into her car.

Someone's going to use that in a parody, mark my words.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Aug 10, 2010 04:16PM)
Gotta be cheaper.... I was born on the Columbia River! (not on it but in a town that it runs through).
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 11, 2010 08:40AM)
Whit, my exact point in posting those two things are the nature of the internet. One so certain with the science on their side, and then the exact opposite view so certain with the science debunked or on their side. That is the point I am making.

I was also making the point that we tend to agree with and post stuff and talk about what exactly we agree with. Which you proved pretty nicely. As did Payne.

I mean you guys proved EXACTLY what I was claiming! Thank you. I could post a story that a republican has found a cure for cancer, and you would post a story that champions the plight of unemployed lab rats, or how the common cold still ravages millions! At this point it your positions are no longer "scientific" in the least and are political inside out. That is exactly what is wrong with what is going on. People will do ANYTHING to put forth a political belief, including refusing to learn.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Aug 11, 2010 11:15AM)
It's really enlightening to have a veritable textbook of propaganda techniques on this very website. Kudos.
Message: Posted by: Whit Haydn (Aug 11, 2010 01:35PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-11 09:40, Dannydoyle wrote:
Whit, my exact point in posting those two things are the nature of the internet. One so certain with the science on their side, and then the exact opposite view so certain with the science debunked or on their side. That is the point I am making.

I was also making the point that we tend to agree with and post stuff and talk about what exactly we agree with. Which you proved pretty nicely. As did Payne.

I mean you guys proved EXACTLY what I was claiming! Thank you. I could post a story that a republican has found a cure for cancer, and you would post a story that champions the plight of unemployed lab rats, or how the common cold still ravages millions! At this point it your positions are no longer "scientific" in the least and are political inside out. That is exactly what is wrong with what is going on. People will do ANYTHING to put forth a political belief, including refusing to learn.
[/quote]

I am not just posting a contrarian expert. The documents are devastating to the report you cited. One needs to actually read the reports. You obviously feel that they are of equal value. I find that very dispiriting. If you think this is just about putting up experts, you will lose anyway. I can put up 97 guys to every three of yours. But it isn't just the weight of opinion. The reports you have cited have all proven to be junk.

I don't think you understand how to evaluate scientific articles.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 11, 2010 01:55PM)
Whit I PUT UP THE CONTRARY OPINION. ON PUROPOSE to show that things are simply the way that they are. As for 97 to 3 that is just a claim you can not possibly back up.

No biggie, I just like to show that each side uses propeganda machines, and each side falls for them.

When 97% of scientists thought the world was flat, was it? Yea tell me I am the one who does not know how to evaluate scientific claims. CONCENSUS IS NOT SCIENCE, never was.
Message: Posted by: Whit Haydn (Aug 11, 2010 03:18PM)
The article you submitted as evidence turns out to be:

1.Not peer reviewed
2.deviates from the traditional research methodologies used to estimate jobs impacts
3.data was falsified
4.the renewable energy investment did not have the major negative impact on business that Calzada claims
5.analysis was too simplistic to be applied in any real world model
6.Calzada fails to mention or factor in to the study extremely relevant facts and statistics
7.Fails to take into account what most economists believe to be the cause of Spain's high un-employment

It is not enough to take a study and show all the places it is quoted on the internet. When a study is criticized, you must come back with answers to the critique. Saying that my guy believes this, and your guy believes that, so it is a standoff is not a scientific approach. One must look at the evidence presented and try to see who has the strongest position. I don't just quote people who agree with me. I try to find reports that actually clarify, disprove or call into question the evidence and statements that are presented by the other side.

Scientific opinion on climate change is given by synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists. This does not include the views of individual scientists, individual universities, or laboratories, nor self-selected lists of individuals such as petitions.

No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 11, 2010 03:26PM)
Wow have you missed the point. Never mind. It is my fault, I am lacking in the communication skills necessary to make it. (seriously)
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 11, 2010 03:29PM)
Danny, you posted three links; two links accepted the Spanish study and one provided counterarguments. Several people have responded to these links. What could be more fair?

The simple fact that foolish people fall on two sides of a debate isn't very enlightening, surprising or interesting.

At the end of the day, the evidence will stand. Likely in ways that nobody can completely foresee right now.

John
Message: Posted by: Payne (Aug 11, 2010 03:34PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-11 14:55, Dannydoyle wrote:

CONCENSUS IS NOT SCIENCE

[/quote]

True, but there can be a Scientific Consensus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus
Which is why many people maintain a belief in anthropogenic climate change.
We believe in global warming not simply because a bunch of scientists say so. But because the scientists that say so have the data to support their claims.
But then this has been explained to you many, many times before and you still don't get it.
You keep failing to provide us with verifiable evidence that the consensus of these scientists is false
Message: Posted by: Whit Haydn (Aug 11, 2010 03:41PM)
Danny, here is a great layman's view of most of the arguments on both sides in a side by side chart:

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/climate-change-deniers-vs-the-consensus/

I highly recommend this to anyone who wants to get a better grip on the arguments raised by both sides. It is very clear, informative, and simple to read.


from wikipedia:

"According to the results of a one-time online questionnaire-based statistical survey published by the University of Illinois, with 3146 individuals completing the survey, 97% of the actively publishing climate scientists (as opposed to the scientists who are not publishing actively) (i.e. 75 of 77 individuals out of the 3146) agree that human activity, such as flue gas emissions from fossil fuel combustion and deforestation, is a significant contributing factor to global climate change. Overall, 82% reported agreeing with AGW. According to additional sources, the majority of scientists who work on climate change agree on the main points."
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Aug 11, 2010 04:01PM)
Believe me, if I get a job where I am getting paid by fighting global warming I'm going to swear before god and man that it exist!
Message: Posted by: Whit Haydn (Aug 11, 2010 04:15PM)
Well, scientists are usually more concerned with the quality of their papers and research than with the point of view they adopt.

The majority of climate scientists have little or no financial incentives to fudge their work, and their careers can easily be ruined by publishing shoddy research.

Their academic careers, and their jobs and reputations depend on the accuracy of their published work. Publishing anything in peer reviewed journals submits one's work to the criticism and judgment of every other climate scientist in the world.

To submit anything with errors, sloppy research or unsound conclusions could leave your job and reputation destroyed by devastating critiques like those from just the one paper cited above that was critical of the work of Gabriel Calzada Averez. His paper was not offered for peer review, but came to attention because it was promoted on Fox news.

And in academia, one must publish or perish, as they say.

Do you have any facts to show that there are more than a few climate scientists who would have a financial incentive to side with global warming?

Who do they work for?

What kind of advantage would acrue to them for supporting the science?

I believe there is much more money to be made by the handful of scientists who are willing to side with the multi-national corporations, world governments, local industries, and right wing think tanks against the science supporting global warming.

I suspect you will find that the majority of scientists willing to support the denier sides make much more money than any scientists on the majority. Look up the salaries before you make such statements.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 11, 2010 04:29PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-11 17:01, MagicSanta wrote:
Believe me, if I get a job where I am getting paid by fighting global warming I'm going to swear before god and man that it exist!
[/quote]

I used to work in the oil and gas industry; I was paid to do the opposite.

John
Message: Posted by: tommy (Aug 11, 2010 04:48PM)
"According to the results of a one-time online questionnaire-based statistical survey published by the University of Illinois, with 3146 individuals completing the survey, 97% of the actively publishing climate scientists (as opposed to the scientists who are not publishing actively) (i.e. 75 of 77 individuals out of the 3146) agree that human activity, such as flue gas emissions from fossil fuel combustion and deforestation, is a significant contributing factor to global climate change. Overall, 82% reported agreeing with AGW. According to additional sources, the majority of scientists who work on climate change agree on the main points."




Only approximately 5% of the respondents were Climate Scientists.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Aug 11, 2010 04:58PM)
Scientist are not anything more than educated employees and they tend to follow the company line. Companies don't pay guys to contradict them publicly and if a scientist is tasked with ways to reduce global warming they will come up with ideas the same way a scientist tasked with figuring out what living on Saturn would be like will do that. It doesn't matter that no one lives on Saturn or ever will the scientist will come up with all kinds of detail and even nice drawings if you want them...all unable to be validated.

My dad was a nuc engineer first with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and then with GE designing cooling systems for plants. He mentioned once that he could make money doing anti nuc lectures (he was a very good speaker) should GE let everyone go....he wasn't anti nuc power but if that was his job he could sure come up with an anti nuc stance. He never did, he retired and has a good time instead.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 11, 2010 05:00PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-11 17:48, tommy wrote:
"According to the results of a one-time online questionnaire-based statistical survey published by the University of Illinois, with 3146 individuals completing the survey, 97% of the actively publishing climate scientists (as opposed to the scientists who are not publishing actively) (i.e. 75 of 77 individuals out of the 3146) agree that human activity, such as flue gas emissions from fossil fuel combustion and deforestation, is a significant contributing factor to global climate change. Overall, 82% reported agreeing with AGW. According to additional sources, the majority of scientists who work on climate change agree on the main points."




Only approximately 5% of the respondents were Climate Scientists.
[/quote]

77/3146=0.024=2.4%

75/77=0.93=93%

Kinda obvious isn't it?
Message: Posted by: Whit Haydn (Aug 11, 2010 05:43PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-11 18:00, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-08-11 17:48, tommy wrote:
"According to the results of a one-time online questionnaire-based statistical survey published by the University of Illinois, with 3146 individuals completing the survey, 97% of the actively publishing climate scientists (as opposed to the scientists who are not publishing actively) (i.e. 75 of 77 individuals out of the 3146) agree that human activity, such as flue gas emissions from fossil fuel combustion and deforestation, is a significant contributing factor to global climate change. Overall, 82% reported agreeing with AGW. According to additional sources, the majority of scientists who work on climate change agree on the main points."




Only approximately 5% of the respondents were Climate Scientists.
[/quote]

77/3146=0.024=2.4%

75/77=0.93=93%

Kinda obvious isn't it?
[/quote]

I don't think the non-publishing scientists were counted--they are not the deniers being counted. They were not counted. 77 of the 3146 climate scientists were non-publishing. They were not counted. 97% of the 3067 climate scientists remaining who responded to the survey supported the basic ideas that global warming was real, dangerous, and was at least partially man-made.
Message: Posted by: BIGmagiclV (Aug 11, 2010 05:45PM)
I'm both amused and amazed that the people who deny the existence of man made climate change, regardless of the evidence, are the same people who have blind faith in a guy that can walk on water and rise from the dead. I have nothing against the latter. It's just interesting to me that they are the loudest in denouncing others beliefs.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Aug 11, 2010 05:48PM)
What does Chriss Angel have to do with this?
Message: Posted by: lebowski (Aug 11, 2010 05:50PM)
Angel likes to play the part of the man Bigmagiclv is refered to.
Message: Posted by: Whit Haydn (Aug 11, 2010 05:52PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-11 18:45, BIGmagiclV wrote:
I'm both amused and amazed that the people who deny the existence of man made climate change, regardless of the evidence, are the same people who have blind faith in a guy that can walk on water and rise from the dead. I have nothing against the latter. It's just interesting to me that they are the loudest in denouncing others beliefs.
[/quote]

That is a silly argument. I was an athiest and a Marxist until I was converted to Christianity in my senior year of college. I am a Christian--an Episcopalian. I believe that Climate Change is real, largely man-caused, and dangerous.

Here is an abstract of another study of published papers that comes up with a very similar percentage:

"Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers."

The entire paper can be found here:

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract

Danny, here I have presented two different peer-reviewed studies with two different methodologies. Both not only agree, but come up with identical results. Can you offer any statistics that challenge this? Why would you think I would cite a statistic that I "couldn't possibly prove?"
Message: Posted by: tommy (Aug 11, 2010 06:00PM)
Approximately 5% of the respondents were Climate Scientists. Said the survey. I am not sure what you and Wiki are saying John.



Oh Sorry looks like Whit has posted something else above.
Message: Posted by: Whit Haydn (Aug 11, 2010 06:09PM)
You are right on that, Tommy. I misread. It was 75 of 77 who were publishing climate scientists. I stand corrected. But the percentage of that report does reflect a similar percentage as in other studies.

I quoted a paper above by William R. L. Anderegg, James W. Prall, Jacob Harold and Stephen H. Schneider. Author Affiliations in order: Department of Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada, William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, Palo Alto, CA and Woods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University, Stanford, CA. Results were 97%.

I also quoted this survey above, which I did misread the numbers of climate scientists involved, from University of Illinois at Chicago:

A survey published in 2009 by Peter Doran and Maggie Zimmerman of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago of 3146 Earth Scientists found that more than 97% of specialists on the subject (i.e. "respondents who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change") agree that human activity is "a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures." 82% of ALL the Earth scientists participating also agreed with the 75 climate scientists. A summary from the survey states that:

“ It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes." The results were 97%.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 11, 2010 07:09PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-11 19:00, tommy wrote:
Approximately 5% of the respondents were Climate Scientists. Said the survey. I am not sure what you and Wiki are saying John.



Oh Sorry looks like Whit has posted something else above.
[/quote]

77 respondents were actively publishing climate scientists; they made up 2.4% of the sample.

Of the 77, 75 agreed with the statement; that is 97%.

John
Message: Posted by: Whit Haydn (Aug 11, 2010 07:22PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-11 20:09, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-08-11 19:00, tommy wrote:
Approximately 5% of the respondents were Climate Scientists. Said the survey. I am not sure what you and Wiki are saying John.



Oh Sorry looks like Whit has posted something else above.
[/quote]

77 respondents were actively publishing climate scientists; they made up 2.4% of the sample.

Of the 77, 75 agreed with the statement; that is 97%.

John
[/quote]

The rest were Earth Scientists, and 82% of all of them agreed with the 97% of the climatologists.
Message: Posted by: Josh Riel (Aug 11, 2010 07:27PM)
I can't understand why so many people seem to revel in black and white and can't ever seem to see any gray (Grey? Grey seems right to me).

I guess it's always better in a fight to see the other side as evil, otherwise you'd feel bad shooting them.

Now back to our exiting, polarized, passionate, yet purely logical (Oddly, mutually exclusive in any other situation) discussion of absolute, irrefutable fact.
Message: Posted by: Whit Haydn (Aug 11, 2010 07:38PM)
Heavens! I don't think it is all black and white. That would be an ideological position. I am only 97% on the white side.
Message: Posted by: Josh Riel (Aug 11, 2010 08:00PM)
I just read the whole thread for some bizarre reason, I imagined all the claw marks on several screens where folk were trying desperately to reach through and strangle each other.

Let's start another thread where we prove that Socialism in any form will destroy our otherwise pure capitalistic utopia!
Message: Posted by: landmark (Aug 11, 2010 08:26PM)
Welcome to the Internet, our motto is:
"You believe differently? I hate you. You are evil, stupid, your very existence is anathema to everyone everywhere. And you're grammer isn't good"
-----------
Or your spelling.

Good to have you back Josh. Now where's the other guy?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Aug 11, 2010 10:00PM)
Ozone Hole Reaches Record Size

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/vi…
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 11, 2010 10:07PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-11 23:00, tommy wrote:
Ozone Hole Reaches Record Size

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/vi…
[/quote]

The link leads nowhere...or is that the joke?
Message: Posted by: Josh Riel (Aug 11, 2010 10:09PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-11 21:26, landmark wrote:

-----------
Or your spelling.

Good to have you back Josh. Now where's the other guy?
[/quote]


Hay! mi speleen is gooder then yous is.
You'll all be sick of me soon enough, if not already.
What other guy? I thought I was the only relevant person in the whole world.

The ozone layer... what a giant gas hole. hahahahahahaha

On topic: My momma told me "Don't believe anything you hear and only half of what you see."
Message: Posted by: tommy (Aug 11, 2010 10:48PM)
Its alright now, looks like they have filled it with new freezers.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=7044
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 12, 2010 08:37AM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-11 21:00, Josh Riel wrote:
I just read the whole thread for some bizarre reason, I imagined all the claw marks on several screens where folk were trying desperately to reach through and strangle each other.

Let's start another thread where we prove that Socialism in any form will destroy our otherwise pure capitalistic utopia!
[/quote]

First we need to prove we have a "pure capitalistic utopia" or anything close.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 12, 2010 08:39AM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-11 18:52, Whit Haydn wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-08-11 18:45, BIGmagiclV wrote:
I'm both amused and amazed that the people who deny the existence of man made climate change, regardless of the evidence, are the same people who have blind faith in a guy that can walk on water and rise from the dead. I have nothing against the latter. It's just interesting to me that they are the loudest in denouncing others beliefs.
[/quote]

That is a silly argument. I was an athiest and a Marxist until I was converted to Christianity in my senior year of college. I am a Christian--an Episcopalian. I believe that Climate Change is real, largely man-caused, and dangerous.
[/quote]

Interesting how you converted to Christianity, but you have not said anything about what your stance on Marx is.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Aug 12, 2010 08:57AM)
Groucho Marx?

Weather it is I am against it.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 12, 2010 09:03AM)
I was a a Harpo Marxist myself.
Message: Posted by: Whit Haydn (Aug 12, 2010 12:47PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-12 09:39, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-08-11 18:52, Whit Haydn wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-08-11 18:45, BIGmagiclV wrote:
I'm both amused and amazed that the people who deny the existence of man made climate change, regardless of the evidence, are the same people who have blind faith in a guy that can walk on water and rise from the dead. I have nothing against the latter. It's just interesting to me that they are the loudest in denouncing others beliefs.
[/quote]

That is a silly argument. I was an athiest and a Marxist until I was converted to Christianity in my senior year of college. I am a Christian--an Episcopalian. I believe that Climate Change is real, largely man-caused, and dangerous.
[/quote]

Interesting how you converted to Christianity, but you have not said anything about what your stance on Marx is.
[/quote]

Well, Marxism is an atheistic philosophy. I no longer consider myself a Marxist.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 12, 2010 03:21PM)
Laws of matter and all.

Tough to get those ideas totally ou though huh?
Message: Posted by: Whit Haydn (Aug 12, 2010 03:53PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-12 16:21, Dannydoyle wrote:
Laws of matter and all.

Tough to get those ideas totally ou though huh?
[/quote]

I am sure there is an awful lot of distance between our understandings of economics and politics, and certainly on religion as well.

I am sure I am very to the left of you. But I pray for you and all my friends in mental darkness on a regular basis... ;)
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Aug 12, 2010 04:12PM)
In keeping with the theme of science I am switching over to the 'global warming is man caused'. Now I don't believe this but all my future post will be to state that position of being on the pro side.

Global Warming is clearly caused by our greed and desire of cheap products and using materials that are not natural that produce pollutants. Companies have to be responsible for their crimes against the planet and the consumer, all of us, have to pay our part with higher prices because it was our wanting lower prices that caused these issues. Anyone who has seen a factory or a busy highway and cannot see that we have destoyed the air and overcome the present plant populations ability to filter out carbons is blind!

So leave mother earth alone! Don't you see she is sick? She comes back and people call her fat and say bad things about her, leave earth alone! She can't take it, there is something wrong with her! If you have an issue with earth then you have an issue with me, come after me and leave earth alone!
Message: Posted by: Payne (Aug 12, 2010 05:35PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-12 17:12, MagicSanta wrote:
In keeping with the theme of science I am switching over to the 'global warming is man caused'. Now I don't believe this but all my future post will be to state that position of being on the pro side.

Global Warming is clearly caused by our greed and desire of cheap products and using materials that are not natural that produce pollutants. Companies have to be responsible for their crimes against the planet and the consumer, all of us, have to pay our part with higher prices because it was our wanting lower prices that caused these issues. Anyone who has seen a factory or a busy highway and cannot see that we have destoyed the air and overcome the present plant populations ability to filter out carbons is blind!

So leave mother earth alone! Don't you see she is sick? She comes back and people call her fat and say bad things about her, leave earth alone! She can't take it, there is something wrong with her! If you have an issue with earth then you have an issue with me, come after me and leave earth alone!
[/quote]

So you're still off your meds eh?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Aug 12, 2010 05:37PM)
:)

This is a good book:

The Confidence-Man: His Masquerade was the last major novel by Herman Melville, the American writer and author of Moby-Dick. Published on April 1, 1857

The novel's title refers to its central character, an ambiguous figure who sneaks aboard a Mississippi steamboat on April Fool's Day. This stranger attempts to test the confidence of the passengers, whose varied reactions constitute the bulk of the text. In this work Melville is at his best illustrating the human masquerade. Each person including the reader is forced to confront that in which he places his trust.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Aug 12, 2010 05:57PM)
I'm back on 'em! My wife just spoke to me and I didn't want to strangle her...good sign! I feel a lot better.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 12, 2010 06:11PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-12 16:53, Whit Haydn wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-08-12 16:21, Dannydoyle wrote:
Laws of matter and all.

Tough to get those ideas totally ou though huh?
[/quote]

I am sure there is an awful lot of distance between our understandings of economics and politics, and certainly on religion as well.

I am sure I am very to the left of you. But I pray for you and all my friends in mental darkness on a regular basis... ;)
[/quote]

I think you would be shocked at my understanding of religion actually. Politics is simply opinion, and economics well the proof is there. No spin just look at it. Not quite as tough as some like to make it, or as twisted as some need it to be to prove the point.

I was just curious if some of those Marxist tendencies are still alive within you or if you only stopped with your understanding of religion for conversion. I find it facinating someone with the confidence of charector to convert to ANYTHING. I don't care if you convert to what I agree with, that sort of clarity is cool.
Message: Posted by: Whit Haydn (Aug 12, 2010 06:23PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-12 19:11, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-08-12 16:53, Whit Haydn wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-08-12 16:21, Dannydoyle wrote:
Laws of matter and all.

Tough to get those ideas totally ou though huh?
[/quote]

I am sure there is an awful lot of distance between our understandings of economics and politics, and certainly on religion as well.

I am sure I am very to the left of you. But I pray for you and all my friends in mental darkness on a regular basis... ;)
[/quote]

I think you would be shocked at my understanding of religion actually. Politics is simply opinion, and economics well the proof is there. No spin just look at it. Not quite as tough as some like to make it, or as twisted as some need it to be to prove the point.

I was just curious if some of those Marxist tendencies are still alive within you or if you only stopped with your understanding of religion for conversion. I find it facinating someone with the confidence of charector to convert to ANYTHING. I don't care if you convert to what I agree with, that sort of clarity is cool.
[/quote]

"Marxist tendencies?" That's a bit insulting to my mind.

I don't think of philosophical positions as character flaws or moral failings.

I still believe that there is a lot of accuracy to Marx's analysis of 19th century capitalism. I reject his utopianism and athiesm. I believe that he failed to forsee the rise of unionism, and the capitalist response of social welfare programs and union protections to the threat of socialist revolution. Twentieth Century capitalism proved remarkably more flexible than Marx predicted, and the dialectic went in a different direction than he could have imagined. I also think that his view of man as a [i]tabula rasa[/i] completely molded by environment is wrong, and that his optimism on the nature of man unfounded.

Have you read Das Kapital, Danny? I will be happy to discuss it with you anytime.

I will change my opinion whenever I find the evidence compelling. I don't understand people who just use their gut instincts and personal feelings to come to political, philosophical and religious points of view. I certainly don't agree with you that politics and economics are "just" opinions. I think opinions should be made with more than just a whim.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 13, 2010 08:02AM)
Oh no please do not take that as an insult. Hey even if someone is Marxist, if I disagree with it there is NO insult involved. I think of it as a failed philisophy but again, that is an opinion. It is not meant to be an insult.

Heck you can make a logical arguement that "capitalism" (which I think is a Marxist term much like "middle class") is also pretty well failed as well.

The problem I see, and was trying to illustrate is that politics, and thus economics and now religion has been courrupted and are ALL just done on a whim. Each side gets the propeganda machines going and before you know it they have people reacting in anger, and thus blind. This is why when almost ANY president gets in office they have people who are regretting the vote, because more than voting FOR someone, they voted AGAINST another.

Heck the candidates themeselvs run on it. ("Do you want 4 more years of the failed Bush policies?") People fall for it emotionally, or on a whim, and they never really vote their true beliefs. I am afraid that a HUGE portion of our society does this.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Aug 13, 2010 10:30AM)
Proceedings of the First International Conference on

Economic De-Growth for Ecological Sustainability and Social Equity

Paris, 18-19 April 2008

http://events.it-sudparis.eu/degrowthconference/appel/Degrowth%20Conference%20-%20Proceedings.pdf


“Economic De-Growth” what do the believers think that means? The opposite of what it says perhaps?

“Social Equity” where does that come from? Could it have come out of Marxism by any chance?
Message: Posted by: Steve_Mollett (Aug 13, 2010 07:03PM)
Tiger gotta hunt;
Bird gotta fly;
Man gotta ask himself, "Why-why-why?"

Tiger gotta sleep;
Bird gotta land;
Man gotta tell himself, "I understand."
Message: Posted by: tommy (Aug 13, 2010 08:50PM)
Red pill medication time!

Carbon Currency Foundation is a non governmental and non profit organization (ONG), working for a future you can plane in the 5 continents, for the preservation of the raiforests and the equatorial evergreen forests. At every stage the Carbon Currency Foundation will work with local people, partners and its donors. Nothing - absolutely nothing - would be possible without them.



Global carbon currency replacing all paper currencies, limiting manufacturing, food production and people movement
Carbon Currency: A New Beginning for Technocracy?
By Patrick Wood for CFP Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Critics who think that the U.S. dollar will be replaced by some new global currency are perhaps thinking too small. On the world horizon looms a new global currency that could replace all paper currencies and the economic system upon which they are based. The new currency, simply called Carbon Currency, is designed to support a revolutionary new economic system based on energy (production, and consumption), instead of price. Our current price-based economic system and its related currencies that have supported capitalism, socialism, fascism and communism, is being herded to the slaughterhouse in order to make way for a new carbon-based world.

It is plainly evident that the world is laboring under a dying system of price-based economics as evidenced by the rapid decline of paper currencies. The era of fiat (irredeemable paper currency) was introduced in 1971 when President Richard Nixon decoupled the U.S. dollar from gold. Because the dollar-turned-fiat was the world’s primary reserve asset, all other currencies eventually followed suit, leaving us today with a global sea of paper that is increasingly undesired, unstable, unusable.
The deathly economic state of today’s world is a direct reflection of the sum of its sick and dying currencies, but this could soon change.
Forces are already at work to position a new Carbon Currency as the ultimate solution to global calls for poverty reduction, population control, environmental control, global warming, energy allocation and blanket distribution of economic wealth.
Unfortunately for individual people living in this new system, it will also require authoritarian and centralized control over all aspects of life, from cradle to grave.

http://www.carboncurrencyfoundation.org/articles/carbon-currency-a-new-beginning-for-technocracy.html
Message: Posted by: Woland (Aug 14, 2010 09:50PM)
If anyone is interested in considering the role of statistical analysis in the models of climate history that have been bandied about in the anthropogenic global warming debate, a paper will be published in the Annals of Applied Statistics this fall, but is available now, here: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/mcshane-and-wyner-2010.pdf

The authors, from Northwestern and the University of Pennsylvania, note first of all that the climatologists have generally not collaborated with university-level statisticians; that when modern statistical methods are applied, evidence for the "hockey stick" is lacking in the data; and that the climatologists significantly underestimate the uncertainty in their models.

A major problem from the statistical point of view is that the "response and predictor variables are both strongly autocorrelated." Hence "time dependence in the temperature series is sufficiently strong to permit complex sequences of random numbers to forecast out-of-sample reasonably well fairly frequently" -- this means that the climatologists constructed their models so that even using them to analyze random numbers yield the result of threatening global warming.

To reiterate my criticisms of the global warming models, (1) the data are too sparse and too poor in quality to justify the sweeping conclusions of the enthusiasts, and (2) the statistical models that the climatologists employ are seriously flawed. The evidence is just not good enough to justify up-ending every industrial economy in the world.

Woland
Message: Posted by: balducci (Aug 14, 2010 10:39PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-14 22:50, Woland wrote:

If anyone is interested in considering the role of statistical analysis in the models of climate history that have been bandied about in the anthropogenic global warming debate, a paper will be published in the Annals of Applied Statistics this fall, but is available now, here: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/mcshane-and-wyner-2010.pdf
[/quote]
Are you sure it is accepted for publication? The article itself says only that it was SUBMITTED to the Annals of Applied Statistics. McShanes's CV says the same thing, i.e., the paper is submitted not accepted.

[quote]
On 2010-08-14 22:50, Woland wrote:

The authors, from Northwestern and the University of Pennsylvania, note first of all that the climatologists have generally not collaborated with university-level statisticians; that when modern statistical methods are applied, evidence for the "hockey stick" is lacking in the data; and that the climatologists significantly underestimate the uncertainty in their models.
[/quote]
I have not read the entire paper, but from what I've read in the conclusions what you said is not quite true. Well, it might be, it depends what you mean by the hockey stick model. They say that evidence for the "long-handled" hockey stick going back to 1000 AD is lacking in the data (but this seems to be a statement that only applies to the models they tried ... I'll have to read the entire paper to be sure about what they actually did). HOWEVER, just to be clear, they are not claiming that the temperature in recent decades has not been rising nor anything like that.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Aug 14, 2010 10:45PM)
Where are we in cycle of ice ages?
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 14, 2010 10:46PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-14 23:39, balducci wrote:

Are you sure it is accepted for publication? The article itself says only that it was SUBMITTED to the Annals of Applied Statistics. McShanes's CV says the same thing, i.e., the paper is submitted not accepted.

[/quote]

Looks as though it has been accepted and is in the [url=http://www.imstat.org/aoas/next_issue.html]queue[/url] for publication.

That said, the conclusion section is pretty modest. I'm looking forward to what you have to say about the full content of the paper.

John
Message: Posted by: tommy (Aug 15, 2010 06:25AM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-14 23:45, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
Where are we in cycle of ice ages?
[/quote]

I note that this excellent question is met with a deafening silence. Over to you Whit, John, Payne.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 15, 2010 08:04AM)
Do they account for water vapor yet?
Message: Posted by: Woland (Aug 15, 2010 08:24AM)
John,

Yes, the conclusions of the statistical paper are suitably modest. But that's all they have to be, to undermine if not refute the decidedly un-modest conclusions of those who use the CRU models to advocate the sweeping changes that would up-end industrial civilization.

balducci,

The most devastating finding in the paper is not that the "long hockey stick model" doesn't hold, but that even in-putting random numbers into the climate models produces the "hockey stick" effect.

Whether or not the current decade or two is warmer than other 10- or 20-year periods in the earth's recent history is not really the issue that is controversial here: it is whether the current warm period is the result of industrial activity, whether it portends continued warming, and whether that additional warming, if it occurs, will have catastrophic consequences.

This statistical paper contributes to the refutation of that chain of consequences by showing that the statistical models used by the CRU and other anthropogenic global warming enthusiasts are inherently flawed.

I continue to think that (1) there is no evidence that the current warm period is any warmer than previous warm periods whose warmth was certainly not caused by industrial activity; (2) the simple correlation between climate around the world and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is far from proven; (3) the statistical models used to predict coming catastrophic climate events are inherently flawed; and of course (4) the data which the models used is sparse, incomplete, and often of dubious value.

Climatology in its present condition is very interesting and suitable for academic discussion, but hardly robust enough to support any drastic changes in economic policies.

Woland
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Aug 15, 2010 02:51PM)
I'm keeping notes, is CV now the new hip way of saying resume?
Message: Posted by: balducci (Aug 15, 2010 03:32PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-15 15:51, MagicSanta wrote:
I'm keeping notes, is CV now the new hip way of saying resume?
[/quote]
No. A CV (curriculum vitae) is somewhat different than a resume.

http://jobsearch.about.com/cs/curriculumvitae/f/cvresume.htm
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Aug 15, 2010 04:28PM)
I looked it up and CV is a different form it seems that if you as for examples you are sent to same sites as the resume....thus it's usage, like so often happens today, seems to have changed. I noted that in another thread a member who's experience is, to say the least, limited had their resume refered to as a CV and certainly a CV wouldn't be required for that individual.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 15, 2010 05:20PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-14 22:50, Woland wrote:
If anyone is interested in considering the role of statistical analysis in the models of climate history that have been bandied about in the anthropogenic global warming debate, a paper will be published in the Annals of Applied Statistics this fall, but is available now, here: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/mcshane-and-wyner-2010.pdf

The authors, from Northwestern and the University of Pennsylvania, note first of all that the climatologists have generally not collaborated with university-level statisticians; that when modern statistical methods are applied, evidence for the "hockey stick" is lacking in the data; and that the climatologists significantly underestimate the uncertainty in their models.

A major problem from the statistical point of view is that the "response and predictor variables are both strongly autocorrelated." Hence "time dependence in the temperature series is sufficiently strong to permit complex sequences of random numbers to forecast out-of-sample reasonably well fairly frequently" -- this means that the climatologists constructed their models so that even using them to analyze random numbers yield the result of threatening global warming.

To reiterate my criticisms of the global warming models, (1) the data are too sparse and too poor in quality to justify the sweeping conclusions of the enthusiasts, and (2) the statistical models that the climatologists employ are seriously flawed. The evidence is just not good enough to justify up-ending every industrial economy in the world.

Woland
[/quote]

Take that all of you said that the models were skewed, that the math didn't make sense. What do you have to say for yourself now? (read as sarcasam)
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Aug 15, 2010 05:45PM)
This almost brings back fond memories of past discussion threads with psychic samurai when I could get posts deleted or locked for saying things like, mmmmmmm, hockey stick!
Message: Posted by: tommy (Aug 15, 2010 07:09PM)
David Wright Miliband (born 15 July 1965) is a British Labour Party politician, who has been the Member of Parliament (MP) for South Shields since 2001, the Shadow Foreign Secretary since 2010 and was the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs from 2007 to 2010. He is the son of the late Marxist theorist Ralph Miliband.

The next British Prime Minister
http://www.davidmiliband.net/

Miliband plans carbon trading 'credit cards' for everyone


Every citizen would be issued with a carbon "credit card" - to be swiped every time they bought petrol, paid an energy utility bill or booked an airline ticket - under a nationwide carbon rationing scheme that could come into operation within five years, according to a feasibility study commissioned by the environment secretary, David Miliband, and published today.
In an interview with the Guardian Mr Miliband said the idea of individual carbon allowances had "a simplicity and beauty that would reward carbon thrift".
He acknowledged the proposal faced technical difficulties, but said ministers needed to seek ways of overcoming them.

The idea was floated in a speech in the summer, but the detailed proposals show Mr Miliband is serious about trying to press ahead with the radical idea as a central part of his climate change strategy.

Under the scheme, everybody would be given an annual allowance of the carbon they could expend on a range of products, probably food, energy and travel. If they wanted to use more carbon, they would be able to buy it from somebody else. And they could sell any surplus.
The study was prepared by the Centre for Sustainable Energy for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. It argues that firms like Tesco have shown that complex computer schemes logging billions of transactions are feasible. "Tesco Clubcard is collecting, storing and analysing some 50bn pieces of data a year," it says.
The study also claims that individual carbon trading is less regressive than carbon taxes, as the poor emit less than the rich. Instead of flat "green" taxes it proposes a hybrid system using permits and taxes, with the permits possibly issued, tracked and traded through the existing banking system using pin and chip technology. Carbon allowances could be treated as bank accounts.
The report admits huge questions would have to be resolved, including the risk of fraud, the relationship to ID cards, and costs. However Mr Miliband said "bold thinking is required because the world is in a dangerous place".
He said: "It is a way of pricing carbon emissions into individual behaviour and it would recognise carbon thrift, as well as economic thrift. Twenty years ago if I had said 8 million people would have a Tesco loyalty card, no one would have believed me." The scheme will be discussed at a special cabinet committee on the future role of the state convened for today.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2006/dec/11/uk.greenpolitics
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Aug 15, 2010 07:10PM)
Some I sense scurry around trying to find ways to prove the accuracy while the rest of us just shake our heads sadly...with just a tad bit of amusement.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Aug 15, 2010 07:26PM)
Santa you are already a victim of this con.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Aug 15, 2010 07:28PM)
I pretty much ignore it but yes I am a victim.....and it makes me disgruntled...yet adorable.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Aug 15, 2010 07:32PM)
Tommy,

It is evident that the elites want to control every moment of our lives. How did the song go?

(If you drive a car ), I’ll tax the street,
(If you try to sit ), I’ll tax your seat,
(If you get too cold ), I’ll tax the heat,
(If you take a walk ), I’ll tax your feet.

I don't think even Eric Blair could have imagined a totalitarianism as complete as the one planned by David Milliband.

Woland
Message: Posted by: tommy (Aug 15, 2010 07:34PM)
:)

It is an amusement if you find being out of work on rations an amusement.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Aug 15, 2010 07:35PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-14 23:46, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-08-14 23:39, balducci wrote:

Are you sure it is accepted for publication? The article itself says only that it was SUBMITTED to the Annals of Applied Statistics. McShanes's CV says the same thing, i.e., the paper is submitted not accepted.

[/quote]

Looks as though it has been accepted and is in the [url=http://www.imstat.org/aoas/next_issue.html]queue[/url] for publication.

That said, the conclusion section is pretty modest. I'm looking forward to what you have to say about the full content of the paper.

John
[/quote]
Yep, you're right. It is accepted.

I still have not read the paper, but one thing I noticed while glancing through was that it makes use of the lasso in certain parts. The lasso is a relatively new statistical methodology. It was only developed in the mid-1990s, and is still not a part of most undergraduate courses / programs in statistics. Which is just to say that many people (and the vast majority of non-statisticians) reading the paper won't have a sufficient background in the methodologies involved in order to really understand or evaluate it.

One criticism of their methodology, taken off the web, is as follows:

---
"They give absolutely no reasons to suppose that the Lasso — a method that makes _very_strong_ implicit assumptions about the data — is in any way appropriate for this problem.

The Lasso _is_ appropriate in certain cases where you believe that only a small subset of your variables are relevant. To use it as a substitute for any data reduction with 1200 variables and 119 data points, when _all_ the temperature proxy series are presumed to be relevant to some degree, and all are thought to be noisy, is simply stupid.

Not surprisingly, they find they can’t predict anything at all using the Lasso. (It is a completely inappropriate technique for the problem.)"
---

I am not an expert in the lasso (although as it happens I know the statistician who developed it and I'm pretty sure I heard him lecture about it when I was at the U of Toronto), but the above statement does make some sense to me. Note, the original lasso paper included several examples with 50 observations and 1 predictor variable, and another with 100 observations and 40 predictor variables. Again, in comparison, McShane and Wyner's paper has 119 observations and 1200 predictor variables. Look at how the number of predictor variables is many times larger than the number of observations in this last case. To be honest, I'm not sure whether this is more than the lasso can handle or not. But it is something worth looking into.

In a 2009 paper appearing in the Annals of Statistics, "Lasso-type recovery of sparse representations for high-dimensional data" by Nicolai Meinshausen and Bin Yu, the authors note:

"The Lasso is an attractive technique for regularization and variable selection for high-dimensional data, where the number of predictor variables pn is potentially much larger than the number of samples n. However, it was recently discovered that the sparsity pattern of the Lasso estimator can only be asymptotically identical to the true sparsity pattern if the design matrix satisfies the so-called irrepresentable condition. The latter condition can easily be violated in the presence of highly correlated variables."

So highly correlated variables can be a problem for the lasso, and that certainly DOES appear to be the case in the paper by McShane and Wyner.

According to a post apparently made by Abraham Wyner on the web:

---
Abaraham Wyner
Posted Aug 14, 2010 at 8:34 PM |Permalink |Reply

Thanks for the welcome response. For the record, Blakely just graduated with a Phd in Statistics under my supervision from the University of Pennsylvania (not Penn State!).

The paper has been accepted, but publication is still a bit into the future as it is likely to be accompanied by invited discussants and comment. Stay tuned…
---

I look forward to that discussion, which is likely include one or more statisticians addressing their use of the lasso, and which is also almost certainly to be far more informative and meaningful than anything found here. :)
Message: Posted by: tommy (Aug 15, 2010 08:00PM)
Dr. Denis Rancourt, a former professor and environmental science researcher at the University of Ottawa, has officially bailed out of the man-made global warming movement.

In a hard-hitting and exclusive new exclusive video just released by Climate Depot, Dr. Rancourt declares that the entire man-made global warming movement is nothing more than a “corrupt social phenomenon.” “It is as much psychological and social phenomenon as anything else,” Rancourt, who has published peer-reviewed research, explained in a June 8, 2010 essay.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Aug 15, 2010 08:08PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-15 21:00, tommy wrote:

Dr. Denis Rancourt, a former professor and environmental science researcher at the University of Ottawa, has officially bailed out of the man-made global warming movement.
[/quote]
And why is he a 'former' professor? Interested parties can look into that for themselves.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Aug 15, 2010 08:49PM)
Shoot the messenger!
Message: Posted by: balducci (Aug 15, 2010 08:52PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-15 21:49, tommy wrote:
Shoot the messenger!
[/quote]
Don't shoot him. But if you are citing him as an expert, you should know something about him first. Do that and, for all I know, he may be all that more credible in your eyes.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Aug 15, 2010 09:00PM)
Maybe you should attack the mans evidence and not the man.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 15, 2010 09:08PM)
Tommy, the only support you gave him was his status as a former professor. Maybe you should read his paper and support the evidence, and not the man.

John
Message: Posted by: tommy (Aug 15, 2010 09:10PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-14 23:45, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
Where are we in cycle of ice ages?
[/quote]
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Aug 15, 2010 09:20PM)
Ice ages are caused by global warming....
Message: Posted by: tommy (Aug 15, 2010 09:23PM)
John

Maybe his essay speaks for itself and maybe you should read it and attack his evidence if you don’t agree. Its his evidence not mine. Google is your friend.

Don't see your answer to jon yet?
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 15, 2010 09:52PM)
Good try, Tommy, but a failure. You brought him into the conversation. The onus is not on me to do your reading for you.

Did Jon ask me a question?

John
Message: Posted by: tommy (Aug 15, 2010 09:57PM)
Yes

We shale take your silence connotes agreement, that we are in between ice ages, that the planet is recovering from the little ice age so perhaps warming, that it’s a certain fact that the planet will go into another ice age at some time in the future and thus it’s simply a natural cycle we are going through and manmade climate is a con. Thank you.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 15, 2010 10:07PM)
Tommy since you know so much more than the rest of us, perhaps you can explain Mcshane and Wyner's use of the "lasso" technique. Why is or isn't it appropriate to the phenomenon they were trying to describe.

Heck you have all the answers; this one should be easy for you. Maybe you'll find it on youtube.

John
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Aug 15, 2010 10:08PM)
Can't you all get along?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Aug 15, 2010 10:17PM)
Do not hold your wrist stiffly, but allow it to move easily as you swing the noose over your head.
Message: Posted by: Payne (Aug 15, 2010 10:34PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-15 22:57, tommy wrote:
Yes

We shale take your silence connotes agreement, that we are in between ice ages, that the planet is recovering from the little ice age so perhaps warming, that it’s a certain fact that the planet will go into another ice age at some time in the future and thus it’s simply a natural cycle we are going through and manmade climate is a con. Thank you.
[/quote]

And pray tell what is the force behind this "Natural Cycle"?

There must be a cause. It just doesn't happen because it's a "Natural Cycle". All warming and cooling trends in the past have had a cause. changes in solar output. Alterations in the earths orbit or rotation. Changes in ocean current or continental configurations. Increase or decrease in plant life. So what is the change that is causing our current warming trend? What is the natural force behind it?
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Aug 15, 2010 10:54PM)
Really Tommy. You should know that the beauty of this planet, if it is indeed a planet, is the way that weather and the earth itself has always maintained an even keel, so to speak. Weather has never, ever...EVER, shown a flunctuation, in fact when I think of weather the first and only word that crosses my mind is stability. Earth doesn't MAKE (notice that use of caps? I learned that from marketing gurus) pollution, only MAN makes pollution, let me clarify, only Western man makes pollution. If not for humans it would be PERFECT in every way. There are only three ways to get the earth back to its stable self:

1. Move all manufacturing to Asia or Europe.
2. Eliminate all energy sources. We can't do the entire world so we will start with the area between, say, The Bahamas and Catalina Island from East to West and, uhhhhh, lets say Canada and Mexico from North to South, just as an experiment.
3. Follow the loving and enviromental philosophy of:

Green
Enviromental
Nations
Observing
Clean
Industries
Devoted to
Everyone

Get it together people!
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 15, 2010 10:58PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-15 20:35, balducci wrote:



One criticism of their methodology, taken off the web, is as follows:

---
"They give absolutely no reasons to suppose that the Lasso — a method that makes _very_strong_ implicit assumptions about the data — is in any way appropriate for this problem.

The Lasso _is_ appropriate in certain cases where you believe that only a small subset of your variables are relevant. To use it as a substitute for any data reduction with 1200 variables and 119 data points, when _all_ the temperature proxy series are presumed to be relevant to some degree, and all are thought to be noisy, is simply stupid.

Not surprisingly, they find they can’t predict anything at all using the Lasso. (It is a completely inappropriate technique for the problem.)"
---

[/quote]

Thanks. Do you have a link for this? I might as well see if I can learn something.

John
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Aug 15, 2010 11:04PM)
Yeah, those stats are kinda like blasphemy....
Message: Posted by: balducci (Aug 15, 2010 11:14PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-15 23:58, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:

Thanks. Do you have a link for this? I might as well see if I can learn something.
[/quote]
See the ongoing discussion in the comments here:

http://climateaudit.org/2010/08/14/mcshane-and-wyner-2010/

But it is pretty clear that most of the people there don't even know what the "lasso" is.

If you want to read something technical about the lasso, you can try:

http://www-stat.stanford.edu/~tibs/lasso.html
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Aug 15, 2010 11:39PM)
For those who never studied statistics here is the appropriate response to the two types found on this subject:

1. "This statistic shows that global warming is not only worse than we thought but that it is absolutely produced by the industrialization of Western society!"

Response: "My gawd! The method of obtaining that amazingly accurate data is without question! It should be accepted by all that see it..."

2. "This statstic shows that the global warming is not established beyond what seems to be an expected flunctuation of weather that is, presently, minimal and not expecting to destroy the universe"

Response "My gawd! Those liars have not only inaccurate data their methods are completely bogus!"


Got it? Now go and live it....
Message: Posted by: tommy (Aug 16, 2010 12:03AM)
[quote]

And pray tell what is the force behind this "Natural Cycle"?

There must be a cause. It just doesn't happen because it's a "Natural Cycle". All warming and cooling trends in the past have had a cause. changes in solar output. Alterations in the earths orbit or rotation. Changes in ocean current or continental configurations. Increase or decrease in plant life. So what is the change that is causing our current warming trend? What is the natural force behind it?
[/quote]

When the planet comes out of any ice age it has been in in the past it warms for a long time after. Man did not cause the planet to warm as it recovered from any other ice age that the planet has been in. Do you think the Egyptians built the pyramids in the ice age and that caused the planet to warm? Do you see that big yellow thing in the sky? Maybe its that.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Aug 16, 2010 12:05AM)
Are you refering to that giant ball of pollution? Well? Prove it isn't!
Message: Posted by: tommy (Aug 16, 2010 12:12AM)
Sun, now we can no longer afford to ignore this.
Message: Posted by: Payne (Aug 16, 2010 12:27AM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-16 01:03, tommy wrote:

Do you see that big yellow thing in the sky? Maybe its that.

[/quote]

And you have evidence of increased solar output or a divergence in the tilt or orbit of the earth that might cause an increase in our absorption of solar radiation?

Once again Tommy I will ask you. What is the mechanism behind the warming trend we are currently experiencing? What evidence do you have to support your claim. Just saying the earth is getting warmer because that's what it does between ice ages is not an answer. Even a "Natural Cycle" has an explanation and a reason for its occurrence.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Aug 16, 2010 01:05AM)
Payne, I've always credited you with a bit more than average sense. Are you stating that you believe that the overall average temp increase of the world is solely caused by humans and that there is no indication that the earth has ever gone through a warming or cooling period which can be attributed to natural effects such as tides, tilt, or just that's the way it goes when one deals with billions of years of history? You can keep asking why until you run out of answers, that is easy. Hurricanes originate from hot air in the Sahara. Why is that hot air causing hurricanes while others are not? Why is there hot air that is different? Eventually the answer is "%@$# happens".

Did the earth warm up over the period that accurate temps can be taken? Yes, by a bit more than 1 degree over the last 100 years or so. Of course this isn't a worldwide event now is it? Some regions are cooler, some dryer, some rainier, some warmer...rather than acknowledge that lets just point our boney fingers at Global Warming. So, being a rational person who can recognize fairly accurate measurements can admit the temp over the last century is, overall as an average, higher. The assumption is that any event during the last century that did not occur previously in history is the culprit. So it MUST be caused by the increase on pollutants during the first, say, almost 2/3rd of the century, brought on by the major changes in industry, transportation, and energy. There! It is easy! Hey, the temp could have gone up two degrees in the 19th century but who knows? Accuracy wasn't real big then. Maybe the increase is due to airplanes cutting through the air? Hasn't the increase in temp occured during a period of more use of airplanes? Maybe the fault is due to McDonalds fries, they were not around in the 1800's, let's look at the history of McDonalds and then see if temps have gone up, if so then it might be the answer. Wait a minute, the increase seems to have occured more so since I was born, maybe I'm at fault. Since air pollution and other pollutants have decreased since the fifties, with no help from the enviros who shoved oil and coal energy down out throats when we were trying to get cleaner energy going in the 70s then the indication still leans toward planes, fries, or me.

There is a saying that I love. It is "Statistics are like bikini's, what they reveal is interesting, what they conceal is vital".
Message: Posted by: tommy (Aug 16, 2010 03:13AM)
Of course there must be a cause. The total complexity that creates weather is something I do not profess to know or would have enough time to explain today if I did.
Now ask yourself why CO2 has received so much attention? It’s less than 4 percent of the greenhouse gases and a miniscule part of the total complexity that creates weather. Yet it’s the sole focus of all climate and energy policy. Why?

Isn’t the answer simple and obvious by now? That the reason they chose CO2 out of the multitude of all the stuff that creates weather in this old world of ours, is because it’s the one that the elite quislings of world can control human activity with by rationing what we can do because what we do creates C02.

It’s the very fact that the total complexity of things that make the weather yet they pick on that minuscule one thing called C02 that should tell you it’s a con.

What is a confidence trick based on? Confidence right? What do you believers base your belief on? Confidence in these scientist right? You admit you don’t understand the science. They are con men. Get over it. Sorry I forgot they are out to save the planet! Just ike bankers and politicians are.

Look they are destroying the $ and bringing in carbon currency, that is their agenda. You can buy expert opinion and they are using your money to buy it. These guys behind this are the best con men in the world. You guys should read their books.
Message: Posted by: Ray Tupper. (Aug 16, 2010 03:17AM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-15 23:54, MagicSanta wrote:
Green
Enviromental
Nations
Observing
Clean
Industries
Devoted to
Everyone
[/quote]
Very clever,and probably un-noticed.
Ray.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Aug 16, 2010 08:19AM)
Noticed here.


So far only Dannydoyle has addressed the issue that if there are significant changes to the climate, and it is not manmade, then he believes nothing should be done. So for him, the issue of man vs other forces is moot. We don't need to waste time on that argument for him.

What about others? Where do you stand? If it can be shown that significant climate change is occurring, not manmade, should action be taken?

I'll answer yes if:

a) it can be shown the climate change would be harmful to the prospects of humankind's survival;

b) The interventions were thought out in a way that would at worst not harm, and at best improve humankind's survival.

The argument that massive climate change has occurred before, to me, is only relevant as to what occurs within the lifespan of humankind. It arguably may only take a century or less for climate change to affect humankind's survival, though in geologic terms we are young.

As to possible interventions, given the way society is currently organized, it seems unlikely that appropriate interventions will be implemented. There is too much greed and denial (and I don't mean climate change denial so much as the death culture denial that we are steeped in).

So I think we are in real trouble. I don't know if we will make it to the next century, let alone the next millenium.

And if that doesn't cheer you up, don't blame me.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 16, 2010 08:43AM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-16 00:14, balducci wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-08-15 23:58, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:

Thanks. Do you have a link for this? I might as well see if I can learn something.
[/quote]
See the ongoing discussion in the comments here:

http://climateaudit.org/2010/08/14/mcshane-and-wyner-2010/

But it is pretty clear that most of the people there don't even know what the "lasso" is.

If you want to read something technical about the lasso, you can try:

http://www-stat.stanford.edu/~tibs/lasso.html
[/quote]

Thanks. I've got some time the next few days, so I'll see what I can understand.

John
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 16, 2010 08:44AM)
If warming is happening (and there is indications it has not since 1990 but oh well) and it is NOT our fault I do not think we know enough about climate, and how climate systems work to be futzing about trying to change them. For all we know one of the things we change makes it worse in 20 years. What then? Do we ever think about downstream concequences?

For a group that cried so loud when we invaded a country without an 'exit strategy' it seems as if this is a worse idea.
Message: Posted by: Payne (Aug 16, 2010 09:47AM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-16 02:05, MagicSanta wrote:
Payne, I've always credited you with a bit more than average sense. Are you stating that you believe that the overall average temp increase of the world is solely caused by humans and that there is no indication that the earth has ever gone through a warming or cooling period which can be attributed to natural effects such as tides, tilt, or just that's the way it goes when one deals with billions of years of history? You can keep asking why until you run out of answers, that is easy. Hurricanes originate from hot air in the Sahara. Why is that hot air causing hurricanes while others are not? Why is there hot air that is different? Eventually the answer is "%@$# happens".
[/quote]

I've never said that previous warming and cooling trends never occurred. They most certainly have and had naturally occurring causation. I do not believe that the current warming cycle is completely man made but that it has been augmented by our use of hydrocarbons in their various forms. At least that's what the evidence is suggesting.



Did the earth warm up over the period that accurate temps can be taken? Yes, by a bit more than 1 degree over the last 100 years or so. Of course this isn't a worldwide event now is it? Some regions are cooler, some dryer, some rainier, some warmer...rather than acknowledge that lets just point our boney fingers at Global Warming. So, being a rational person who can recognize fairly accurate measurements can admit the temp over the last century is, overall as an average, higher. The assumption is that any event during the last century that did not occur previously in history is the culprit.

[/quote]

As I told Tommy. Changes in temperature require causation. Has there been a shift in the earth's orbit, a change in the tilt of the axis? Has a new Isthmus risen somewhere that has changed the ocean's current?

[quote]
So it MUST be caused by the increase on pollutants during the first, say, almost 2/3rd of the century, brought on by the major changes in industry, transportation, and energy. There! It is easy!
[/quote]

Yes it is. You'd think someone of your vast intellect would see it. :)
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 16, 2010 09:58AM)
Just because we can not detect the causation, does that automatically make it man made? Does it automatically mean that we contribute at all? I would think someone of your vast brain power should see the flaw there.

Bottom line is we do not know enough to start making changes.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Aug 16, 2010 10:06AM)
If man is not causing significant climate change then everything else is mere commentary.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Aug 16, 2010 10:15AM)
Anyone who is interested in a legal complaint against the Sun, but not for making the world too warm, rather for providing unfair competition to candle-dippers and lantern-makers, look for Frederic Bastiat's 1845 satire, "A PETITION From the Manufacturers of Candles, Tapers, Lanterns, sticks, Street Lamps, Snuffers, and Extinguishers, and from Producers of Tallow, Oil, Resin, Alcohol, and Generally of Everything Connected with Lighting. To the Honourable Members of the Chamber of Deputies." You can find it here, http://bastiat.org/fr/petition.html, or in English translation, here, http://bastiat.org/en/petition.html.

Woland
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 16, 2010 10:19AM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-16 04:13, tommy wrote:

Now ask yourself why CO2 has received so much attention? It’s less than 4 percent of the greenhouse gases and a miniscule part of the total complexity that creates weather. Yet it’s the sole focus of all climate and energy policy. Why?

[/quote]

Perhaps this is part of the answer to your question.
[img]http://www.iitap.iastate.edu/gccourse/forcing/images/image7.gif[/img]

John
Message: Posted by: Payne (Aug 16, 2010 11:10AM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-16 10:58, Dannydoyle wrote:
Just because we can not detect the causation, does that automatically make it man made?
[/quote]

But we can detect the causation of the warming and it appears, at least partially to be man made. Or do you have a better explanation as to why the average temperature of the globe is getting increasingly warmer.

[quote]
Does it automatically mean that we contribute at all? I would think someone of your vast brain power should see the flaw there.
[/quote]

It is because of my vast brain power that I that I can see the tipping point our increased output of cO2 has pushed us past where others of more limited intellect fail to recognize what is starring them in the face. :)

[quote]
Bottom line is we do not know enough to start making changes.
[/quote]

Bottom line, the less crap we disperse into the environment the better off we will all be. The sooner we move to cleaner, renewable energy the better off we will all be. We know enough to start making the necessary changes now instead of waiting to the last minute when perhaps it will be too late. Unfortunately, it's probably already too late.

The oil is going to run out sooner than later. Wouldn't you rather be living in a country that was at the forefornt of energy independence than in some third world nation enslaved to a handful of despotic countries that posess the last remaining pools of the ever dwindling oil reserves?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Aug 16, 2010 11:45AM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-16 11:19, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-08-16 04:13, tommy wrote:

Now ask yourself why CO2 has received so much attention? It’s less than 4 percent of the greenhouse gases and a miniscule part of the total complexity that creates weather. Yet it’s the sole focus of all climate and energy policy. Why?

[/quote]

Perhaps this is part of the answer to your question.
[img]http://www.iitap.iastate.edu/gccourse/forcing/images/image7.gif[/img]

John
[/quote]

Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?

It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.
This point is so crucial to the debate over global warming that how water vapor is or isn't factored into an analysis of Earth's greenhouse gases makes the difference between describing a significant human contribution to the greenhouse effect, or a negligible one.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWVshkVF0SY
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 16, 2010 12:18PM)
Tommy every time it is clear that you are blowing smoke, you simply change topics.


[quote]
On 2010-08-16 12:45, tommy wrote:

Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?

It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.
This point is so crucial to the debate over global warming that how water vapor is or isn't factored into an analysis of Earth's greenhouse gases makes the difference between describing a significant human contribution to the greenhouse effect, or a negligible one.

[/quote]

You really don't have a clue about this do you? Go back to the graphs I posted earlier. Now find the infrared area of the spectrum. Got it?

Now imagine that the earth is in radiative equilibrium. That is, the amount of radiation in is balanced by the amount of radiation absorbed and the amount emitted. Heat energy will be emitted in the infrared spectrum. Look at the graph again.

Now, the issue is not the absolute quantity of the gases, but the change. You see change works against equilibrium (roughly). Are you beginning to see where this is going, Tommy? You don't need more youtube; you need to learn some basic science.

John

(Prediction: Tommy will ignore the content of my post and focus on my condescending tone. Then he will post another youtube link.)
Message: Posted by: Payne (Aug 16, 2010 01:00PM)
It's also cyclic. The warmer it becomes the more water evaporates and becomes vapor that traps in heat. The elevated cO2 was a trigger to this and continues to exacerbate the cycle.

The evidence suggests that our increased use of fossil fuels over the last century caused an imbalance in the makeup of the atmosphere and set in motion a rapid and unnatural increase in global temperatures.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Aug 16, 2010 01:31PM)
Sorry I put the wromg link up is this what mean?

Global Warming:
A closer look at the numbers

Water Vapor Rules
the Greenhouse System
Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?
It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.



This point is so crucial to the debate over global warming that how water vapor is or isn't factored into an analysis of Earth's greenhouse gases makes the difference between describing a significant human contribution to the greenhouse effect, or a negligible one.

Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (5). Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.

Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).

Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html




References:
1) Current Greenhouse Gas Concentrations (updated October, 2000)
Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center
(the primary global-change data and information analysis center of the U.S. Department of Energy)
Oak Ridge, Tennessee
Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change (data now available only to "members")
IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme,
Stoke Orchard, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, GL52 7RZ, United Kingdom.
2) "Carbon cycle modelling and the residence time of natural and anthropogenic atmospheric CO2:on the construction of the 'Greenhouse Effect Global Warming' dogma;" Tom V. Segalstad, University of Oslo
3) Greenhouse Gases and Global Warming Potentials (updated April, 2002)
Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Center (CDIAC), U.S. Department of Energy
Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
4) Warming Potentials of Halocarbons and Greenhouses Gases
Chemical formulae and global warming potentials from Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 119 and 121. Production and sales of CFC's and other chemicals from International Trade Commission, Synthetic Organic Chemicals: United States Production and Sales, 1994 (Washington, DC, 1995). TRI emissions from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1994 Toxics Release Inventory: Public Data Release, EPA-745-R-94-001 (Washington, DC, June 1996), p. 73. Estimated 1994 U.S. emissions from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks, 1990-1994, EPA-230-R-96-006 (Washington, DC, November 1995), pp. 37-40.
5) References to 95% contribution of water vapor:
a. S.M. Freidenreich and V. Ramaswamy, “Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,” Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264
b. Global Deception: The Exaggeration of the Global Warming Threat 
by Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, June 1998
Virginia State Climatologist and Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia
c. Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Appendix D, Greenhouse Gas Spectral Overlaps and Their Significance
Energy Information Administration; Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government
d. Personal Communication-- Dr. Richard S. Lindzen
Alfred P. Slone Professor of Meteorology, MIT
e. The Geologic Record and Climate Change
by Dr. Tim Patterson, January 2005
Professor of Geology-- Carleton University
Ottawa, Canada
Alternate link: 
f. EPA Seeks To Have Water Vapor Classified As A Pollutant
by the ecoEnquirer, 2006
Alternate link: 
g. Does CO2 Really Drive Global Warming?
by Dr. Robert Essenhigh, May 2001
Alternate link: 
h. Solar Cycles, Not CO2, Determine Climate
by Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc., 21st Century Science and Technology, Winter 2003-2004, pp. 52-65
Link: 
5) Global Climate Change Student Guide
Department of Environmental and Geographical Sciences
Manchester Metropolitan University
Chester Street
Manchester
M1 5GD
United Kingdom
6) Global Budgets for Atmospheric Nitrous Oxide - Anthropogenic Contributions
William C. Trogler, Eric Bruner, Glenn Westwood, Barbara Sawrey, and Patrick Neill
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry
University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, California
7) Methane record and budget
Robert Grumbine
Useful conversions:
1 Gt = 1 billion tons = 1 cu. km. H20
1 Gt Carbon(C) = ~3.67 Gt Carbon Dioxide(CO2)
2.12 Gt C = ~7.8 Gt CO2 = 1ppmv CO2
Message: Posted by: landmark (Aug 16, 2010 01:38PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-16 11:06, tommy wrote:
If man is not causing significant climate change then everything else is mere commentary.
[/quote]

Exactly wrong.

A meteor is hurtling through space aimed directly at the Earth. It will cause massive damage to the human species. Would you argue that nothing should be attempted?
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 16, 2010 01:44PM)
Posting more stuff you don't understand, Tommy?

Can you relate the cut and paste above to the absorption spectra? Maybe that will clarify things.

John
Message: Posted by: tommy (Aug 16, 2010 01:46PM)
How big is the meteor?

I understand what he is saying John.
Message: Posted by: Payne (Aug 16, 2010 02:25PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-16 14:44, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Posting more stuff you don't understand, Tommy?

Can you relate the cut and paste above to the absorption spectra? Maybe that will clarify things.

John
[/quote]

Then there's always this from http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm

"Satellites have observed an increase in atmospheric water vapour by about 0.41 kg/m² per decade since 1988. A detection and attribution study, otherwise known as "fingerprinting", was employed to identify the cause of the rising water vapour levels (Santer 2007). Fingerprinting involves rigorous statistical tests of the different possible explanations for a change in some property of the climate system. Results from 22 different climate models (virtually all of the world's major climate models) were pooled and found the recent increase in moisture content over the bulk of the world's oceans is not due to solar forcing or gradual recovery from the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo. The primary driver of 'atmospheric moistening' was found to be the increase in CO2 caused by the burning of fossil fuels."


So it appears that the increase in water vapor can be attributed to man made causes.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 16, 2010 02:51PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-16 12:10, Payne wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-08-16 10:58, Dannydoyle wrote:
Just because we can not detect the causation, does that automatically make it man made?
[/quote]

But we can detect the causation of the warming and it appears, at least partially to be man made. Or do you have a better explanation as to why the average temperature of the globe is getting increasingly warmer.

[quote]
Does it automatically mean that we contribute at all? I would think someone of your vast brain power should see the flaw there.
[/quote]

It is because of my vast brain power that I that I can see the tipping point our increased output of cO2 has pushed us past where others of more limited intellect fail to recognize what is starring them in the face. :)

[quote]
Bottom line is we do not know enough to start making changes.
[/quote]

Bottom line, the less crap we disperse into the environment the better off we will all be. The sooner we move to cleaner, renewable energy the better off we will all be. We know enough to start making the necessary changes now instead of waiting to the last minute when perhaps it will be too late. Unfortunately, it's probably already too late.

The oil is going to run out sooner than later. Wouldn't you rather be living in a country that was at the forefornt of energy independence than in some third world nation enslaved to a handful of despotic countries that posess the last remaining pools of the ever dwindling oil reserves?
[/quote]

Oh really? When oh great brain will oil run out? Give me a time frame not plattitudes and nonsense disguised as science. YOU CAN'T.

Is it a coincidence that the global warming cause also promotes your socialist agenda Payne? Would the science be SO SETTLED if it was pure capitalist solutions with no government regulations and no government money?

I bet you can't even answer that one honestly. Or won't. ANYTHING that promotes more government and more European style socialist democracy is ok with you no matter who it hurts.

Well I am at least happy that people seem to be awakening. Maybe they will wake up and agree with you, it is a risk. The propeganda machines and your willing accomplices in the mainstream media are ready to go and have been. But at least people are awake. That is a good thing.
Message: Posted by: Payne (Aug 16, 2010 05:31PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-16 15:51, Dannydoyle wrote:

Oh really? When oh great brain will oil run out? Give me a time frame not plattitudes and nonsense disguised as science. YOU CAN'T.

[/quote]

I can't, but the American Petroleum Institute can. They estimated in 1999 that the worlds oil deposits would be depleted between 2062 and 2094.

Supporting data here http://www.roperld.com/science/minerals/fossilfuels.htm

So how long do you think the oil is going to last?

You do realize Danny that oil is a finite resource. We aren't making any more and once it's gone, it's gone. Currently we haven't a viable alternative to replace it with?


[quote]

Is it a coincidence that the global warming cause also promotes your socialist agenda Payne?

[/quote]

No, I created the whole Global Warming Scam so I could inflict my socialist Utopian visions on the world at large. My plan will come to full fruition once I get my white Nehru Jacket back from the cleaners and I get Snowball, my cat, out of the pound.

My preferred social political system has no bearing on the science of Global Warming nor my acceptance of it. I'd still be a socialist even if the science is proven to be false. I believe in global Warming not because I'm a socialist but because currently that's where the evidence is pointing. The planet will continue to warm because of increased cO2 levels regardless of my socialist, or your capitalist beliefs.

[quote]

Would the science be SO SETTLED if it was pure capitalist solutions with no government regulations and no government money?

[/quote]

Nothing is stopping private industry to find capitalistic solutions to the problems at hand. In fact many entrepreneurs are working on the matter even as I write this. The wise capitalist sees that the old energy model we have built our society on is coming to the end and whoever discovers and holds the patents for the new energy source(s) will stand to make a substantial amount of profit.

I have no issue with a capitalistic solution as long as they treat their workers well, are stewards to the environment and distribute their profits equably.

[quote]

I bet you can't even answer that one honestly. Or won't. ANYTHING that promotes more government and more European style socialist democracy is ok with you no matter who it hurts.

[/quote]

True, I am a supporter of a more socially responsive form of government as the corporatist form of rule we have at the moment doesn't seem to be working too well.

But I fail to see how that enters into the equation as I am not in any sort of position to influence any sort of energy policy.

[quote]

Well I am at least happy that people seem to be awakening. Maybe they will wake up and agree with you, it is a risk. The propeganda machines and your willing accomplices in the mainstream media are ready to go and have been. But at least people are awake. That is a good thing.
[/quote]

Unfortunately we both will most likely live long enough to see gas prices soar as the reserves run out. Armed conflicts escalate as nation states battle over possession of the last remaining oil fields. All while global temperatures continue to climb. The road we are currently on doesn't lead to a very happy destination. We've already passed several exits to nicer places to go. let's hope we don't miss the next one coming our way.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Aug 16, 2010 05:36PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-16 18:31, Payne wrote:...

I can't, but the American Petroleum Institute can. ...
[/quote]

And who owns the API and what are their interests? Could it be the same folks who like to raise gas prices when a sudden upswing in the average number kites flown (measured weekly in June) this year in Montana cause a lower availability of string?

http://www.api.org/Newsroom/taxes-hurt-oil-prod.cfm

Don't tax me bro!
Message: Posted by: Steve_Mollett (Aug 16, 2010 06:05PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-16 18:31, Payne wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-08-16 15:51, Dannydoyle wrote:

Oh really? When oh great brain will oil run out? Give me a time frame not plattitudes and nonsense disguised as science. YOU CAN'T.

[/quote]

I can't, but the American Petroleum Institute can. They estimated in 1999 that the worlds oil deposits would be depleted between 2062 and 2094.

Supporting data here http://www.roperld.com/science/minerals/fossilfuels.htm

So how long do you think the oil is going to last?

You do realize Danny that oil is a finite resource. We aren't making any more and once it's gone, it's gone. Currently we haven't a viable alternative to replace it with?


[quote]

Is it a coincidence that the global warming cause also promotes your socialist agenda Payne?

[/quote]

No, I created the whole Global Warming Scam so I could inflict my socialist Utopian visions on the world at large. My plan will come to full fruition once I get my white Nehru Jacket back from the cleaners and I get Snowball, my cat, out of the pound.

My preferred social political system has no bearing on the science of Global Warming nor my acceptance of it. I'd still be a socialist even if the science is proven to be false. I believe in global Warming not because I'm a socialist but because currently that's where the evidence is pointing. The planet will continue to warm because of increased cO2 levels regardless of my socialist, or your capitalist beliefs.

[quote]

Would the science be SO SETTLED if it was pure capitalist solutions with no government regulations and no government money?

[/quote]

Nothing is stopping private industry to find capitalistic solutions to the problems at hand. In fact many entrepreneurs are working on the matter even as I write this. The wise capitalist sees that the old energy model we have built our society on is coming to the end and whoever discovers and holds the patents for the new energy source(s) will stand to make a substantial amount of profit.

I have no issue with a capitalistic solution as long as they treat their workers well, are stewards to the environment and distribute their profits equably.

[quote]

I bet you can't even answer that one honestly. Or won't. ANYTHING that promotes more government and more European style socialist democracy is ok with you no matter who it hurts.

[/quote]

True, I am a supporter of a more socially responsive form of government as the corporatist form of rule we have at the moment doesn't seem to be working too well.

But I fail to see how that enters into the equation as I am not in any sort of position to influence any sort of energy policy.

[quote]

Well I am at least happy that people seem to be awakening. Maybe they will wake up and agree with you, it is a risk. The propeganda machines and your willing accomplices in the mainstream media are ready to go and have been. But at least people are awake. That is a good thing.
[/quote]

Unfortunately we both will most likely live long enough to see gas prices soar as the reserves run out. Armed conflicts escalate as nation states battle over possession of the last remaining oil fields. All while global temperatures continue to climb. The road we are currently on doesn't lead to a very happy destination. We've already passed several exits to nicer places to go. let's hope we don't miss the next one coming our way.
[/quote]

http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/cold_turkey/
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 16, 2010 07:21PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-16 18:31, Payne wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-08-16 15:51, Dannydoyle wrote:

Oh really? When oh great brain will oil run out? Give me a time frame not plattitudes and nonsense disguised as science. YOU CAN'T.

[/quote]

I can't, but the American Petroleum Institute can. They estimated in 1999 that the worlds oil deposits would be depleted between 2062 and 2094.

Supporting data here http://www.roperld.com/science/minerals/fossilfuels.htm

So how long do you think the oil is going to last?

You do realize Danny that oil is a finite resource. We aren't making any more and once it's gone, it's gone. Currently we haven't a viable alternative to replace it with?


[quote]

Is it a coincidence that the global warming cause also promotes your socialist agenda Payne?

[/quote]

No, I created the whole Global Warming Scam so I could inflict my socialist Utopian visions on the world at large. My plan will come to full fruition once I get my white Nehru Jacket back from the cleaners and I get Snowball, my cat, out of the pound.

My preferred social political system has no bearing on the science of Global Warming nor my acceptance of it. I'd still be a socialist even if the science is proven to be false. I believe in global Warming not because I'm a socialist but because currently that's where the evidence is pointing. The planet will continue to warm because of increased cO2 levels regardless of my socialist, or your capitalist beliefs.

[quote]

Would the science be SO SETTLED if it was pure capitalist solutions with no government regulations and no government money?

[/quote]

Nothing is stopping private industry to find capitalistic solutions to the problems at hand. In fact many entrepreneurs are working on the matter even as I write this. The wise capitalist sees that the old energy model we have built our society on is coming to the end and whoever discovers and holds the patents for the new energy source(s) will stand to make a substantial amount of profit.

I have no issue with a capitalistic solution as long as they treat their workers well, are stewards to the environment and distribute their profits equably.

[quote]

I bet you can't even answer that one honestly. Or won't. ANYTHING that promotes more government and more European style socialist democracy is ok with you no matter who it hurts.

[/quote]

True, I am a supporter of a more socially responsive form of government as the corporatist form of rule we have at the moment doesn't seem to be working too well.

But I fail to see how that enters into the equation as I am not in any sort of position to influence any sort of energy policy.

[quote]

Well I am at least happy that people seem to be awakening. Maybe they will wake up and agree with you, it is a risk. The propeganda machines and your willing accomplices in the mainstream media are ready to go and have been. But at least people are awake. That is a good thing.
[/quote]

Unfortunately we both will most likely live long enough to see gas prices soar as the reserves run out. Armed conflicts escalate as nation states battle over possession of the last remaining oil fields. All while global temperatures continue to climb. The road we are currently on doesn't lead to a very happy destination. We've already passed several exits to nicer places to go. let's hope we don't miss the next one coming our way.
[/quote]

What is it about lib/socialists that causes the doom and gloom and war and armed conflict over either this or that because it is running out and the population bomb and all the other scary nonsense you always put forth? Has even ONE of those doomsday scenarios happened? When do you learn with all that brain power at your disposal?
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Aug 16, 2010 07:36PM)
Let us imagine that "corporations exist to make money" and ask - well if folk's have to cut down their use of the current product - are they not more likely to seek substitutes and also lose brand loyalty?

Hey now for 2012, it runs on farts. Brought to you by baked beans and (insert car company name here)
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Aug 16, 2010 08:31PM)
Oh well....believe what you want. Unless someone really ticks me off please refer to Jon for my opinion because he's a cool dude. Not only is he cool he is the ONLY person in this section as of late that I have heard referenced in a DVD, put that in your smokes and light it....hippies.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Aug 16, 2010 08:36PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-16 20:21, Dannydoyle wrote:

What is it about lib/socialists that causes the doom and gloom and war and armed conflict over either this or that because it is running out and the population bomb and all the other scary nonsense you always put forth? Has even ONE of those doomsday scenarios happened? When do you learn with all that brain power at your disposal?
[/quote]
Right. Scary nonsense. You mean like Saddam has a nuke? That sort of thing? The liberals and / or socialists (in your country) might have been scared into going along with that, but I do not believe they were the ones mainly responsible for starting or propagating that particular scare story.

Out of curiosity, when WAS the last time some liberal doomsday scenario led to war and armed conflict, especially war and conflict involving the U.S.?
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Aug 16, 2010 08:43PM)
Who ever said Saddam had a nuke?

Balducci, please leave the liberals alone, they are always wrong and it is hurtful to them. Was Hearst considered a liberal? He hung out with hollywood types, if so then he started the Spanish American War, some say. Roosevelt was a lib and he certainly prepared Americans mentally for war prior to the US entering and putting an end to that ol' WW2. Most libs succeed in killing those within their own country rather than those in other countries unless they feel they can get away with it.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Aug 16, 2010 09:03PM)
Sorry, Santa. More precisely, I should have said something like had or was in the process of obtaining or developing one. E.g., http://www-cgi.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/08/iraq.debate/ ("Vice President Dick Cheney accused Saddam of moving aggressively to develop nuclear weapons over the past 14 months").
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Aug 16, 2010 09:18PM)
Actually he did have some equipment that we refer to as dual use, meaning, clearly, that they have a commercial that is rather mundane and can also be used in the process of nuc weapons etc.. In this case centerfuges were ordered, processed and licensed as dual use, and sent from Germany to Iraq. The likely use was, for those centerfuges, in the processing of nuc material. They lacked the materials to make such weapons and I don't believe that they were worried about that. The simple fact is not only did Iraq have weapons of mass destruction, defined as Nuclear, Biological, or Chemical (NBC) the USED them. Evidence was found of their existance but people were expecting trident missles with multiple nuke warheads. I can understand that but the UN believed they existed prior to our going in and all the evidence leaned in that direction. The US went in to enforce UN policies.

That being said and having experience in the region I tend to really doubt the intelligence that comes out of those countries other than Israel. In this case Saddam WANTED it to be thought that he had these weapons good to go because he had a neighbor in Iran that was just chomping at the bit to whip his arse. It is the street equivelent of patting your jacket implying one has a gun on them. The problem is you may do that dodge to someone who DOES have a gun and you end up shot. Say the police get a call and are told the person is in a house, has weapons, and said he wasn't going out without an all out fight. The police show up for that outcome they do not assume, as is often the case, that the dude is sitting there in wet pants ready to surrender at the first click.

Back to my representative Jon.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Aug 16, 2010 09:26PM)
Santa, that's all fine, but back to the question, when WAS the last time some liberal doomsday scenario led to war and armed conflict, especially war and conflict involving the U.S.?

If your answer is Hearst, that was a long time ago. I'm sure Danny must have had something more recent in mind.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Aug 16, 2010 09:29PM)
Well shoot, you didn't give time limits!
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 16, 2010 09:40PM)
Was it the republicans who got us into Viet Nam or Korea? I forgot. I am pretty sure they were armed conflicts.

balducci here try this. It appears Hillary Clinton, along with a few others lied about WMD also.
http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/demsonwmds.php

I guess that doesn't fit into your timeline does it now?

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

I guess that lie speaks for itself huh?

Oh wait I know not THOSE facts. Right?
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Aug 16, 2010 09:58PM)
WW2 and WW1 both had democrats in office when the US entered, as did Korea. The civil war had Lincoln in the White House when it started but he was handed the problem by the Dems and was considered one of our worse presidents because of it (Buchanan not Lincoln). Vietnam also had a Dem at the helm when we got into it.

On the other hand the Republicans did insignificant things like freeing the slaves and making major advancements for civil rights. Republicans also had the white house when women got the right to vote thanks to Wilson, or likely his wife who ran things while Wilson was ill toward the end of his time in office.

You are welcome!
Message: Posted by: balducci (Aug 16, 2010 10:06PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-16 22:40, Dannydoyle wrote:

Was it the republicans who got us into Viet Nam or Korea? I forgot. I am pretty sure they were armed conflicts.
[/quote]
Vietnam and Korea. Were they precipitated by liberal doom and gloom scenarios? In any case, you're pretty much talking about ancient history. I thought you had a more recent example in mind.

[quote]
On 2010-08-16 22:40, Dannydoyle wrote:

balducci here try this. It appears Hillary Clinton, along with a few others lied about WMD also.
http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/demsonwmds.php

I guess that doesn't fit into your timeline does it now?
[/quote]
Actually, Danny, if you would only read my posts more slowly so that you absorb all of the words I put down, you will see that I _did_ mention that some liberals went along with that WMD story. But they were not the ones who started the stories, were they. They were echoing the doom and gloom stories of Rove, Cheney, and that gang.

(OT, but I have to LOL at the rightwingnews domain name. I'm sure that site is even more fair and balanced than Fox. Sure is nice when your news source has an identifier like that built right into its name, so you don't have to waste time at sites with opinions other than your own.)
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 16, 2010 10:43PM)
What does the source matter? Hillary and others SAID IT and oh by the way her HUSBAND SAID IT AS PRESIDENT! LONG BEFORE ROVE!

Yea talk about never hearing an opinion other than your own. Look at the dates of the quotes. Before 9/11.

Yep it is all about the fact that it is a right wing site that makes smoke come out of your computer. Yep. That is the problem.

Oh wait not THOSE facts right? Pathetic.
Message: Posted by: Payne (Aug 16, 2010 10:44PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-16 20:21, Dannydoyle wrote:

What is it about lib/socialists that causes the doom and gloom and war and armed conflict over either this or that because it is running out and the population bomb and all the other scary nonsense you always put forth? Has even ONE of those doomsday scenarios happened? When do you learn with all that brain power at your disposal?

[/quote]

This coming from the guy who has fits of apoplexy and is a hundred percent sure that life as we know it will end if a single tax is raised or a government regulation impose on those poor innocent corporations that only have our best interests in mind. :)

So tell me Danny where is this infinite, never ending supply of oil going to come from?
Message: Posted by: balducci (Aug 16, 2010 10:57PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-16 23:43, Dannydoyle wrote:
What does the source matter? Hillary and others SAID IT and oh by the way her HUSBAND SAID IT AS PRESIDENT! LONG BEFORE ROVE!

Yea talk about never hearing an opinion other than your own. Look at the dates of the quotes. Before 9/11.
[/quote]
Yes, look at the dates Danny. And recall, in my earlier post, I was talking about the nuclear weapons scare stories.

NONE of the quotes mentioning nuclear weapons at that page you linked to are prior to Cheney or Rove speaking about Saddam wanting / developing them. The earliest quote on that page you gave me that mentions nuclear weapons is dated December 6, 2001.

Last time I checked, December 6, 2001, was AFTER 9/11. :rolleyes:
Message: Posted by: balducci (Aug 16, 2010 11:02PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-16 23:44, Payne wrote:

So tell me Danny where is this infinite, never ending supply of oil going to come from?
[/quote]
You may have forgotten, but some months ago Danny posted a link to an article claiming that the oil crisis was either nonexistent or exaggerated. The author of the article said some things like we (the U.S.) would be fine if we only did more off shore drilling, and drilling in ANWR, and places like that.

However, the author of the article was a strong believer in the abiotic oil theory, which says that oil is actually a renewable resource continually produced by an "abiotic" process deep in the Earth.

I don't know that Danny ever commented on whether he believed that or not. But the author's claim that there was no oil crisis was clearly predicated on it being a renewable resource, so that the oil drill sites would never run dry.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Aug 16, 2010 11:22PM)
Y'all are losing me..... Danny is being very rational, has never been hawkish, and presenting exact quotes from politicians and figures who were involved with the decisions made at that time. Those decisions were based on the information they had. Y'all come in waving your hands in the air and the benefit of selective hind sight and think you are taking the high road. I've never seen Danny, and I know I have not, advocate the invasion of Iraq. In fact I've said many times that I had no problem with Saddam killing off his own people, that is a very liberal thing to do (oddly in that region he WAS pretty liberal), nor did I care when the Iranians and Iraqies were killing each other off. The difference is I understand the position the UN, you know, the limp group of nations who have no desire to enforce their policies, took as well as the nations that went into Iraq. The term is Weapons of Mass Destruction, it was the press and all those that made it seem like we were looking for giant missle systems and all that. The general idea is to keep idiots from getting hold of weapons that an kill a few hundred thousand people at a time not to give them the chance to have them and see if they behave.

Did Iraq have a program with a goal of obtaining nuclear weapons? Yes.
Did Iraq have and/or use weapons of mass destructions? Yes.
Was their evidence of these weapons found? Yes.
Did Iraq have neighbors who would gladly take in weapons and other equipment to keep them from being found? Yes
Did the entire thing turn out exactly as I predicted? Yes.
Is Jon representing me, unwillingly, in the area of climate stuff? Yes.
Am I puzzled how this thread took this bizarre turn? Yes.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Aug 16, 2010 11:23PM)
There is an oil crisis now? Geez....not again, that was the only really sucky part of the 70s and it wasn't real then.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Aug 16, 2010 11:30PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-17 00:22, MagicSanta wrote:

Am I puzzled how this thread took this bizarre turn? Yes.
[/quote]
Allow me to recap. Danny said the following:

"What is it about lib/socialists that causes the doom and gloom and war and armed conflict over either this or that because it is running out and the population bomb and all the other scary nonsense you always put forth? Has even ONE of those doomsday scenarios happened? When do you learn with all that brain power at your disposal?"

I'm just trying to figure out what one of these liberal / socialist scare stories leading to war and armed conflict is. Danny mentioned Vietnam and Korea. I was looking for something more recent, and specific to liberals / socialists.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Aug 16, 2010 11:51PM)
Santa wrote:[quote]Did Iraq have a program with a goal of obtaining nuclear weapons? Yes.
Did Iraq have and/or use weapons of mass destructions? Yes.
Was their evidence of these weapons found? Yes.
Did Iraq have neighbors who would gladly take in weapons and other equipment to keep them from being found? Yes [/quote]
0 out of 4 correct. Back to the Triple A team for you. And completely wrong too about what the UN said about an Iraq WMD program. But it's alright, rewrite history, some Americans might actually believe you.

Got yellow cake?
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Aug 17, 2010 12:02AM)
Landmark I never said they had uranium....I'm correct in all aspects.

1. Iraq purchased equipment for use in the refinement of nuclear material for weapons. Did they have them? Not that I know of but they clearly were in the process of obtaining it.
2. They gassed the kurds and there is a belief that they gassed the Iranians. That would fall into the catagory of weapons of mass destruction.
3. They found labs and containers with residue of chemical weapons. Again chemical weapons are classified as weapons of mass destruction.
4. Your denying this is actually very silly and pretty much indicates you don't apply much thought but follow the libby line.

I hate yellow cake, angel food is the way to go.

You are lucky you are one of my top five favorite people here bubba....
Message: Posted by: landmark (Aug 17, 2010 12:07AM)
From [url=http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/bushs-biggest-regret-was-thinking-saddam-had-weapons/2008/12/02/1227980020636.html]the horse's mouth:[/url]

The outgoing US President, George Bush, says his biggest regret in office was US intelligence that incorrectly stated Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

"A lot of people put their reputations on the line and said the weapons of mass destruction is a reason to remove Saddam Hussein," Mr Bush said in an interview with the US ABC TV network.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Aug 17, 2010 12:12AM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-17 01:02, MagicSanta wrote:

2. They gassed the kurds and there is a belief that they gassed the Iranians. That would fall into the catagory of weapons of mass destruction.
3. They found labs and containers with residue of chemical weapons. Again chemical weapons are classified as weapons of mass destruction.
[/quote]
I agree with both statements. But circa 2001, I believe the idea being bandied about was that Iraq STILL HAD these weapons available in working form and was ready and able to use them again. That seems not to be the case.

Incidentally, and I'm sure you know this, ANY country with any sort of non-trivial industrial sector has the ability to make chemical weapons very quickly. So do many households in any developed country. So I've always found it a little strange when claims are made that a country does or does not have chemical weapons or the ability to make them. It's sort of a nonsense question in most cases.

Can we return to The Real Climategate Scandal now?
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Aug 17, 2010 12:18AM)
Now all of the sudden you turn to Bush as the voice of reason? Goodness, I thought y'all thought he was an idiot? Now he's got perspective.....

The fact is they did not have the progressive nuke program that the intelligence groups said, I explained that. I realize to libs using gas to kill off groups of people is potentially a good idea for future consideration but Saddam used it against the Kurds. Do you not consider chemical weapons to be mass destruction? Maybe that is the problem....y'all are pro chemical and biological weapons.

Screw it...here:

is also known that in the 1980s he pursued an extensive biological weapons program and a nuclear weapons program.

After the 1990-1991 Persian Gulf War, the United Nations located and destroyed large quantities of Iraqi WMD and related equipment and materials throughout the early 1990s, with varying degrees of Iraqi cooperation and obstruction.[1] In response to diminishing Iraqi cooperation with UNSCOM, the United States called for withdrawal of all UN and IAEA inspectors in 1998, resulting in Operation Desert Fox. The United States and the UK asserted that Saddam Hussein still possessed large hidden stockpiles of WMD in 2003, and that he was clandestinely procuring and producing more. Inspections by the UN to resolve the status of unresolved disarmament questions restarted from November 2002 until March 2003,[2] under UN Security Council Resolution 1441, which demanded Saddam give "immediate, unconditional and active cooperation" with UN and IAEA inspections.[3]


They DID NOT find the missles you guys fantasized about.

Hey, if you folks need to blame someone blame those UN people, they were behind the whole thing.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Aug 17, 2010 12:31AM)
Uh right, no missiles. Right, the Iraqi WMD program was destroyed by 1990. Right, the UN inspectors left because they were pulled out by the US request. Right the US and UK asserted and never proved Saddam had WMDs in 2003, and then Bush later said he was wrong. And finally, right, no nuclear weapons like Condi fantasized.

So we agree on tons of stuff, so it's all copasetic.

Got anthrax?
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Aug 17, 2010 12:56AM)
No but if you could go to the amazon.com page and see if you can find where the hell one can fill out a profile for a job I'd appreciate it. I can't find the dang area to do that!

Condi....is she still alive?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Aug 17, 2010 05:48AM)
A meteor is hurtling through space aimed directly at the Earth. It will cause massive damage to the human species.

With luck it will create a vacancy or two.

And have John and Payne now finished putting their old spot of ink in a clear bottle of water argument forward?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 17, 2010 07:59AM)
Actually the way the media portrayed Saddam it seems as if we knocked off the Iraqi Abraham Lincoln.

I can relate it to climategate scandals if you like. They also have selective amnesia and the phras "not THOSE facts" applies.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 17, 2010 08:02AM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-17 06:48, tommy wrote:
And have John and Payne now finished putting their old spot of ink in a clear bottle of water argument forward?
[/quote]

This is an interesting twist. This time I'm the one who has no idea what you're talking about.

John
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 17, 2010 09:11AM)
I guess I missed it, I do that quite often, did the Bush administration say that Saddam had nukes we had to invade?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Aug 17, 2010 09:11AM)
Yes John a bit of change for you from you not knowing what you are talking about.

To help you know what you were talking about:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81FHVrXgzuA
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 17, 2010 09:38AM)
Wow I am convinced.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 17, 2010 09:43AM)
Tommy, I am tired of your dishonesty. It's time to check out. You can pretend that you win.

John
Message: Posted by: landmark (Aug 17, 2010 09:46AM)
For those who like their info Youtube style:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyWsyqLDYjE
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 17, 2010 09:53AM)
Speaking of dishonesty, here is the deal with the gulf oil spill.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/38294088/What_Does_184_Million_Gallons_of_Oil_Look_Like?slide=9

These were the people telling us how bad it would be forever, how it was going to get into the gulf stream. Oh even members right here told us that it would get to EUROPE!

Oh and our government used it as an opportunity to scare us into a drilling moratorium. One that will DESTROY THE LIVES OF INNOCENT PEOPLE! No it is not armed conflict but it will hurt hundreds of thousands if not millions. Jobs lost. Tell me that is not bad. If you want "honesty" lets call for it across the board shall we?

John you yourself have referenced the spill as "how much oil spilled is enough" in an effort to show that fossil fuels are bad.

Oh wait I keep forgetting. Not THOSE facts.

(Oh I know it is not true because I used a right wing source CNBC. Oops.)
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 17, 2010 10:20AM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-17 10:53, Dannydoyle wrote:


John you yourself have referenced the spill as "how much oil spilled is enough" in an effort to show that fossil fuels are bad.

[/quote]

I don't recall ever saying that. Can you provide a link please.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 17, 2010 11:34AM)
"I think most of use (wisely) chose to deal with "first things first". There are undoubtedly dilemmas regarding our appropriate use of this planet. How much oil contamination are we willing to tolerate in order to get at the earth's reserves in a timely and cost effective manner? To what extent are we committed to preserving ecosystems? To preserving the earth itself? These are great questions, worthy of discussion. But they do get in the way of the current discussion."

John
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Written by YOU on July 31st on page 3 of this discussion John. Yep you put it in the form of a question here and will probably say you did not advocate it in the way I am taking it, but here it is anyhow. The complete text of the post.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Aug 17, 2010 11:41AM)
Well Blow Me Down! All along I thought John was one of the suckers and didn’t realise until now that he is one of the con men.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 17, 2010 12:24PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-17 12:34, Dannydoyle wrote:
"I think most of use (wisely) chose to deal with "first things first". There are undoubtedly dilemmas regarding our appropriate use of this planet. How much oil contamination are we willing to tolerate in order to get at the earth's reserves in a timely and cost effective manner? To what extent are we committed to preserving ecosystems? To preserving the earth itself? These are great questions, worthy of discussion. But they do get in the way of the current discussion."

John
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Written by YOU on July 31st on page 3 of this discussion John. Yep you put it in the form of a question here and will probably say you did not advocate it in the way I am taking it, but here it is anyhow. The complete text of the post.
[/quote]

Good. Now compare what I wrote with what you said I wrote:

[quote]
John you yourself have referenced the spill as "how much oil spilled is enough" in an effort to show that fossil fuels are bad. [/quote]

Not even close, Danny.

John
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 17, 2010 12:35PM)
Of couse not John. Suprise suprise. Talk in double speak liberal nonsense long enough and you can nevwr be held to account for what you say. This way when facts change your position is not jeapordised.

"How much oil contamination are we willing to tolerate".

What EXACTLY did you mean by that John?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Aug 17, 2010 01:29PM)
Well, I'm off to the stadium to spill me some beer.

(Put those little beer bottle thingees here).
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 17, 2010 01:34PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-17 13:35, Dannydoyle wrote:
Of couse not John. Suprise suprise. Talk in double speak liberal nonsense long enough and you can nevwr be held to account for what you say. This way when facts change your position is not jeapordised.

"How much oil contamination are we willing to tolerate".

What EXACTLY did you mean by that John?
[/quote]

I used to work in the oil industry Danny. Spills happen. Procedures and equipment are in place to reduce spills; these cost. At the end of the day, regulating bodies, governments and oil companies have to decide how much they are willing to spend for how much prevention. There is no magical formula.

At the end of the day, there will be some cost and some risk. We (i.e. as a society, as a government, etc.) have to decide where to draw the line. How much expense are we willing to put into oil exploration and production for how much protection from spill?

I thought the question was simple to understand, and that the answer was very difficult to formulate.

No where in all this do you get "fossil fuels are bad"?

John
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Aug 17, 2010 01:34PM)
From John's very first post:

"The long-awaited release of the Russell panel report in the U.K. should finally put to rest the scientific controversies surrounding the so-called Climategate scandal"

So ... after 17 pages, (and counting), I'm guessing ..... not.
Message: Posted by: Payne (Aug 17, 2010 02:01PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-17 14:34, rockwall wrote:
From John's very first post:

"The long-awaited release of the Russell panel report in the U.K. should finally put to rest the scientific controversies surrounding the so-called Climategate scandal"

So ... after 17 pages, (and counting), I'm guessing ..... not.
[/quote]

The scientific controversy has pretty much been decided. It's the emotional ones that are still hotly debated here. :)
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 17, 2010 02:26PM)
Climate models use faulty math, you say tjat things are skewed to make things cooler and this all means the science is settled to you? Your view points to a socialist solution so you are satisfied. Again John where are yo point out that inherant dishonesty?
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 17, 2010 02:32PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-17 15:26, Dannydoyle wrote:
Climate models use faulty math, you say tjat things are skewed to make things cooler and this all means the science is settled to you? Your view points to a socialist solution so you are satisfied. Again John where are yo point out that inherant dishonesty?
[/quote]

If you can show the faulty math (and I can understand it) I'll be right with you. So where is this faulty math?

John
Message: Posted by: Payne (Aug 17, 2010 03:01PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-17 15:01, Payne wrote:
[
The scientific controversy has pretty much been decided. It's the emotional ones that are still hotly debated here. :)

[/quote]

[quote]
On 2010-08-17 15:26, Dannydoyle wrote:
Climate models use faulty math, you say tjat things are skewed to make things cooler and this all means the science is settled to you? Your view points to a socialist solution so you are satisfied. Again John where are yo point out that inherant dishonesty?
[/quote]

Point Proven.

Game, Set, Match.

We win yet again :)

You continue to base your argument on an emotional level. You keep playing the I refuse to believe the evidence because it is somehow a socialist plot or will usher in the dreaded big government you fear card.

You can't logically counter or refute the science so now all you have left is discounting or demeaning the opposition with unsubstantiated or down right made up claims. Classic ploy of those suddenly finding themselves once again on the wrong side of the issue and not a scrap of evidence to use in support of their failed belief system. The exact same sad tactic is constantly used by creationists to attempt to discount evolution.

Like John, I and a handful of others keep asking. Where is your evidence? Where exactly is the math wrong? Point us to the flaws in the data. Do you really know or does it all just feel wrong to you?

Unfortunately science isn't feeling, hunches or blind guess work. It's a discipline of study, experimentation, prediction and duplication.

you can feel something is wrong or not right all you wish. But until you have the data and science to support those feelings there is no reason the rest of us need to take you at all seriously. You're simply a crank with unsupported claims and there is no reason to take anything you say seriously.

Not to say that you are wrong. What were thought to be lame and implausible theories in the past were eventually proven to be true. However they were only accepted after the requisite amount of work was done and the necessary evidence gathered to support their outlandish claims. something so far you guys have failed to do.

But we will wait here patiently for you to logically present your side of the case.

Big hint: your counter argument would have a lot more weight if it actually contained hard data and refrained from using the word socialist :)
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Aug 17, 2010 04:21PM)
You say the climate is evolving? Really?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Aug 17, 2010 04:36PM)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK0oGnqtVXo


Bet the pot!

Call!

Royal Flush!

Lets see it then!

What! Sir this is a Gentleman’s game.

Oh. You win then.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 17, 2010 07:15PM)
Naw Payne, the link was posted and suddenly you ignore it. Oh well.

As Jonathan asked where are we in the cycle of ice ages?
Message: Posted by: Payne (Aug 17, 2010 07:37PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-17 17:36, tommy wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK0oGnqtVXo


Bet the pot!

Call!

Royal Flush!

Lets see it then!

What! Sir this is a Gentleman’s game.

Oh. You win then.
[/quote]

Yes, I do win as I truly have that Royal Flush

See

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/22/1003187107.full.pdf+html

Read it and weep
Message: Posted by: tommy (Aug 17, 2010 07:50PM)
Expert credibility in climate change

:rotf:
Message: Posted by: Payne (Aug 18, 2010 12:39AM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-17 20:50, tommy wrote:
Expert credibility in climate change

:rotf:
[/quote]

Yes I tend to accept the information imparted by those who actually know what they are talking about instead of those who only think they do :)
Message: Posted by: tommy (Aug 18, 2010 04:39AM)
So did the sucker in the gentleman’s poker game.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Aug 18, 2010 06:15AM)
That PNAS article is dismaying. The decadence to which this field has fallen, when a member of the Academy decides to devote his allotment of pages to a statistical analysis of the reputations of scientists in the field, rather than to the science itself. This is worse than a People magazine poll.

O tempora! O mores!

I just hope the current interglacial lasts . . . the coming ice age will not be pretty.

Woland
Message: Posted by: tommy (Aug 18, 2010 08:29AM)
Do not worry my good fellow, for when we have the next ice age, we authorities, will take good care of you, just as we always have.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoNHk_pJlRo
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Aug 31, 2010 05:18PM)
http://www.news.com.au/world/top-climate-change-sceptic-does-u-turn/story-e6frfkyi-1225912590257
Message: Posted by: Ray Tupper. (Aug 31, 2010 05:21PM)
*** those economists and their grasp of science.
Ray.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 31, 2010 09:10PM)
Right or wrong, Lomborg is a very interesting character. He has always advocated a careful analysis of return on investment. For example, he says that more human suffering can be alleviated by putting resources into fresh water in Africa than in almost any other effort.

John
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Aug 31, 2010 09:15PM)
By 'resources' do you mean poison? Just wondering....
Message: Posted by: Payne (Aug 31, 2010 11:03PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-31 22:15, MagicSanta wrote:
By 'resources' do you mean poison? Just wondering....
[/quote]

Your just a ray of sunshine glass half full type of fella aren't you :)
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Aug 31, 2010 11:27PM)
Well...I'm convinced John is one of those genicide guys.....

I vote against messing with the water in Africa. They altered the flow in a river and killed bunches (that is metric) of hippos and elephants as well as other critters.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 2, 2010 11:15AM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-01 00:03, Payne wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-08-31 22:15, MagicSanta wrote:
By 'resources' do you mean poison? Just wondering....
[/quote]

Your just a ray of sunshine glass half full type of fella aren't you :)
[/quote]

Well I thought time and money were the resources.