The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » The Real Climategate Scandal (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5..9..12..15..18..21..24~25~26 [Next]
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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]
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
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
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20614 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Well Mr. Critical thinking here is an idea. Check the difference in hacked and cracked in relation to email ok?
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
MagicSanta
View Profile
Inner circle
Northern Nevada
5845 Posts

Profile of MagicSanta
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.
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1197 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
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.


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.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
Whit Haydn
View Profile
V.I.P.
5449 Posts

Profile of Whit Haydn
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.
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
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.


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.


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
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
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


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

John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5024 Posts

Profile of landmark
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?
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
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
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Woland. If you insist on calling people who disagree with you "climate hysterics" you are not worthy of further response.

John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20614 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
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.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20614 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
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


Well John in all fairness you throw about the term 'deniers' to disparage those you disagree with.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
tommy
View Profile
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
16264 Posts

Profile of tommy
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/q......603.html
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.

Tommy
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1197 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
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.


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.


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


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.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1197 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
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!"


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.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
Whit Haydn
View Profile
V.I.P.
5449 Posts

Profile of Whit Haydn
Put me down for 80-100. Though I think this is a biased measure.
Whit Haydn
View Profile
V.I.P.
5449 Posts

Profile of Whit Haydn
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.


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.
MagicSanta
View Profile
Inner circle
Northern Nevada
5845 Posts

Profile of MagicSanta
I'm telling you...this is all leading up to the enviromentalist sponsered genocide.
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
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


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


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
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » The Real Climategate Scandal (0 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5..9..12..15..18..21..24~25~26 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2021 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.35 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL