Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2458 2459 2460 2461 2462 2463 2464 2465 2466 2467 2468 2469 2470 2471 2472 2473 Next
Comments 123251 to 123300:
-
Doug Bostrom at 07:08 AM on 3 March 2010Every skeptic argument ever used
By the way, self-professed practicing Skeptics are organized. Here's what the Official Skeptics say about skepticism: Some people believe that skepticism is the rejection of new ideas, or worse, they confuse “skeptic” with “cynic” and think that skeptics are a bunch of grumpy curmudgeons unwilling to accept any claim that challenges the status quo. This is wrong. Skepticism is a provisional approach to claims. It is the application of reason to any and all ideas — no sacred cows allowed. In other words, skepticism is a method, not a position. Ideally, skeptics do not go into an investigation closed to the possibility that a phenomenon might be real or that a claim might be true. When we say we are “skeptical,” we mean that we must see compelling evidence before we believe. Find them here: Skeptic -
tobyjoyce at 07:01 AM on 3 March 2010Every skeptic argument ever used
Charlie A asked: "What's the term for those of us who agree the CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but believe that the IPCC estimates of climate sensitivity are off by at least a factor of 2?" Classical Climate Scientists? :) Didn't Svante Arrhenius provide the first estimate of climate sensitivity in 1896? Arrhenius was part of the move from classical to modern physics, and was one of the first Nobelists, so I think the name fits. He proposed (I believe) 4-6C, which is now considered too high by about 1C, not "by a factor of 2". What was wrong with his estimate? Only askin'. -
Doug Bostrom at 06:59 AM on 3 March 2010Every skeptic argument ever used
Charlie A at 06:50 AM on 3 March, 2010 It seems reasonable to say that if you disagree with any particular research finding, your appropriate pigeonhole will depend on how effectively you express your disagreement. So, w/regard to C02 sensitivity, your particular label will depend on if you can cite or make a coherent argument for your assertion that IPCC is overestimating sensitivity, as opposed to simply saying "I don't believe it." -
Charlie A at 06:50 AM on 3 March 2010Every skeptic argument ever used
What's the term for those of us who agree the CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but believe that the IPCC estimates of climate sensitivity are off by at least a factor of 2?Response: Lukewarmists? -
Karl_from_Wylie at 06:42 AM on 3 March 2010Every skeptic argument ever used
. Why not utilize the names that groups call themselves, and then argue the merits of the discussion rather than utilizing connotative naming conventions that reveal the bias of the user? As an example....although possibly accurate, use of the term homosexual has become unacceptable since members of that group have rejected the moniker and now wish the term "gay" to be used for their group. In much the way that using the term homosexual would reveal bias from the user, use of terms such as "alarmists", "deniers", and "rejectionist" reveals the bias of the user. -
Riccardo at 06:32 AM on 3 March 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
gallopingcamel, even though in principle one experiment may disprove a theory, it is not any experiment. None of those you quote, even if accepted, disprove the AGW, at maximum would require some corrections. As for MWP, historians tell us the Europe was colder. We have no comprehensive reports from Asia or North America, let alone southern hemisphere. So we need to rely on proxies, which tell a different story. As for the station drop off Watts "suspect" that it might be a problem but not a single number came out. Those who looked at the numbers (Tamino for Northern Emisphere using "optimal averaging", Zeke at Lucia's blog using simple averages of raw data, people at Clear Climate Code reproducing GISS reference station method) found a different picture. Three methods, three different griddings, same result. Not a surprise indeed, a larger percent of urban stations have been dropped and the colder stations dropped show a larger temperature increase. If any, i would have expected a larger trend. If you got different results please describe your averaging algorithm, the gridding method and the results. -
RSVP at 06:27 AM on 3 March 2010YouTube video on the empirical evidence for man-made global warming
CBDunkerson The area under the curve (Calculus 101) represents the total energy accumulated over all these years. I guess I would ask just one question. Could GHG have trapped all this AND at the same time leave Earth´s temperatures more or less the same? Sort of like a household budget where for years every month you basically spent every penny with zero saving, and then find out you have million dollars in the bank. Unless you have a rich uncle (under sea volcanic action, etc.) this is quite impossible. -
Doug Bostrom at 06:24 AM on 3 March 2010YouTube video on the empirical evidence for man-made global warming
Karl_from_Wylie at 01:19 AM on 3 March, 2010 Karl, I need to tell you that I cannot sympathize with your worries about money as they relate to science. The vector of cash flow is dependent on physics and the outcome of physical processes but money cannot be used to describe physics. You're wrong; IPCC is not seeking massive amounts of funding. You need to refine your argument. I do not agree with you that bias significantly affects validated results of scientific inquiry, though I do believe personal predilections will help to steer any individual scientist's preferred course of inquiry. -
Doug Bostrom at 06:13 AM on 3 March 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
gallopingcamel at 03:10 AM on 3 March, 2010 Dropping stations is not a problem. To investigate the 1st claim, I computed separate northern-hemisphere averages for stations that stopped reporting after 1992.0 (the “pre-cutoff” stations) and those that continued to report after 1992 (the “post-cutoff” stations), in order to see whether there’s a significant difference between the trends according to those two subsets. ... Using only the post-cutoff stations did not introduce any false warming trend — if anything, the stations which were retained showed slightly less warming than those which stopped reporting, although the difference is not statistically significant. False claims proven false
These results are being submitted for publication but in any case you'll need to show how he's wrong in order to continue effectively promoting the "dropped stations introduce warming" argument. -
Doug Bostrom at 06:07 AM on 3 March 2010Every skeptic argument ever used
CoalGeologist at 05:50 AM on 3 March, 2010 More and more I'm inclined to apply the term "rejectionist" to generally describe folks who don't seem to be able to integrate facts in a coherent way leading to a useful argument countering our accepted understanding of how our climate functions. It's easily possible to generalize too much. I think Berényi Péter who frequently posts here with reasoned arguments backed up with numerical treatments is a close approximation to a skeptic in the traditional sense. This fellow is capable of concession, a key diagnostic of reasonable behavior. Another species are the cynics, speculating bad motivations on the part of researchers, but they share in common with rejectionists that they are not able to produce a robust argument justifying their position. We have such a rich language in English, stolen from many sources and with wonderful granularity. It's worth exploiting, even if only to avoid monotony. -
Ari Jokimäki at 06:07 AM on 3 March 2010Every skeptic argument ever used
Obvious place to look for the statement of the AGW theory is IPCC AR4. That is just one big review article of mainstream climate science written by climate scientists. -
CoalGeologist at 05:50 AM on 3 March 2010Every skeptic argument ever used
In this discussion, we again encounter the vexing problem of finding appropriate terms to describe the opposing "camps" in the debate over AGW. (Even the term "AGW" is problematic!!) "Pro-AGW" is intended to convey concurrence with the predominant scientific interpretation that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are causing enhanced warming of the Earth's surface. Unfortunately, "pro-AGW" inadvertently conveys bias, whereas this position is actually rooted in sound scientific evidence and reasoning. Admittedly, some who concur with AGW do so on the basis of faith or prejudice, and are equally as dogmatic as many of those who reject AGW. On the other side, the term "skepticism" has its own limitations. The Greek root "skepsis" conveys inquiry, examination, or thought. The word skepticism has come to convey doubt or uncertainty toward particular views. Historically, skepticism was intended to challenge "dogmatism", which represents an inflexible, unthinking certainty in one's views. Skepticism is now regarded as a required element of the scientific method, as science-based conclusions are in perpetual need of revision and refinement. Doubt, thought, and inquiry are essential for this process to be successful. In actual practice in the AGW debate, however, there is commonly little actual thought and effectively no doubt associated with the rejection of AGW. Too often this position is not truly skeptical but dogmatic, and is rooted in politics and ideology, not in science. Being rooted in politics, it is often laden with emotionalism as well. Some people (myself included) have used the term "Denialism" to describe this position. AGW Denialism presumes that AGW is wrong, then specifically seeks out evidence consistent with this presumption, while summarily rejecting evidence inconsistent with it. The down side of the term Denialism is that it is unfair to actual AGW skeptics (even if they be few in number). Moreover, skeptics and denialists alike find the term "Denialism" offensive, so it's a nonstarter if we are to retain any hope for dialogue. The term "Rejects AGW" conveys some process of reasoning, even if it is tainted by bias. It also has the advantage of being more descriptive and less judgmental. The term "Accepts AGW" conveys a conclusion that could be the result of a rational, science-based reasoning, but could encompass faith-based acceptance as well. Unfortunately, the terms "Accepts AGW" or "Rejects AGW" are awkward to apply. -
tobyjoyce at 05:49 AM on 3 March 2010Every skeptic argument ever used
Charlie A, RSvp etc., Try "CO2 Problem in 6 Easy Steps" at realclimate.org. Since global Warming is a composite (rather than a simple) hypothesis, each step is a component of the AGW case. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/the-co2-problem-in-6-easy-steps/ -
ike solem at 05:46 AM on 3 March 2010YouTube video on the empirical evidence for man-made global warming
P.S. on this comment: As for dead canaries in coal mines, the statament itself carries all one needs to know-canaries dont usually live in coal mines, they arent adapted to them, they have no biological exposure or history to them(unlike eg natural warmings) so how can one use this cruel analogy with anything to do with climate change? Well, we are taking what's down in the coal mine and exporting it all into the atmosphere, the rivers and streams, and the soil. Coal combustion releases tonnage quantities of mercury and arsenic and other potent toxins into the air and water - which makes sense, since coal plants burn as much as 10 million tons of coal a year, and resulting in a few tons of mercury and arsenic and several thousand tons of sulfur and nitrogen oxides being pumped into the atmosphere - plus your 27 million tons of CO2 (10 million tons of coal = 27 million tons of CO2 on combustion) From there, the mercury and arsenic rains out into rivers and streams, accumulates in insects and fish, and so enters the food web - everything from eagles to humans gets loaded up with mercury, leading to various levels of neurological damage, etc. A few people doing burning coal won't affect the climate, even if they poison their local surroundings - but what about 7 billion people burning coal? The canary in the coal mine analogy seems perfectly appropriate - since the idea, cruel as it may seem, was that by watching the canary, human lives could be saved (now, they have sophisticated gas monitors - no animals need be sacrificed). Of course, if you knew the mine was full of gas, you probably wouldn't send the canary down into it, would you? So, if we see a whole host of wild species uprooting themselves and changing their behavior, and it seems to correlate with the changing climate - well, maybe we should pay attention, huh? Maybe we shouldn't send hundreds of species down into the coal mine after the canary, just maybe? -
ike solem at 05:32 AM on 3 March 2010YouTube video on the empirical evidence for man-made global warming
RSVP: "The AGW model consists of pitting all known radiative forcings against one another, such that global temperatures will ultimate stabilize around the equilibrium that these vectors produce in their sum." That's a great example of cargo cult science - it has the appearance, but no substance. You're ignoring all the physics, the chemistry, the biology - that's not science. For example: the interior of the Earth is very warm. Is this a major factor in the surface temperature? No - it's a very minor factor. There's some heat transfer from hot springs and ocean vents, but it's tiny in comparison to the solar inputs. The ground gets cold at night, after all. Here's another: If you increase the percentage of infrared-absorbing gas in the atmosphere, does that result in a warmer atmosphere and surface? Yes! Clear nights are colder than overcast nights, everyone knows that. It's because the Earth's heat is lost more rapidly to space when there are fewer greenhouse gases in the air. To get estimates, you need models with complicated mathematical structures - and yes, vectors come into play. But what you are doing, RSVP, is just the cargo cult version. -
Mikemcc at 05:32 AM on 3 March 2010Predicting future sea level rise
Hi John, Great site, but I've just noticed something that doesn't, at first sight, seem right. The graph is taken from the Copenhagen Diagnosis report (fig 16) but that report says that the satellite data is taken from the Cazenave et al 2008 paper (Cazenave, A., et al., Sea level budget over 2003–2008: A reevaluation from GRACE space gravimetry, satellite altimetry and Argo, Glob. Planet. Change (2008), doi:10.1016/j.gloplacha.2008.10.004) But that paper only covers the 2003 - 2008 period. Nor does it indicate the bounds of the observational error.Response: I imagine the authors took the analysis from Cazenave 2008 and updated it with the latest data. You'd need to contact the authors to confirm this (and please report back here to let us know what they say if you do). -
Charlie A at 05:30 AM on 3 March 2010Every skeptic argument ever used
@jhudsy #4 ".... AGW is easy to attack. You simply need to prove that anthropogenic emissions are not able to cause an increase in global temperatures." You failed to reply to RSVP's question in #2. He simply asks for a statement of the AGW hypothesis. If a hypothesis is not defined, then it is difficult to discuss, test or falsify it. jhudgsy, or anyone else ..... I'd appreciate seeing some specific statements defining AGW. -
suckfish at 05:22 AM on 3 March 2010Satellites show no warming in the troposphere
One thing I don't get about the skeptical argument: Suppose that the tropospheric warming relative to the surface warming were less than the models predict. Won't that end up making the climate sensitivity bigger, not smaller? The troposphere is where heat is radiated back into space, so if it's responding less than expected to a forcing, then the result is less heat radiated from the earth = more heat retained = more temperature increase? -
Tom Dayton at 04:31 AM on 3 March 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
gallopingcamel, the "station drop off problem" and "station cherry picking" have been proven, empirically, to be bogus. Tamino has done the analyses, and at least two other people have replicated. Links to all that are here.Response: Just to plug the new links page, there is a page on the station drop off problem linking to the various analyses that show dropping stations has no effect on the warming trend. -
angliss at 04:03 AM on 3 March 2010Every skeptic argument ever used
Do you have "Venus is hot due to internal heating, not the greenhouse effect, so if CO2 isn't keeping Venus hot, it's not warming up the Earth either?" as one of your arguments?Response: We do now. If you know of any links expressing this view (which is a new one to me and I thought I'd seen it all), please add them. -
gallopingcamel at 03:10 AM on 3 March 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
Riccardo (@98), the first three links you cite are from John Cook's excellent web site. My position is that it only takes one experiment to disprove a theory and there are growing numbers of scientific studies that undermine AGW theory. You may choose to disbelieve Loehle & McCullough 2008, Lindzen & Choi 2009, Svensmark & Friis-Christensen 1997 etc. etc. but I would contend that the jury is still out. The biggest problems for the Mann et al. Hockey Stick reconstructions come not from climate scientists but from historians. If you believe the Hockey Team there was no Medieval Warm Period and temperatures hardly varied during the Little Ice Age. The last link relies on NASA/GISS surface station records. These are highly suspect owing to the "station drop off problem" and station cherry picking. For an explanation of this issue: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/26/new-paper-on-surface-temperature-records/ Don't give me an "ex cathedra" rejection of this paper because I am a skeptical skeptic who took the trouble to check some of the claims starting from the raw GHCN v2 data sets. If you have a copy of MS Excel I can show you how to do it yourself. -
1077 at 03:01 AM on 3 March 2010Every skeptic argument ever used
I was inclined to propose renaming this blog "Science Against Skeptics" or "Non-Skeptical Science" or something along these lines. This new initiative makes me re-think. After all this would not be the first time that I found myself to be wrong... for the time being in judging the site, not in my opinions on AGW. Will be revisiting every now-and-then, time and need to make a living permitting. -
carrot eater at 02:57 AM on 3 March 2010Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
I think some of the statements in this article are worded overly strongly. Tree rings can also be sensitive to moisture or other constraints on growth. This article makes it sound like tree rings are only ever sensitive to temperature, but they aren't. If I understand it, the trick is to find those trees that are primarily reporting temperature. Also, you don't know what's unprecedented in the time before the thermometer record picks up around 1850-1880. Maybe divergence has happened before; you'd only know by checking against other proxies. But other proxies come with their own uncertainties. So I'd suggest softening some of the language a bit. -
Karl_from_Wylie at 02:23 AM on 3 March 2010YouTube video on the empirical evidence for man-made global warming
. # 109 lord_sidcup IPCC requests that others spend large amounts of money to combat Global Warming. When asking others to spend their money based upon your data and analysis, be prepared to have your proposals reviewed closely and with a critical eye. -
lord_sidcup at 01:59 AM on 3 March 2010YouTube video on the empirical evidence for man-made global warming
@108 Karl_from_Wylie If the IPCC has such large amounts of cash, why is it the bulk of its work undertaken by unpaid volunteers - that is by the thousands of scientists who contribute as authors or reviewers to the IPCC reports at no remuneration and whilst still doing their day jobs? Why does it have just 10 full-time staff in its secretariat at the World Meteorological Organization in Geneva, plus a few more staff in its technical support units? -
Karl_from_Wylie at 01:19 AM on 3 March 2010YouTube video on the empirical evidence for man-made global warming
. #100 doug_bostrom Surely you jest. Please do a google search on "IPCC" and "funding", you'll see their efforts to secure "massive amounts" of funding for their cause. With regard to scientific bias, it appears that you are in agreement with my statements that it has and does effect scientific studies. We only disagree as to the level of bias is acceptable when developing analysis used to secure others money. -
Dennis at 00:41 AM on 3 March 2010Every skeptic argument ever used
I just added a new argument below "it hasn't warmed since 1998) when I meant to add a link to an existing argument (which I thendid correctly). Please delete it. (As a software developer, I blame the tech writers for not being clear enough in the instructions!)Response: Fair criticism, I will endeavour to clarify instructions in the submission forms as I see what common errors are made. I've deleted that submission so I suggest resubmitting as a link. -
lord_sidcup at 00:23 AM on 3 March 2010Every skeptic argument ever used
I have just added my first couple of links (refuting the disgraceful and unfounded accusations made about New Zealand temperatures). I will be adding more when I have time. It will be interesting to see how Skeptical Science develops from now on. I have been coming here for a few months now and rate it very highly. It does seem to have really taken off recently and I hope you are able to cope with all the extra work that the additional visitors entail (I will donate when I am able - I certainly owe you) and aren't swamped by trolls and other negative and destructive individuals. Keep up the good work. -
CBDunkerson at 00:23 AM on 3 March 2010Every skeptic argument ever used
Hmmm... should we include arguments which make no attempt at putting a 'scientific' veneer on it? For instance, 'God would not allow us to damage his creation', 'God promised he would not make another Great Flood', or 'It is sinful arrogance to think that we could upset God's plan'. Et cetera. As the apparent purpose of the list is to accumulate actual evidence for and against various positions I'd question whether arguments which are overtly 'faith based' really fit the mold. Short of some sort of theological debate (i.e. 'God said that HE would not cause another Great Flood, but that does not mean WE cannot') there isn't really much 'evidence' to gather one way or the other. -
Dennis at 00:22 AM on 3 March 2010Every skeptic argument ever used
Why no links to the IPCC report? Every section of the IPCC report has its own webpage. A quick glance at your list of items and seeing all those green zeros got me repeatedly saying to myself "that's answered somewhere in the IPCC report." Can we start adding those?Response: Yes please, and it would be great if you could link to the HTML version of the IPCC 4th Assessment Report rather than the PDFs. The HTML version breaks up each section into its own webpage with a narrow focus whereas the PDFs contain entire chapters in the one document. Adding this would be an extremely useful resource. -
jhudsy at 00:07 AM on 3 March 2010Every skeptic argument ever used
@RSVP Have you added your argument to the list yet? If not, I'll be happy to do it. While an entire post can be dedicated to the topic, the short answer to your comment is that AGW is easy to attack. You simply need to prove that anthropogenic emissions are not able to cause an increase in global temperatures. -
HumanityRules at 00:02 AM on 3 March 2010Every skeptic argument ever used
Erm big list! Question - what if you don't know if its pro or anti? The World meterological society has updated its position on climate change and hurricanes. It's concludes that it can't find any past change in hurricanes above natural variability (anti?) but firms up its predictions for the future (pro) http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/infonotes/infonote62_en.html WMO EXPERTS ISSUE UPDATE ON THE IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON TROPICAL CYCLONES -
CBDunkerson at 23:35 PM on 2 March 2010YouTube video on the empirical evidence for man-made global warming
I should have included a reference to the underlying study, (Murphy 2009), for the graph in the prior message. -
CBDunkerson at 23:33 PM on 2 March 2010YouTube video on the empirical evidence for man-made global warming
RSVP, concentrating ONLY on the oceans simplifies the situation somewhat... they are the MAJOR, but not sole repository for the extra energy accumulating within Earth's climate system as a result of rising GHGs and feedback effects. A graph showing both the ocean and other energy accumulation has been posted here several times before;
You seemed to be suggesting that scientists have shied away from examining this as it could definitively prove or disprove AGW. As seen above, nobody has been avoiding it. However, on its own this actually does not prove the SOURCE of the extra energy accumulating in the Earth's climate system. The strongest measured (rather than modeled or theorized) indicator of that is the observed increase at the Earth's surface of wavelengths absorbed and re-emitted by GHGs.
-
RSVP at 23:07 PM on 2 March 2010Every skeptic argument ever used
AGW's biggest strength is not defining itself with precision and thereby making it impervious to attack. What exactly constitutes AGW? Which part of it? How much AGW makes AGW real? Etc. On the otherhand, anything that is alive and moves is a skeptic. -
skagedal at 22:48 PM on 2 March 2010Every skeptic argument ever used
This is so absolutely brilliant I don't even know how to express it! You're getting some money from me right now to support this important project. (I'm not rich, but happen to have a few bucks stacked away at a PayPal account donated to me for a far more silly project. I know from this experience that if a whole bunch of people donate $5 each, it can pay your rent.) Thanks for your work! /Simon -
RSVP at 20:37 PM on 2 March 2010YouTube video on the empirical evidence for man-made global warming
doug_bostrom You are right. I should have said retained. There are different analogs that can be used. An electronic circuit could be used, oceans being a giant capacitor, etc. In some earlier posts, a leaking barrel was used where the water level was the analog for temperature, and inflow was energy in, and outflow was energy out. The comparison was OK, but not correctly proportioned. It would have been better to compare a huge damn (this being the thermal capacity of oceans) and tiny creek at one end, that being the effects of CO2 on the damns water level. My sense is that the amount of IR energy coming from the extra CO2, which in turn is warming the surrounding "passive" gases, which in turn are convectively passing this heat on to the oceans, is miniscule compared to the total thermal capacity of all the water in all the oceans of the Earth. Whereas the AGW model is concerned with comparisons of relative radiative forcings, what matter for the discussion is only the relationship between the additional energy flux due to the effects of man-made GHGs, and what percent of this energy is actually getting stored in the oceans, that is if global warming is understood or defined as "drift" (using a circuit analog). -
Doug Bostrom at 19:26 PM on 2 March 2010YouTube video on the empirical evidence for man-made global warming
RSVP at 19:09 PM on 2 March, 2010 I'm sure you meant "retained" where you said "produced". I'm not sure what you mean when you say that focusing attention on the oceans would quickly end discussion. Can you elaborate on that? -
tobyjoyce at 19:17 PM on 2 March 2010YouTube video on the empirical evidence for man-made global warming
thingdonta wrote: "I also dont think that Gary Thompson is 'eyeballing graphs' as claimed in the above article, ....I feel sorry for Gary, ...." I feel sorry for Gary too, but maybe for a different reason. Ignoring graphs which show a statistically signifcant difference where he did not want to see one, is not good science... in fact it is the type of "theory-laden observation" you are talking about. Scientists only "see the models"? Very little of modern science would get done without models. Every climate denier is using a model. How much astrophysics, oceanography, geophysics, materials science, civil engineering (the list goes on...) would get done without modelling? The trope "you're using models, I'm using data" falls apart upon examination. I must concede on the Eugenics, but where there was Julius Rosenberg and Houston Stewart Chamberlain, I see people like Watts and Sarah Palin. -
RSVP at 19:09 PM on 2 March 2010YouTube video on the empirical evidence for man-made global warming
doug_bostrom "So if you've going to argue, make a powerful argument if you're able." The AGW model consists of pitting all known radiative forcings against one another, such that global temperatures will ultimate stabilize around the equilibrium that these vectors produce in their sum. I assume the model also contemplate that this equilibrium point has to do with a rise in ocean temperatures where energy is actually stored. As far as the effects of man-made GHGs, the only significant issue is how the extra energy produced by the presence these GHGs is rising the temperature of the oceans, or their theoretical ability to do so. So it would seem logical, for starters, to only be concerned with this relationship. The problem (or the "power" as you say) with this is approach is that it is too simple, and would very quickly put an end to the discussion. -
Doug Bostrom at 17:12 PM on 2 March 2010YouTube video on the empirical evidence for man-made global warming
By the way, Karl, let me suggest that instead of starting from the bottom with trivialities in attacking anthropogenic climate change, you should instead try a change of tactics and begin at the top. If it's a scientific case you want to make, you really do need to change your approach because eventually folks are going to notice there's little significance in arguments of the sort we're entertaining just now. For instance, if you've got a problem with CRU, instead of looking at their social comportment in writing email, use the ample data available (95% apparently) and do an analysis showing where they've gone off the rails. Dr. Jones himself says there's no rocket science in their work, more drudgery. So if you've going to argue, make a powerful argument if you're able. -
Doug Bostrom at 17:04 PM on 2 March 2010YouTube video on the empirical evidence for man-made global warming
Karl_from_Wylie at 16:52 PM on 2 March, 2010 Which man are you thinking of, who wants "massive amounts of money?" Any names come to mind? Regarding the IPCC report being a private communication I'm sorry, I did not write with sufficient clarity and you have misunderstood what I wrote. Let me spell it out: in email or other written communications between two persons such as one of the examples you cited, you are more likely to see biases revealed. Clear enough? -
Karl_from_Wylie at 16:52 PM on 2 March 2010YouTube video on the empirical evidence for man-made global warming
. #97 doug_bostrom Private emails provide unfiltered insights into men who want massive amounts of money. It also reveals their biases. Additionally, it was my understanding that IPCC's 2007 report was NOT a "private communication". If I produced a report for my boss requesting massive funding and flaws are found in parts of my analysis, it would not be viewed as "picayune matter" Climate scientists must play by the rules they set for themselves. -
thefrogstar at 16:20 PM on 2 March 2010YouTube video on the empirical evidence for man-made global warming
1077, If you're still reading, as an engineer-turned-financial analyst, you seem like the ideal person to ask this question of: Is there a market (such as spread-betting) where those (such as myself) with an "opinion" on the debate can take a financial position? ...and where the sum-total of the offered-odds approaches unity, and dealing costs are the same as regular stock-transactions. I have some serious doubts about anybody's ability to model non-linear systems as complex as climate on the timescales that seemed to be proposed for "global warming". So where can people go to "put their money where their mouth is" ? As a practising scientist, I cannot afford to bet much on this, and probably shouldn't. But I think a general awareness of how the odds are really evaluated, by people who are well positioned to know, and motivated by financial loss or gain if they get it wrong, would add clarity to the debate. -
Doug Bostrom at 16:20 PM on 2 March 2010YouTube video on the empirical evidence for man-made global warming
Karl_from_Wylie at 15:32 PM on 2 March, 2010 Oh, I don't at all doubt you'll find the occasional example of bias, particularly when it comes to notionally private communications which we must remember are after not scientific publications. If fringe issues possibly affected by bias are all that one has to offer as an argument against the plethora of noncontroversial research results including robust predictions based on well understood and basic physical effects which cannot be ascribed to bias, that's not a sufficiently robust argument to justify ignoring what appears to be a very significant risk. If this were a matter of debate at a dinner table over small stakes, emphasizing picayune matters such as hurt feelings over ungraciously expressed refusals to cooperate in time wasting or inappropriate citations buried in the middle of hundreds of pages of reliable information would be more understandable. But we're seeing desperate tactical rhetoric based on examples you cite employed in public debate over a matter of immediate urgency. People hoping to improve outcomes should identify research problems of real significance, if such exist. Instead, we hear nothing but iota, distractions. Why does argument over this matter converge over and over again on trivia and even ridiculous analogies? Communists? Nazis? That's all? Are there not important gaps in our understanding of climate science? What are they? -
thingadonta at 15:58 PM on 2 March 2010YouTube video on the empirical evidence for man-made global warming
#93 Doug Your right, I dont want to go into 20th century social history either, but people keep bringing up smoking and oil and coal antagonism to research, which is just as relevant as biased mistakes of other antagonisms of the 20th century. People like Mr Rigour Al Gore and Pachmari and co. have no understanding whatsoever of the dangers of intellectual distortion, so they just revert in a tight place back to 'voodoo' and 'smoking'. One needs to see both sides. As for dead canaries in coal mines, the statament itself carries all one needs to know-canaries dont usually live in coal mines, they arent adapted to them, they have no biological exposure or history to them(unlike eg natural warmings) so how can one use this cruel analogy with anything to do with climate change? I suppose if we say a fish dies out of water then they might get stressed if water temperature changes. -
Karl_from_Wylie at 15:32 PM on 2 March 2010YouTube video on the empirical evidence for man-made global warming
. #93 doug_bostrum Bias allows one to include non-peer reviewed prognostications where it shouldn't. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/garnaut-caught-in-climate-panels-himalayan-glacier-mistake/story-e6frg6nf-1225826894899 Bias motivates one to write "awful emails" to skeptics when refusing their request for infomation. http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/british-scientist-in-climate-row-admits-awful-emails-20100302-pfgd.html Bias leads one to the conclusion that Global warming led the golden tree frogs into extinction. http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/03/global-warming-didnt-kill-the-go.html Bias motivates one to attempt to exclude certain folks that disagree with one's conclusions from the peer-review process. -
ike solem at 15:29 PM on 2 March 2010YouTube video on the empirical evidence for man-made global warming
As expected, someone tried to stand Feynman on his head: Berényi Péter "Now, what about of those (more than 10%, >2950) physical and biological datasets showing changes in a direction _inconsistent_ with global warming?" Let's say I count all the species in an ecosystem, then come back and do it again ten and twenty years later. I find that 90% of the species show declines, and that new warm-weather species have shown up as well. Now, there is another 10% that is absolutely unchanged - they're unfazed by the changed conditions. The data is right there in the paper - but people publish their summary conclusions! If you were to take that 10% in isolation, and claim that since these 10% were stable, there was no ecological response to warming - well, that would be called scientific fraud - deliberate removal of data in order to prove your point. However, this is precisely what front groups like Idso's Exxon-sponsore co2science.org do - selectively chose temperature data that agrees with their PR line. Berényi Péter: "If climate science would follow Feynman's advice, the peer reviewed literature should have numerous such publications." If you look at 100 indicator species - our coal mine canaries - and 90 of them show changes in distribution consistent with climate model projections - well, what do you think that means? Please note, evaporation and precipitation changes are just as important as temperature changes when in comes to ecosystem responses. What the climate denialist tends to do is then pick the 10 species that show no change for more careful & detailed study - while not publishing their initial results - but in any case, just read the papers that report that 90% trend, look in the datasets, and you'll find that 10% you are looking for. HumanityRules is also confused on this topic. What people are saying about malaria is that as the climate changes such that the host mosquito has more favorable conditions, you will need to take more steps to combat malaria, or you will suffer more disease outbreaks. This is a regional issue - and of course, mosquito netting, anti-malarial drugs and public sanitation are needed to fight malaria - under any circumstances. Is there anything to say about the devastation of the British Columbia forests by pine beetles, their growth spurred on by dry summers and warm winters? http://mpb.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/map_e.html Again, this is just a canary in the coal mine approach - a dead bird doesn't tell you precisely what gas is down in the mine - methane? hydrogen sulfide? - but it is a strong line of evidence to add to the instrument record, the paleoclimate record, and the climate model results. At this point, rational people would be well along the way to dropping their reliance on fossil fuel combustion as an energy source and replacing it with a broad mix of CO2-neutral technologies. This is what plants do, using sunlight to make fuel from air and water and then burning that fuel at night for energy... Here's another appropriate Feynman quote, on a childhood conversation with his father on energy: He would say, "It moves because the sun is shining," if he wanted to give the same lesson. I would say "No. What has that to do with the sun shining? It moved because I wound up the springs." "And why, my friend, are you able to move to wind up this spring?" "I eat." "What, my friend, do you eat?" "I eat plants." "And how do they grow?" "They grow because the sun is shining." And it is the same with the dog. What about gasoline? Accumulated energy of the sun which is captured by plants and preserved in the ground. Other examples all end with the sun. -
gallopingcamel at 14:33 PM on 2 March 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
My apologies, my post (@96) was meant for the thread shown below: YouTube video on the empirical evidence for man-made global warming -
Doug Bostrom at 14:19 PM on 2 March 2010YouTube video on the empirical evidence for man-made global warming
Our "skeptic" friends have somehow managed to swerve discussion here into Marx and the Communists, Hitler and the Nazis. That's a poor climate for improved understanding, no doubt about it. For folks who may have wandered into this discussion and are wondering what the heck is going on, here's some background reading behind Climate Crock's video: Dr. Spencer Weart's "Discovery of Global Warming A very few happy hours spent reading Dr. Weart's fascinating history will save endless additional hours of confusion. For the more ideologically inclined, here's what Weart recounts of Nazis and Communists when speaking of the emergence of such organizations as the IPCC: Most people were scarcely aware that these international initiatives all relied on a key historical development — the world-wide advance of democracy. It is too easy to overlook the obvious fact that international organizations govern themselves in a democratic fashion, with vigorous free debate and votes in councils. Often, as in the IPCC, decisions are made by a negotiated consensus in a spirit of equality, mutual accommodation, and commitment to the community process (these are seldom celebrated but essential components of the democratic political culture). If we tried to make a diagram of the organizations that deal with climate change, we would not draw an authoritarian tree of hierarchical command, but a spaghetti tangle of cross-linked, quasi-independent committees. It is an important but little-known rule that such organizations were created mainly by governments that felt comfortable with such mechanisms at home, that is, democratic governments. Nations like Nazi Germany, Communist China, and the former Soviet Union did little to create international organizations (aside from front groups under their own thumb), and participated in them awkwardly. Happily, the number of nations under democratic governance increased dramatically during the 20th century, and by the end of the century they were predominant. Therefore democratically based international institutions proliferated, exerting an ever stronger influence in world affairs.(44) This was visible in all areas of human endeavor, but it often came first in science, internationally minded since its origins. The democratization of international politics was the scarcely noticed foundation upon which the IPCC and its fellow organizations took their stand.
Prev 2458 2459 2460 2461 2462 2463 2464 2465 2466 2467 2468 2469 2470 2471 2472 2473 Next
