And I will just have to second Raveneye's observations regarding your posts throughout thread, including your latest contribution (Marc Morano article) and your follow-up response to my reaction to it.
I have concluded you do not want to have an objective discussion nor do I believe you are open minded about the issue of global warming.

The scientific consensus that there is a high (or very high) likelihood that anthropogenic activities contribute to global warming are clear and unambiguous as expressed by the overwhelming majority of scientists on the IPCC, the majority of scientists represented by 11 national acadamies of sciences around the world, as well as The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and other credible scientific bodies with at least 928 papers on the subject:

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...5702/1686#ref7

And still not enough for you.

Have a nice day :)

This has never been an objective discussion on any level regarding global warming. And you are correct I am no longer open-minded on this issue. I was at one point, but no longer.

This comment illustrates your lack of understanding of what is being questioned. There can be made made "causes" without man being the "cause".



You seem to be dense on this issue.

You do not know what is or is not good enough for me.

All I really stated in my first 11/13 post was that reading the full article was interesting. I did not write about any conclusions I may have made from the article. You don't even know if I agree with your response. Yet you and others think I am not willing to engage in an objective discussion. All I can say is - when I am being an a$$, I admit it.

I would suggest the "dense" comment is yours..."There can be made (sic) made "causes" without man being the "cause"...... The consensus is that there are anthropogenic contributions to global warming.....but you dont seem to understand the difference between contribution and causation.

Just so I understand the latest exchange:

-- you post an article that you find interesting but offer no further comment or opinion. (#96)
-- I respond with my opinion about the author (and his well-documented biases and affiliations) and an article that points out how your article was misleading. (#97)
-- you respond with a charge of ad hominem arguments as well as another criticism of Hansen(#98)

based on that:
-- I respond that I share raveneye's opinion of how you participated in this discussion (#100)
-- you respond that I dont understanding what is being questioned, then incorrectly state the consensus and what is being questioned as something about "man causes" rather than the consensus that "man contributes".....and call me dense (#101) :) .

Make sense to you?

But we agree on something.....you are no longer open-minded on the subject :thumbsup:

Now, I don't understand the position of people like you Gore and Hansen. Are you folks saying humans are the cause of global warming or are you saying that humans contribute to global warming?

Nope, you don't understand. You have failed to connect all of the dots, and the above makes no sense. What was written is available for all to see. Generally you made assumptions when you had no basis, made my post referencing Maro's article - about me rather than the points in the article, and used ad hominem arguments not relevant to what I found interesting in the article. Even now you call it my article, when I did not write it or even comment on the merits of the points in the article.

For the record - the reason my mind is closed on this issue is because it is virtually impossible to discuss the question of global warming and its causes in an objective manner. Even Hansen has to revert to name calling, it is beneath a man with his experience and credentials. If a man of his stature can not discuss the issue objectively, why would I expect more from you or others here. I guess I should have known what to expect.

Thanks for looking down on us from your lofty non objective, close minded perch :)

You're welcome.

Wrong again. Not a single author of any peer-reviewed paper cited in your link is a doubter of the fact that most or all of the recent warming was caused by anthropogenic activity. Plus not a single one of the denialist rants in that link was taken from a peer-reviewed article.

Do you actually know what peer review is?


I know it must be hard to come to a full realization that you’re nothing but a buffoon in the eyes of Hansen or any other scientist. But put yourself in our shoes and think why: you have no scientific background or experience, in fact your mind is closed to the science on principle, and you’re too intellectually lazy and irresponsible to notice that the “science” you do quote, this time from Rush Limbaugh’s Man in Washington Marc Morano, is a deliberate and calculated cartoon distortion.

Perhaps if you think about that for a few seconds, you’ll see that you might as well hang a big flashing neon sign on your back that says “Attention scientists: please kick my scrawny ass from here to the moon and back.”

Research scientists are meticulous, hard-working souls who must continually question and critically evaluate every new method, mode of analysis, and piece of information from all angles before it eventually makes its way into print, if it ever does. They generally have zero patience for people who distort their work for political gain, over and over again, as you have in this thread, completely unapologetically.

But feel free to keep doing it. I enjoy pointing it out to any interested lurkers here. Court jesters do have a functional purpose, after all.

I may be a lot of things and I know I am not an expert or a scientist nor do I pretend to be. But you guys are all over the place on this topic, perhaps you should debate with DC and decide what you folks agree on.. The more you guys write the more confusing you get. Are you now saying there is consensus in the scientific community that humans are the cause of global warming, while DC says there is not?

How about this:

http://groups.google.com/group/aus.i...4521e89d653b79

I am really looking forward to your response about how ignorant I am or why Christy is not crdible.:eek:

More name calling. Part of the pattern.

My credibility as a scientist is questioned even though we know and knew I am not one. Part of the pattern.

I am intellectually lazy and irresponsible, more personal attacks. Part of the pattern.

I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh or read him but you say I I got a quote from him, making assumptions with no basis. Part of the pattern.

And another attempt to discredit Marano rather than addressing his point. Part of the pattern


Heightened emotion. Part of the pattern.

And the claim that I distorted the work of scientist. Part of the pattern.

And the confirmation that you support the name calling used by Hansen. Part of the pattern

You guys are very predictable. This is turning into a lot of fun. Perhaps on day we can play poker, how about it?:expressionless:

{added}

Here is Christy's full article from the WSJ for those interested.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119387567378878423.html

ace....the fun is watching you squirm and dodge any real discussion of the facts around the scientific consensus and put the blame everywhere but on yourself. (if you are honest with yourself, you would recognize that you are an anthropomorphic contributor :) to the deterioration of the discussion here as much as anyone.)

How many times must this be repeated to sink in?

The consensus is clear and unambiguous as expressed by the overwhelimg majority of climate scientists at the IPCC, the majority of scientists represented by 11 National Acadamies of Sciences around the world, as well as the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and other credible scientific bodies.

You can continue to cherry pick scientists that disagree (Christy is one of the small number of dissenting voices within the IPCC), supported by articles you post that misrepresent the facts..... but that doesnt change the overwhelming consensus.

When you can point to ANY credible national or international scientific body that disputes the consensus, THEN you may have a leg to stand on and cause for further discussion.

Unitl then, carry on if you think it makes your self-proclaimed CLOSE MINDED position stronger or more credible. :thumbsup:

ModBoy Speaks:

While I understand there is mounting frustration on both sides in this thread, please keep the ad hominems out of the debate.


Thus Spake ModBoy.

Perhaps one more.

The reference to "The consensus" is a reference to what?

Is it that humans contribute to global warming?
That humans cause global warming?
That humans can prevent global warming?
That given current trends global warming will not be reversible?
That given current trends global warming will lead to catastrophe?

That is what has become confusing. That is what you folks need to clarify. I have read all of the above positions and if I attempt to discuss one of those postitions someone else ends up arguing another one to supposedly counter what was put on the table.
O.k., lets see if you want to take this to the next level with Christy. He pretty much made a challenge to what he considers alarmists. He says: So rather than commenting on Christy the man, why not have a scientist refute the claim. Many people are increasingly concerned about wasting resources to fix a problem with either the wrong solution or not fixing the problem at all.

That is a real issue worthy of discussion. My ignorance of Elvis sighting on polar ice caps or the openness of my mind is not.

If you read the most recent IPCC report or policymakers summary or the statement by the 11 National Acadamies of Sciences or the the summaries from the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)....you would know what is meant by "consensus". If it is confusing than I can only conclude that you havent read the reports or policy statements.

Until you read those reports, I dont see the point of further discussion.

There is what IPCC writes and there is what you and others write in addition to what is discussed in the media. Admit that there is no clarity.

More on the consensus (that I posted earlier, which you may or may not have read): "The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change"
It is clear to me what is meant.

Uh, there’s a difference whether some scientist somewhere professes personal ignorance about AGW (as Christy does in his article), and whether “peer reviewed studies” cast serious doubt on AGW. You seem to want to believe for some reason that the link you posted contained the latter. It doesn’t, and your argument that it does is false. If you disagree then feel free to defend your claim. If you can’t, then feel free to concede the point.

How about what? Are you making some sort of argument here? You know, with premises, a little logic, and a conclusion? What is it, that Christy is a smart guy, therefore AGW is a hoax? Do expect us to read your mind?

Christy may have doubts about AGW, but he hasn’t defended his doubts in any peer-reviewed scientific research, as you seem to want to believe. Until he’s done so, his opinion is no more valuable than the hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific studies that contradict him with, you know, actual reasoned scientific logic.

You made yourself a subject of the thread by volunteering the information that you decided to close your mind on the subject. Therefore, you’re closed-minded on the subject and all that that implies. If you didn’t want anybody to discuss your close-mindedness then perhaps you shouldn’t have brought your closed-mindedness up in the first place. Sound like a good idea?

And if you had read Hansen, you’d know that he in fact did not call any specific person a name. He used what is called a “metaphor” to make a point about the population of closed-minded people. He could have simply called them “closed minded” but he was trying to make a slightly more nuanced point, namely that they do serve an instructive purpose for the rest of the population that is not closed-minded (which as we now know sadly does not apply to you).

You might want to read what he wrote, it’s actually quite insightful.

I think the basic problem with us understanding each other is that you perceive my questions as arguments. You perceive the presentation of a citation as support for arguments that I don't make rather than the argument that the authors of the citations make.

All of that aside.

There was a simple question on the table. What is "the consensus"? Do you agree with what DC just posted about the IPCC report? Is that the basis of discussion? Can we begin to look at that in detail? The first part I can easily accept

For ease of reading, I've stripped out all but the paragraphs originally bolded in the IPCC February summary.

Questions? Every entry of yours into this thread was a false assertion about James Hansen's scientific integrity and credentials, and most recently about peer review based on Marc Morano's phony blog headline.

If you really are interested in learning about the science of AGW, the Politics forum on TFP is not where I would recommend you start. I recommend that the first thing you read is the IPCC FAQ, followed by the full IPCC February report.

Then if you have a political argument to make, return to TFP Politics. If not, and you just want some answers to neutral questions, start a thread in TFP General and try to convince somebody that you actually have an open mind on the subject.

I also accept the following and I have not read anything fron the scientific community disputing what you cited here:

The issues in question in my mind are based on the questions that logically follow the above points. And that is what I find confusing relative to "consensus" and wonder why the follow-up questions are met with such disdain. I personally think the answers to these questions will dramtically shape our future and need to be looked at with the highest degree of scrutiny. Do you think all these questions are"settled", as you stated at one point?

The reason for the disdain has been explained to you in this thread ad infinitum already, and has to do with your unwillingness to take any intellectual responsibility for your strong and absolutely unwavering opinions.

It’s really simple: you either understand enough science to have an informed opinion on the subject, or you don’t. If you don’t then you need to have the intellectual integrity to admit it. If you do then you need to have the intellectual integrity to state your position and defend it.

You’ve done neither. And when anybody points it out, you accuse them of name-calling. Therefore it appears that you are not ready yet to have a responsible discussion on this subject.

If you want to understand what I mean about intellectual integrity, read the full IPCC report from the Third Assessment. You'll see that every point is stated explicitly and quantitatively, and defended in full, exhaustive scientific detail with reference to data sources, method of analysis, and assumptions. The logic is absolutely transparent. It's a tour de force.

If you are being honest here and genuinely want to learn about climate change, there really is no better way to do so than reading that report.

Post #21 my first, here is my comment:

Here is what I wrote in post #23 my second:

Here is my third #25:
Here is my 4th #29

Here is my 5th #32

I am not going to list everything, but now challenge your assertions. Feel free to read anything I have written on this topic.

At what point have I made an argument?
At what point did I make false accusations?
At what point have I engage in the discussion in a less than open-minded manner?
At what point did I make personal attacks?
At what point....
At what point....

And why do you continually focus on me rather than the issues and questions? Gee, I thought we were past the bullshit. As you say - I am wrong again.

Here is some more "cherry picked" stuff.

http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/34866/118/

Should I continue reading about global warming or should I just stop at the IPCC report?

:lol: 100 points for candor.

As you might remember from my last post, I said you haven’t made a single argument in this entire thread. Thanks for making my point for me, I appreciate it.

Every single accusation you made about James Hansen was false, obviously. I think I see what you mean about your mind being closed.

What can you possibly offer of value on the scientific issues, when you just admitted you can’t support your opinion with an argument? There are a billion unfounded opinions in the world, why do you think yours is any better a number drawn out of a hat? What do you think a discussion is, a game of pin-the-tail on the donkey?

Another sweet example. Here's something to consider: if you want to score a debate point, you need to fire a neuron or two and make at least a rudimentary attempt to cobble together an argument. That will help you find the donkey. With this link, you just pinned the tail on your knee again, I'm afraid.

Depends. If you just want to reinforce what you already “know” like any run of the mill global warming denialist, then you’re doing gangbusters right now. Keep it up and you'll "learn" a lot.

ace, you are a fucking saint. Your patience is astounding.

yes that's all i have to offer.

By the way, the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report is out now and can be downloaded here:

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm

They did an amazing job, as usual.

Actually, I have a pit bullish side to my personality. It has often been a terrible weakness, but I am working on it.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. - Attributed to Albert Einstein, or even Benjamin Franklin.

Still love you though Ace :thumbsup:

There comes a time when it seems fitting to weigh doubt against consequence. I can think of few situations where this is more clear than in this issue. While I also get confused , and frustrated by the many conflicting studies out there, I have come to rely on the people who study our climate and its influences to clarify some of the clouded Data. Sundays report is a case in point, as it takes quite a bit of information gathered by thousands of our leading scientists, and compiles what I consider to be a relatively accurate synopsis of what may be happening.

My personal stance is one of cautionary reaction, as I do not think it wise to ignore what is said and hope its all made up, there is far too much at stake to hide from this.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe...ate/index.html

edit

What is your position on the "survey" you just quoted, ottopilot?

Have you looked at the methods/analysis and come to the conclusion that it is a valid scientific poll with the result quoted?

Are you prepared to defend your position with an argument?

edit

Its always been evident, which is perhaps the most infuriating thing about this. Nice tie in with the oil for food, with the UN you need to follow the money.

edit

[posting from my hotel room at a climate science conference]


Wow, that’s a lot of bile in response to the question of whether Steve Milloy is credible, which, by the way, wasn’t answered. Why should anybody waste a millisecond of their time reading your link if you can’t vouch for it yourself?

And it does seem rather contradictory, in a funny sort of way, that the fountain of skepticism is blasting like Old Faithful whenever the most scientifically peer-reviewed document in the history of the planet is brought up, but somehow the fountain dries up like a Death Valley arroyo every time lawyer and Exxon spokesman Steve Milloy opens his mouth.

I can't wait for the next link, I always like to spend my evenings learning about science from well-connected lawyers.

..

edit

Now it is all coming together, I am beginning to understand.

http://www.nasdaq.com/aspxcontent/Ne...laysymbol=9999


The UN seems to want to control and distribute about $100 billion dollars. Given my feelings about the UN, I personally would never support this, and I now believe that the case for global warming is being exaggerated to promote the UN's political agenda.

P.S. - I already know I am a cynic. And the above is simply my opinion formed from what I have read and nothing more. But as they say, just follow the money.

Nice catch. Now the pieces fall into place.

Funny, I wouldn’t say the latest research in atmospheric physics is cyanide-laced Kool Aid. I doubt anybody would, except maybe people who are really threatened by it. It’s just data, you know? How can it possibly hurt you?

I guess we can call this the “I couldn’t care less about atmospheric physics, I have all the science I need right here inside my own head” brand of skepticism.

Or, “Data, I don't need no steenking data” style of skepticism.

I know it can be a drag to have to think critically about what you find on the web, but the alternative is being as gullible as any seven-year-old. For example, you wouldn’t want to make the mistake of believing that Steve Milloy’s ULTIMATE GLOBAL WARMING CONTEST is actually real, would you? That would be rather embarrassing, wouldn’t it?

Let’s see if we can unpack your “argument” here. You’re saying that you don’t like the U.N., therefore global warming is a massive, worldwide scientific hoax perpetrated by 100 countries, a dozen scientific academies, all scientific funding agencies, hundreds of scientific journals, and every independent published scientific review, with the necessary implication being that thousands of dastardly scientists have been secretly colluding in a massive conspiracy to fake their data for the last 30 years.

I hate to be an “annoying” skeptic, but, are there any logical steps between the premise and conclusion here?

Uh, no, there never was a “consensus of scientists” that we’re headed into an ice age. You’ve been snookered by Steve Milloy again. You really need to try to be a bit more skeptical of random stuff you drink off the intertubes, even if it has a tangy grape flavor.





In other news, NASA been making a heck of a lot of money the last 50 years promoting their political agenda that the earth is round. I can’t believe they got away with it. Those sneaky bastards!

Have you followed the money to Exxon yet, or did your clever sleuthing trail just plumb peter out?

I did not make an argument, I simply stated my opinion. I believe there is a difference between an expression of an opinion and an argument. We have been through this before, and I even tried to make note that what I wrote was simply my opinion. What I wrote was not a premise for an argument relative to global warming nor did I offer any support for my opinion. Your exercise below has no value.
Just for the record are you suggesting that the exaggeration of real scientific data has never been used to promote political agenda? Because that is all that I suggested in my opinion about the UN.

I stated that my opinion was formed based on my feelings about the UN and the thing I have read. The formation of an opinion does not always require logic.

In my opinion Maryann is hotter than Ginger. That is based on the way they look and their personalities, but they are fictitious characters played by actresses 30 years ago. There is no logic, there is no argument, it is just my opinion.


Can you be more specific. If not "consensus", what was it? The view of one, many, none? Was there no scientific basis for the claim? What? Try to do more than just say how wrong I am, add value - I am still learning, are you?


The shape of the earth is known and the issue has been settled. The earth is not a perfect sphere or round as you wrote, it is slightly oblong.

If NASA has a political agenda to promote the earth as a perfect sphere, I would not support that. Would you?


Yes. I own some stock in the company. I figure if you can not beat them join them.

My lifestyle and standard of living is based on a big "carbon footprint". I have an interest in the status quo. I am biased, that is why I spend so much time trying to poke holes in the global warming theories that humans are responsible. It may be true, but I don't want it to be. But if it is true, I am willing to change, but all of my questions have to answered and my concerns addressed. And if an organization other than the UN is behind the cause. The UN has zero credibility in my book.

The risk that humans are responsible for global warming is why I ask questions and share my concerns. But you take the position of making fun of me, rather than working with me on the issue. Believe - there are millions of people just like me. If you want to help change the world, participate in the dialog and understand people like me. Making fun of my comments just ticks me off. :mad:

edit

I see, the popular press and movies like Planet of the Apes are your official, authoritative, definitive sources of scientific information. I guess we have to conclude then there’s a “consensus of scientists” that apes can talk too, ottopilot? And there’s a “consensus of scientists” that in a couple of years an asteroid will destroy the earth? And there was a “consensus of scientists” back in 1938 that Martians were going to take over the planet?

I’m sure it was really fun to wrangle up all those cute jpegs, but in the time it took you to find them you could have looked up what real scientists were saying in the first World Climate Conference in 1979. That would have told you what real scientists were saying rather than, uh, actors in movies.

There you have it.

So, again, where is that elusive “consensus of scientists” who thought we were plunging into an ice age? Were they the ones vaporized by those Martians on a Frank Capra move set? Or were they the ones eaten by the velociraptor on Dinosaurs' Picnic In Central Park?

It seems more likely to me that there was a “consensus of editors” of Time and Newsweek who thought that they could make some money with a little disaster hype from distorted comments from a couple people.

And the usual “skeptics” took the bait -- hook, line, sinker, rod, all the way up to the Wal Mart spinning reel.

Maybe we should amend this outlook to “I don’t need any science, I have all the science I need in the movie theater, see I even have JPEGS to prove it” style of Skeptical Scientific Inquiry. The world must be really, really simple to you folks.

edit

ottopilot - very entertaining post. All hail the hypnotoad.

edit

I really enjoy IBD editorials. Here is a portion of one on the issue of global warming:

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArti...81664532453337

:lol::lol:

climate scientist Leonardo DiCaprio

I liked that one the best.

edit

The courage to do nothing.....
 

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...3-68f67ebd151c

The courage to do nothing....

You know, now that I hear this slogan of sorts, I think that is what is the core of the matter with global warming alarm and alarmists.

As humans we are wired to see cause and effect. If a rock rolls off cliff and narrowly misses you, your first reaction is to see what pushed it. Its a survival instinct, its far better to assume some sort of direct, dangerous cause and be wrong, than not be on your guard.

Global warming fits that nicely. We are so assured that something we are doing must be to blame that we feel its better to act on it than ignore it, even when ignoring it is really the best course of action.

Ustwo....you're old enough to remember the environmental movement of the 60s and 70s.

Many attribute the explosive growth in concern for the environment in part to the publication in the early 60s of Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring" that described the indiscriminate use of pesticides. Skeptics (mostly the chemical industry) accused her of shallow, unsupportable science....after all, she was just a bird-watcher.

"If man were to faithfully follow the teachings of Miss Carson," complained an executive of the American Cyanamid Company, "we would return to the Dark Ages, and the insects and diseases and vermin would once again inherit the earth." Monsanto published and distributed 5,000 copies of a brochure parodying "Silent Spring" entitled "The Desolate Year," relating the devastation and inconvenience of a world where famine, disease, and insects ran amuck because chemical pesticides had been banned.

The environmental movement grew so quickly that by 1969, Congress (and even Nixon) recognized a need for governmental action and enacted the National Environmental Policy Act, with the stated purposes:

* To declare a national policy which will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment.

*To promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man.

*To enrich our understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the Nation."

There were skeptics in Congress at the time, including current Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska who complained: "Suddenly out of the woodwork come thousands of people talking about ecology."

Several months later, the first Earth Date celebration brought 20 million people into the streets across the country speaking out for environmental action.

And the next five years saw the passage of the first Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Solid Waste Disposal Act, etc. all of which had their skeptics,(mostly the affected industries, much like the role Exxon plays in today's skeptic community) questioning the science behind the environmental standards contained in those laws and complaining that these burdensome regulatory standards would seriously harm the country's long-term economic health.

Thankfully, Congress and the President at the time and every Congress and President since (at least until Bush, who has gutted many environmental laws) did not have "the courage to do nothing"

And you know the rest of the story.....the economy did not tank, new industries developed around the emerging technologies to assist in meeting the regulations, and best of all, the air, water, land was slowly restored.

If you were to take as much time to look at the mitigation proposals of the IPCC as you seem to do to find and post Mark Morano, junkscience.com and other extremist views and solutions, you might be surprised to see that they are moderate and sensible proposals, with concern for both economic and environmental sustainability.

But I suspect rather than discuss the IPCC mitigation proposals (or any proposals to lower greenhouse gas emissions), what we'll see follow here are more mindless videos, quizes, editorials, cartoons......

Thanks to Nixon, a true conservative.

Whether or not global warming is real, what's wrong with being conservative and conserving our resources and implementing better resource and environmental management? I would err on the side of caution. I don't know anything about the science everyone keep citing. Heck, I'm no Leonardo Di Caprio but I do have common sense and know not to shit in the drinking water and foul the air I breathe. Is that really so offensive? Is wanting to pollute less and have a nice clean place to live so offensive? This should be a classic conservative cause: to protect the environment.

Smart, sound, environmental policy need not be diametrically opposed to business. All the good that Nixon did to make air in California breathable again has been reversed.

We should be at the forefront of better environmental policy. End water subsidies to wasteful farmers. Let the free market decide water prices and then maybe people will stop wasting it and watering their driveways at high noon in the California desert (hey I'm looking at you neighbor!). Stop fucking up the soil with fertilizers. Agri-business is fucking up our economy. If we got off of oil, we could just give the finger to the Middle East and not be a hostage to their extremist governments. Our foreign policy need not be hostage to oil. Conservation makes sense. Not polluting makes sense. I don't care if it's soccer mom, jet-setting Bono, or hot air politicians and energy-hog homeowners like Al Gore who want to pollute - just stop it. It's not hard.

jorgelito..... count me as a fellow conservative on this issue :thumbsup:

In regard to California, Schwarzenegger signed the Global Warming Solutions Act last year "that establishes a first-in-the-world comprehensive program of regulatory and market mechanisms to achieve real, quantifiable, cost-effective reductions of greenhouse gases....to reduce California's greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent by 2020."

IMO, worthy of discussion as a viable model for federal legislation and similar in several respects to the IPCC recommendations.

And so it begins in ernest
 

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...48a6&Issue_id=

And we get to the meat of the issue, and what all the hot air is really about. Extorting money from 'wealthy' nations, under UN control.

Does anyone really trust the UN with say 40 billion US dollars to 'distribute'?

Well fellow conservative, let's just hope that Ahnold's act is effective and can produce results. Funny coming from a guy who drives a Hummer but I am willing to give him a chance. Thanks for the link DC.

Positive spin: The air pollution in Southern California produces some of the most spectacular sunsets in the world.

Instead of taxing, how about developing viable, profitable and sustainable alternatives? Taxing is such a cop out. With all the "brilliant" minds gathered the best they could come up with is taxing?

Ustwo, I think we all know that the UN is not the most fiscally competent entity.

UStwo......why am I not surprised you highlight Marc Morano and one radical proposed solution from one "global tax advocate" rather than look at all of the suggested mitigation strategies.

BTW, Morano is doing a great job as the mouthpiece for Senator Inhofe and his energy industry contributors.

JAMES M. INHOFE (R-OK) - Contributions by Sector (2006 senate campaign)

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicia...582&cycle=2006

Have you bothered to read the IPCC mitigation summary report (pdf), which identifies a wide range of economically sustainable mitigation strategies? Yes, it includes taxes, as well as subsidies and tax incentives among many other suggestions, to lower emissions, provide for greater energy efficiencies of existing energy applications and technologies, and develop alternative energy sources.

I wouldnt support a global tax as proposed in the article; I dont support Kyoto. I think there should be broad international goals and standards, with each country determining its own policies and practices to meet those goals. I do believe the greatest emission contributors (US, China....) should bear a greater burden.

Ustwo, tell me, what is wrong with the US committing to a goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to below 1990 levels by 2020, particularly if it can be achieved with little or no negative economic impact?

Were you one of those naysayers in the 70s (bah humbug...who needs clean air and clean water if its gonna cost me a few bucks)?

Koyto? Words on paper.

The Kyoto treaty was agreed upon in late 1997 and countries started signing and ratifying it in 1998. A list of countries and their carbon dioxide emissions due to consumption of fossil fuels is available from the U.S. government. If we look at that data and compare 2004 (latest year for which data is available) to 1997 (last year before the Kyoto treaty was signed), we find the following.

* Emissions worldwide increased 18.0%.
* Emissions from countries that signed the treaty increased 21.1%.
* Emissions from non-signers increased 10.0%.
* Emissions from the U.S. increased 6.6%.

In fact, emissions from the U.S. grew slower than those of over 75% of the countries that signed Kyoto. Below are the growth rates of carbon dioxide emissions, from 1997 to 2004, for a few selected countries, all Kyoto signers. (Remember, the comparative number for the U.S. is 6.6%.)

* Maldives, 252%.
* Sudan, 142%.
* China, 55%.
* Luxembourg, 43%
* Iran, 39%.
* Iceland, 29%.
* Norway, 24%.
* Russia, 16%.
* Italy, 16%.
* Finland, 15%.
* Mexico, 11%.
* Japan, 11%.
* Canada, 8.8%.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/..._schmyoto.html

Knowing that this is a conservative website, they include a link to the absolute numbers.

So exactly what are we suppose to be doing again, and how much money do we 'owe' the world again?

Ustwo...if you would read the IPCC mitigation report, rather than just conservative, global-warming denial websites, you might have a better understanding of the numerous moderate proposals.

The irony is that this morning, Bush signed an energy bill that has its core provisions:

- an increase fuel efficiency by 40 percent to an industry average 35 miles per gallon by 2020 for passengers cars, SUVs and small trucks. The standard for cars today is 27.5 mpg and for trucks and SUVs 22.2 mpg.

- improved energy efficiency in construction of commercial buildings, improved energy efficiency of appliances such as refrigerators, freezers and dishwashers, and a 70 percent increase in the efficiency of light bulbs.

While the bill is being characterized by the WH as an "energy independence bill" rather than a "global warming solutions bills", the fact remains that the two provisions above are among the key "common sense" mitigation proposals put forth by the IPCC.

I should add that Bush was against a`specific mileage standard increase before he was for it, perhaps because this latest bill was veto-proof.

Dare I say that Bush is now showing more "common sense" than the global warming naysayers here?

"We make a major step ... toward reducing our dependence on oil, fighting global climate change, expanding the production of renewable fuels and giving future generations ... a nation that is stronger cleaner and more secure," said the president.

White House fact sheet Energy Independence and Security Act

I would call it a small step rather than a major step...but better than standing still as some might prefer.

Ustwo....are you opposed to such reasonable steps (small or major) to energy independence while at the same time, reducing greenhouse gas emissions?

BTW, you still havent answered my previous question:
Ustwo, tell me, what is wrong with the US committing to a goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to below 1990 levels by 2020, particularly if it can be achieved with little or no negative economic impact?

UStwo....its been more than a week since I replied to your latest post.

Care to respond to the questions I posed?

If it would be helpful, in response to the CO2 numbers you posted, I would add the fact that the US is first in the world in total CO2 emissions and 5th in the world in CO2 emissions on a per capita basis.

So what's wrong with taking some of the reasonable steps proposed by the IPPC to lower those emissions?

Ah finally a Frenchman I like, a lot.
 

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...Gr8&refer=muse

Not much to add, its quite late and I've been virtually shooting people in the face all night, I think I'll have to revisit this thread to speak about this 'consensus'.

Ustwo...great post to continue to avoid a reasonable discussion!

The fact that Allegre is not a climate scientist or has never published a peer reviewed study on global warming or climate change is less meaningful than the fact that you had to resort to highlighting the words of a French socialist. :thumbsup:

Why dont you want to discuss the fact that the US is responsible for 25% of the world's CO2 emissions?

Looks like another global warming defector:

Perhaps global warming models failed to give the earth enough credit for self-temperature regulation in the context of newly introduced sources of heat compared to greenhouse gases.

http://www.dailytech.com/Researcher%...ticle10973.htm

I recall being taken to task for having the nerve of even questioning the models used to support global warming, nice to have scientific support.

Here is a link to Miskolczi's research for those mathematically inclined.

http://www.met.hu/doc/idojaras/vol111001_01.pdf

I am beginning to wonder if "global warming" will end up being the biggest attempted hoax in the history of the human race.

Congress may probe leaked global warming e-mails | Politics and Law - CNET News

How this issue resolves should be interesting.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ure_Record.png

not sure what there is to argue about

puts up hand... I was just reading through this, mostly because I was surprised to see climate models on the politics board. But yeah, I 'minored' in climatology in my undergrad. Major was periglacial environments.

I'm gonna go back and finish reading the thread....

If you read the entire set of emails and documents (I have the entire leak), you would be disgusted at what is going on... falsification of data, outlines on how to discredit critics without discussing their criticisms, plans to ostracize scientists with opposing views and the journals that will publish their results. This is NOT the scientific method, it's nothing but money & publicity grubbing combined with character assassination.

The fact that there has been no increase in global temperatures since 1998 has been a sore spot for the global warming community. The fact that this leak reveals there's actually been a slight (barely significant) cooling that has been hidden from the public and other scientists is appalling.

While I think global warming is happening, whether it is human-mediated is open to discussion... except these assholes don't want it discussed, they just want it accepted. "Believe us, if we could measure thing properly, the data would support us, so we've just changed the data to show that!"

Interestingly, in the last 10 years, the 2 closest planets with dense atmospheres (Venus and Jupiter) have both shown significant, multi-degree celsius, growth in their average temperature. Why hasn't the earth?

according to the graph that i posted (and you quoted), the temperature HAS gone up in the past 11 years

That's one of the sore points with the pro-warmers... the graph is wrong, & is based on falsified data. The warmest year on record was 1998, and the correct data for the last 10 years shows a VERY slight cooling (barely statistically significant). The Hadley/CRU data was part of the "extrapolated" data to show continuing warming that is now suspected not only to be wrong, but completely made up just to show what they wanted.

so because the last 10 years worth of data may be false you throw out the previous 90?

No... but the previous 90 is not a seamless data stream either. There are changes in methodology, estimates of missing data, etc. But if you go back to my original statement, I said I believe that global warming is happening. It's just that the last 10 years (data for 2008 isn't ready yet) haven't shown any warming. The usual explanations of solar output reduction don't hold water in light of the effects elsewhere in the solar system (the temperature gains on Venus & Jupiter are not related to orbital positions). Other reasons for the lack of warming are also flimsy at best.

Does it mean global warming isn't happening? No. Does it confound the climatologists who say it is? Yes. BTW... as a general statement, more environmentalists see human-mediated global warming than do climatologists. It is the human-mediation that is, IMO, the real issue.

One of the best (from a predictive POV) climate models is by a Russian climatologist who can't get his research/predictions published anymore. The reason? His model is showing global cooling, an extension of the 1970's predictions. His model predicts up to 3 periods of global warming like we've seen from 1980 - 2000 over the next 200 years, but with a general cooling trend overall. I've been trying to re-find the link to his site, but haven't had any luck.

One of the great issues the nay-sayers point to is the incorrect use of the correlation of C02 & temperature in the past. There is a correlation, a strong one... but it is reversed. There is an 800-year lag between increases in global temperature and increases in C02 levels. This is true, but it doesn't invalidate the issue. What most likely happens is that the oceans absorb incredible amounts of C02. The additional greenhouse impact of relatively small changes in the atmospheric content of CO2 causes minor changes in temperature over time, which causes the dissolved C02 to "boil" out of the ocean, exacerbating the effect, until it becomes a major increase in atmospheric CO2 800 years later. By that time, other mechanisms have begun to counteract the temperature rise, and levels start to drop.

The polar ice caps are melting, and causing a great deal of concern, and seem to confirm global warming. What's never mentioned is, that from a geologic POV, the current icecaps are unusually large. Historically, the icecaps have tended to be much smaller.

All this is just some of the data/information that the collusive work at Hadley/CRU and other groups want suppressed. THAT is what is so disturbing about the leak. It is the deliberate suppression or falsification of data to prove a particular point of view. Whether the warming is really happening (I believe it is), or the Russian is right & we're slowly approaching another ice age (recent data says he's wrong), and whether it's a natural cycle or human-mediated are all issues that HAVEN'T been properly debated, largely for financial/publicity reasons. And that's just wrong.

And then there's this:
Canada in 2020 (Trade): From Russia with love | Managing | Strategy | Canadian Business Online

With the discussion of global warming, and whether or not it exists, I find it interesting to read about those who stand to benefit from it. If global warming is really happening, Canada and Russia will stand to benefit in many ways.

Look at all the sets of data you want, the Arctic passage is opening and it will bring trade between Canada and Russia to an unprecedented level.

I found this interesting, is all.

http://www.arcticbridge.com/arctic%20bridge.gif

Honestly, I'm less worried about global warming than I am about running out of the natural resources for energy. China and the Middle East are rapidly moving towards a western, urban lifestyle right now, and within 30 years, the planet won't be able to keep up with the energy demands. Did you know that there are nearly 50 (FIFTY!!!!) urban centers in China with over 1 million residents right now? Have you seen the cities they are building in Qatar, UAE, etc.? For every hybrid car and compact flourescent bulb we buy in the U.S., these new population centers are adding 10 gas guzzlers and inefficient electrical systems.

There have been several ways of measuring global temperatures, and in ONE of them the warmest year on record was 1998. It is not so much the "correct" data as it is one of several different methodologies. So to claim that one set of data is falsified is, well, false.

In a similar vein, I would love to know the name of said famous climatologist who has had his research rejected because people don't like the results, as well as the rejection letters for said research. It is very easy to claim that one's research was rejected for political reasons, as opposed to simply being shoddy research.

The bit about 1998 being the warmest year on record is indeed an artefact of the measurement scheme chosen. However, NONE of the other schemes of which I'm aware show a later year than 1998 being warmer (excluding local environmental models, which by definition aren't global in scope and are inherently unreliable). Choosing the data stream that shows 1998 to be the warmest on record may be somewhat artificial, but it is probably the best data available, and is widely accepted as the basis for global warming forecasts.

Please note I believe in global warming. I'm on the fence about human-mediation of it is all. But the logical upshot of my position is that we HAVE to act as though it's happening, and that humans are causing it. It's a simple 2 x 2 matrix... It's Happening or Not by Do Nothing or Do Something.

If it's not happening and we do nothing... big deal.

If it's not happening and we do something... we waste a little effort and improve efficiences & develop technologies sooner than otherwise.

If it's happening and we do something, then we avert a crisis (possibly, but it's our only hope).

If it's happening and we do nothing... catastrophe on a biblical scale. So this is not an option.

The problem with the Hadley/CRU leak is that scientists colluded to insert made-up data that fit their needs, to the exclusion of data that didn't, but was the actual measurement. They also colluded to boycott journals that would publish contrary findings and discussed how to discredit scientists with contrary opinions without addressing the contrary findings/theories.

As for the Russian model, I've been trying to find a link to his site/model. I read his findings about 4 years ago when I was much more involved in the effects of global warming, and stupidly didn't keep it (I've gone through several computers since then). I don't say I believe him (I don't)... it is just that at that time, his computer model was providing the best forecasts of world temperatures (global scale).

Here is where I begin to have a problem - "If it is not happening and we do something..." - I think this could prove to more costly in many to be dismissive of those costs and consequences. I think history has clearly shown that there are many instances when man tries, with good intention, to manage the environment the unexpected consequences are often greater than the benefit. And, I find the level of arrogance disturbing to think that human activity will have a meaningful and lasting impact on this planet, given the known history of the planet. To think that about 50 to 100 years of human activity will permanently damage the planet almost makes me laugh. When people like Gore and others use the word "irreversible" does anyone take them seriously? This planet has the ability to "self-regulate" or compensate for internal and some external calamities. I don't doubt that man can have localized impact and short-term impact just as a forest fire or volcanic eruption can have that kind of an impact - but there is far too much that we don't know to come to the conclusions reached by many on this issue.

I agree that we may waste far more than a little effort... but I do believe that there will be some good from that "wasted" effort... new technologies and knowledge. Perhaps at a much greater cost than if we hadn't pursued them NOW, but had instead waited until they were the natural result of technological growth and basic research.

BUT (probably largely because I DO believe global warming is happening), I cannot get past the logical conclusion that if we DON'T try to mitigate the impact, we, and more particularly our children, are facing a major disaster.

What if we assume that the average global temperature goes up 2 degrees.

At some point given diminishing returns (or impact) further increases in temperature will require bigger and bigger inputs.

Sea levels rise, but the impact will have a cooling affect.

Sea levels rise, land areas decrease, human population moves to higher ground.

Changes occur in land animal population, but changes occure in sea animal population. Perhaps we have less reliance on beef and more reliance on Tuna, negating further pollutants from raising cattle.

Some land area changes and can not be farmed, but other land areas change and can be farmed.

Etc.

Etc.

Etc.

I don't see disaster as we would expect from sudden changes, but I see changes as in subtle change that the globe and humans will adapt to. And, again, I don't suggest we ignore environmental issues, I just don't want us to get carried away with it.

The data source that puts 1998 as the warmest year is UAH MSU:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/uahncdc.lt

Many other reputable data sources put it later than that:

Nasa's GISS puts it as 2005
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.txt

NCDC's data also put it as 2005
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ano...1-2000mean.dat


Oh, and all the hacked emails talk about is making the graphs look more convincing or more alarming. At no point they talk about data falsification or manipulation.

I stand by my original statements. I'm not an expert on this and I suspect very few on TFP are (aside from Leto, of course). I'm not qualified to tell someone if he or she has a tumor even if I do have a CAT scan right in front of me, so why would I be qualified to make a determination based on climate data?

Politics seems to be poisoning science and it bothers me a great deal. Punditry has no place in the laboratories or the peer-reviewed medical journals.

Bullshit. Sorry, no other way to call it. Straight-up, unadulterated bullshit. Those emails discuss (in very plain language) destruction of data (which is illegal when dealing with data subject to a Freedom Of Information request), manipulation of data (unless "hide the decline" has a different meaning in your world), falsification and substitution of data (all with the intent of producing a desired, predetermined result), redefining what "peer reviewed" means in order to exclude conflicting views from debate, and the systematic suppression of dissenting viewpoints within academia.

Looking at the earth's temperature variations over a hundred year period or so would be the equivalent of a person looking at their temperature variation over some immeasurably small fraction of a second and then trying to come to some conclusion about having a fever or not. This planet has gone through more than we even know and talking about fractions of degrees when we think there have be average temperature fluctuations of over 10*c is an interesting approach, but I can not throw perspective out the window.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Pa...s/image277.gif

Climate during the Carboniferous Period

The bullshit is making assumptions based on hacked e-mails with no context.

But, I would like to see both extremes, the alarmists and the deniers, get out of the way....both are counter-productive.

Few, if any beyond the most extreme, deny that belching billions of tons of anthropogenic C02 into the atmosphere every year has an adverse impact on the natural balance.

IMO, the focus of the discussion among policy makers should be on how to address that in an environmentally and economically sustainable manner...in much the same way we did in the 70s with the comprehensive environmental laws.

Raise your hand if you have an education in climatology. Anyone? If you didn't raise your hand, you're what's called a layman, "a person without professional or specialized knowledge". If you did, you're probably not involved in this discussion.

Will... that would be me.

I do not have a formal education in climatology, but my 15 years as a computer forecaster/modeler put me in the situation of having to forecast (among other things) the effect of climate on electricity consumption. I have worked with climatologists, meteorologists, environmentalists, statisticians, and computer scientists working on, not climatological models, but electrical system models. Along the way, I gained more than a passing familiarity with the various climatological models used, the generic techniques used, and the strengths and weaknesses of various models. I was offered a research position at Purdue University to pursue that and other effects on the electrical system.

The one thing I will say about forecasting ANYTHING is that it is best described as driving a car blindfolded, taking directions from a guy in the back seat who's looking out the rear window. The only thing you know for sure is that you will be wrong.

Please, show me where any manipulation of data is stated or implied.

The email about the "trick" to "hide the decline" talks about a graph, not a data set. There is no talk of data being destroyed, only emails about that data. And the line about "peer review" is an off the cuff comment, and not an actual discussion of changing it.

Are these honorable things? Certainly not. But they fall way short of anything they are being accused of doing. And distortion and misleading statements about what those hacked emails contain are certainly at least as dishonorable.

---------- Post added at 05:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:19 PM ----------

Working as a forecaster is hardly akin to being a climatologist. And as a forecaster you should be able to know that knowledge of generic techniques mean nothing, given how specific details in any modeling can lead to completely different outcomes.


And I am not saying this to claim that I, myself, am any sort of expert. Just that, so far, I have seen nothing to suggest the prevailing consensus among real climatologists is a part of some vast conspiracy.

The idea that a handful of paragraphs pulled from over 1000 emails proves that "conspiracy" is ludicrous.

Are we setting a new standard for participation in a discussion?

Are you making an assumption that only those with "formal" training can have an informed view on this or any subject?

At the very beginning of all of this the "deniers" simply asked questions based on the assumptions and methodology used to come to the conclusions that this is a settled issue, those with confidence in the view point don't fear questions or challenges.

---------- Post added at 04:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:55 PM ----------

I re-read this thread and I am not clear on what the point of the above statement is in the context of what has been posted in this thread. Can you elaborate?

The manipulation of the data to "hide the decline" was done in the base data set. The graph is irrelevant. The explanation later given for the use of the word "trick" smacks of post hoc rationalisation. The entire base data set has been manipulated, and almost certainly appropriately so, in order to try and establish a best-guess homogenous data set. So, the further discussion of replacing selected post-sanitization data points with the express intention of hiding a decline smacks of unethical behaviour. The director of the CRU has stepped aside while an investigation of the whole matter is on-going.

What is more troubling, is that the raw data set (pre-sanitization) is missing... thrown out. This alone makes any review of the current base data set difficult. Again, the rationalisation that it was for space considerations is shaky... microfiche is quite inexpensive, and digitized data can be stored anywhere.

I am not a climatologist, although I have perhaps a slightly more than layman's understanding of the subject. I AM an expert on computer time-series modeling. And climatologists need a modeler to be able to put the data into a format to produce a reasonable forecast. The form of the model significantly affects its predictive qualities and reliability. Univariate, multivariate, regressive, decompositive, dynamic regressive, event models... they all have their strengths, weaknesses, and idiosyncracies.

Deciding which model works best on a given data set is as much the realm of the modeler as it is the subject specialist. I stand by my assertion that I am qualified to comment on the possible effects of the disclosed data manipulation on the predictive quality of the model.

But... that's not been the point of my comments all along. I'm more concerned about the socio/political implications for science research. Scientific research must be about openness and peer review. This reveals systematic violation of that openness, and a predispositon to silence or discredit dissenting views. Healthy debate is good for science. Rejecting criticisms without addressing them, simply because they do not fit your world view, is anathema to proper research.

And I think Ace has hit the nail on the head. If anyone is asking questions that can't be answered, or cause discomfort, then something is wrong. And it's not the people asking the questions.

The fact that you can't even keep straight what is in the emails speaks volumes about your willingness to consider the issue. The email about the "trick" to "hide the decline" is very explicit about this:

He talks about creating a graph from mixing data from two different series, not altering the series themselves.

And the raw dataset was thrown out in the 80s, but ALL the raw data they had is still available. They threw out their own compilation, but the data that went into that compilation is available from the original agencies.

And a forecaster, you should know enough about parameter sensitivity and linearity to know how models differ widely from one another.

Discuss whatever you want, but don't be under any illusions that you're qualified to tell the scientists they're wrong.

This plurium interrogationum is frustrating, I doubt you can point to a statement written by me to support the claim.

By the way, when did you stop beating your wife? Please don't be under any illusions that anyone finds it acceptable even if you have stopped. :rolleyes:

I'm speaking more broadly on the issue. Climate science has been forced into the public discourse despite the fact that the public aren't in a position to interpret the available data. As I say, discuss anything and everything to your heart's content, but the number of people in the world qualified to interpret the mountains of data now floating around is quite small and those people are feeling immense pressure right now from two sides of a massive political throw-down. I'm seeing that same throw-down in this thread.

In a broad sense given what we know this is either subterfuge or some kind of pretense that "laypeople" can not read and understand scientific study. In either case it is disturbing given the potential consequences. I interpret your position as - since "we" are not "scientists" we should not challenge what scientists tell us because we can not understand what they are telling us or if they share honest raw data with us that we can not formulate an informed interpretation of the data. As we begin to make decisions that can materially alter our life-styles and re-direct resources measured billions if not trillions of dollars I think we have an obligation to understand.

Personally, I can read scientific studies and understand them or ask questions to get to a competent level of understanding.

P.S. - You are not the only one I have interacted with who has had the point of view you have shared with us here and my comments are not specifically directed to you as an individual.

Since we are not scientists, we should not assume that we have the ability to correctly interpret data.

Folly.

Since we are not football players, we should not assume that we have the ability to correctly interpret football plays.

Since we are not electrical engineers, we should not assume that we have the ability to correctly understand an electric circuit.

Since we are not computer programmers, we should not assume that we have the ability to correctly understand a computer program.

Since we are not lawyers, we should not assume that we have the ability to correctly understand the law.

Since we are not airplane pilots, we should not assume that we have the ability to correctly understand how to fly a plane.

You can make those assumptions, I don't. Just like Neo in the Matrix, just plug me in babe, and I am good to go:thumbsup:

Do you really think the most advanced climate science known to man is as simple as the rules to football? I'd appreciate a yes or no answer to this question.
Your posts are full of assumptions and generalizations, just like most current discussions between laymen on the issue. If I were involved in the discussions, I'm guessing my posts would be full of assumptions, generalizations, and outright falsehoods, though I wouldn't intentionally be trying to lie or deceive.

Do you know why C02 has risen since 1998 but global temperatures have cooled over the same period? The intuitive response would be that CO2 may not correlate to warming in the same way that global climate change proponents suggest, but when you apply even a most basic understanding of climate science to the question, you understand that data suggests that there's about a 30-year lag time between greenhouse levels and the effects. Why would that be? Simple! Oceans absorb temperature and CO2, creating a lagging effect. I've read up on climate science a great deal in the past few years, but I would be naive for me to assume that reading up on climate science made me a climate scientist. I've barely scratched the surface of the science and judging by what's being posted online and talked about in the media, I guess I'm a few steps ahead of the general public (not that I'm gloating, I'm really not. I honestly don't know shit about shit when it comes to climate science). I also don't know much about particle physics or organic chemistry, so you won't catch me dead trying to hold my own in a debate on those subjects.

you ever watch the news, waiting for the weather report/prediction? or on the radio? internet? I follow it everyday so I know whether I can ride the motorcycle in to work and save gas. More often than not, these guys are changing their predictions after 2 days. I would think that after years of reporting, observing, studying, etc. they would have an advantage at reporting/predicting than the average factory worker, yet 7 times out of 10 it seems I can predict weather more accurately for my own purposes. So I don't see the difference between that and the supposedly 'most advanced climate science' is when all one needs to do is look at the trends of the earths climate and weather.

I doubt there are world-class climatologists working at my local NBC affiliate. In my experience, military meteorologists are best at basic predictions, but that's a whole different area of climate science than what we're talking about when it comes to global climate instability and the human effect on said instability. It would be like comparing your local veterinarian with a ivy-league educated, experienced and published evolutionary biologist. No offense to vets, of course, one of them saved my dog.

There is really no comparison between forecasting temperature during specific days of the week and forecasting long term weather patterns. The first is basically an estimation of day to day shocks, while the latter presents a much more stable pattern as these shocks are averaged out. As an example, it is not uncommon for day to day forecasters to get max and min temperatures wrong by as much as 10 to 20 degrees, while global monthly temperature forecasts are generally off by a matter of tenths of a degree.

As an analogy, it is very difficult to predict if a specific cancer patient will die of cancer, but it is a lot easier to know what share of the population will die of that cancer.

Yes.

In order to create climate models one has to make certain assumptions - that is the basis of this whole issue - knowing and understanding the assumptions. A climate model can show significant different results with minor tweaks to the assumptions used. When assumptions are disclosed there is no intent to deceive. When the assumptions used are disclosed along with methodology and raw data everyone should be able to recreate the same result.

You present many different issues in this paragraph and I am not sure what you want a response to, but I agree that reviewing what a climate scientist does will not make one a climate scientist. But, I don't take the position that a layman can not understand climate science. I am still not clear on your point.

I am curious. In your view what makes a person an expert in something? What makes a person a scientist? What makes a person a climate scientist?

I am going to guess that you think having "accredited" letters after your name is the key. am I right? In my view, my response would be based on real knowledge, real work, real experience. So, yes a Phd., would qualify, but so could the person who has spent a life time of study, observation, experimentation, research,etc., who does not have a Phd.

I don't see where Will said "scientists with Phds." He said an "education." A lifetime of study, observation, research and so on would certainly qualify as an education. It certainly beats googling something over the weekend.

Shakespeare would put it this way: "what is past is prologue". The only thing that makes forecasting long-term patterns appear "easier" than short-term patterns is the assumption that the broader patterns of the past will continue into the future. The real challenge is figuring out when or what can cause long-term patterns to change. Looking at a, 24 minute, 24 hour period, 24 day period, 24 year period, or 24 million year period the challenge is the same, the only change is in how quickly you find out if your assumptions are wrong.

---------- Post added at 05:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:24 PM ----------

So, what is your point? What makes study or understanding the climate so difficult? Measuring temperature is easy. Understanding the variables that affect temperature is easy. What gets difficult is understand how those variables inter-play with each other. Given the variables a scientist can not do controlled "global" experiments, so the basis of what they do is grounded in assumptions. We have a right to know and to be able to challenge and test these assumptions, I don't understand what all the mystical type, we can't possible understand stuff comes from.

I'm afraid you've lost your objectivity.

First, you set me up asking for a yes or no answer to your question, then you make your assumption without seeking clarification. So, you think I have lost my objectivity.

First, let's understand that the basis of your question requires a subjective response but that aside for now let's explore the basis of my response.

In football there are the expressed "rules" of the game. Simple enough and not complicated.

Then we have things like the:

bio-mechanics of football.
physics of football.
social science of football.
business of football.
biology involved in football.
strategy of football.
physical science of football.
psychology of football.
language of football.

Oh, and we have the science of the weather, or the climate, and it's impact on football.

Then we have things like the engineering in football venues, have you seen the new Cowboy's stadium?


So, to all the folks who know me, pretty much knew I would have a response. To those who assumed I am an idiot, look in a mirror.:thumbsup: