Interesting Climate Model - Page 3 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

sapiens · 09-26-2007, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

You are telling me that I can not, for example, calculate the force of gravity with absolute certainty?

I am open to unlearning my preconceived notions of some forms of physics, chemistry and math. If you are generally saying that there is uncertainty in some math concepts, I guess I agree, but if you are saying there is uncertainty in every math concept, I don't understand how you say that.

In the sense that theories are never proven but can only be disproved, there is uncertainty. In the sense that we can never have perfect knowledge of the universe, there is uncertainty. In the sense that there is always the possibility that I remained fixed to the ground not because of gravity, but because of little invisible gnomes that hold me to the ground, there is uncertainty.

raveneye · 09-27-2007, 12:19 AM

Quote:

Everyone is missing the point on the model used in '71 and how new information lead to new conclusions.

No, you are missing the point, because you simply haven't bothered to read any of the relevant papers. If you had read the Rasool paper you would have seen that all they used of Hansen's was a little computer code he wrote that calculates the value of a basic physical function, the Mie function, which describes how light scatters off a spherical object. Needless to say, this is not a "climate model" and it says nothing about climate change on earth.

And if you had read Hansen's first paper (1976) about greenhouse gases on earth, you would have seen that he concluded there that nitrous oxide and methane from human emissions could cause global warming.

Funny how such a breathless news scoop can evaporate so fast into nothing, isn't it?

The real story here is that the entire right-wing blogosphere has fallen for it. A nice example of how an overwhelming desire to believe something can make one as gullible as a seven year old.

Hansen was sure right about the "court jesters"

aceventura3 · 09-27-2007, 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raveneye

No, you are missing the point, because you simply haven't bothered to read any of the relevant papers. If you had read the Rasool paper you would have seen that all they used of Hansen's was a little computer code he wrote that calculates the value of a basic physical function, the Mie function, which describes how light scatters off a spherical object. Needless to say, this is not a "climate model" and it says nothing about climate change on earth.

You seem to minimize the Mie function. In a predictive climate model it is difficult to know when other variables will start to have a bigger and bigger impact. In my opinion there is a paradox in the current singular focus on CO2 while stating the issue is settled. Just as a reliance on the Mie function lead to an erroneous conclusion so could the current models be leading to an erroneous conclusion, especially given a 9 year prediction of doom.

Quote:

The real story here is that the entire right-wing blogosphere has fallen for it. A nice example of how an overwhelming desire to believe something can make one as gullible as a seven year old.

Hansen was sure right about the "court jesters"

Someone who presents questions on an issue where a leading scientist is saying in 9 years we will reach a point of no return, is a "gullible seven year old"? Why the ad hominem from those who think the issue is settled?

And when you say all the questions regarding global warming and the cause are answered and the issue settled, does that mean that you think no further research and analysis is needed, or are you just exaggerating? At one point I thought you were just exaggerating a little, now I am not sure.

tecoyah · 09-27-2007, 06:53 AM

In the science community at large, the Issue of Global Warming has indeed been settled, it is in virtual universal agreement that indeed this atmosphere in warming significantly at a spped that cannot be explained by any natural cycle, or Global natural system. While the contribution to this climate change by CO2 is still heavily debated in places like this, the arguments against this influence in the community of scientists that study it is coming to a close, as most now understand it is the only viable explanation for such an abrupt shift. While I also call into question the "9 year" statement, It seems somewhat irrelevant when taken into the context of the actual Issue...I dont really care if its nine years....or 50, its obviously going to be pretty bad at some point.

aceventura3 · 09-27-2007, 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raveneye

What compensating variables? Reference? Who told you this?

I am not sure how to answer this question given all that is known about what affects our climate. However, for example, growing vegetation will on a net basis take CO2 out of the atmosphere, if ice melts and vegetation grows perhaps the interplay of those variable will have an offsetting affect. I have not seen a serious analysis of those kinds of factors in Hansen's work. Certainly he talks about the "‘albedo flip" involving ice and water, but what about the other variables, or has he concluded they don't matter?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

In the science community at large, the Issue of Global Warming has indeed been settled, it is in virtual universal agreement that indeed this atmosphere in warming significantly at a spped that cannot be explained by any natural cycle, or Global natural system. While the contribution to this climate change by CO2 is still heavily debated in places like this, the arguments against this influence in the community of scientists that study it is coming to a close, as most now understand it is the only viable explanation for such an abrupt shift. While I also call into question the "9 year" statement, It seems somewhat irrelevant when taken into the context of the actual Issue...I dont really care if its nine years....or 50, its obviously going to be pretty bad at some point.

Given the age of the earth what period of time should be used to establish statistically meaningful determination of the globe warming. We are fixated on yearly measurements and look at the trends in that past 100 or so years. You guys are saying we need to accept that without question?

tecoyah · 09-27-2007, 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I am not sure how to answer this question given all that is known about what affects our climate. However, for example, growing vegetation will on a net basis take CO2 out of the atmosphere, if ice melts and vegetation grows perhaps the interplay of those variable will have an offsetting affect. I have not seen a serious analysis of those kinds of factors in Hansen's work. Certainly he talks about the "‘albedo flip" involving ice and water, but what about the other variables, or has he concluded they don't matter?

I would imagine, that as with most study the focus was on a certain aspect of the conditions that come into play for a climate model. Othere scientists have most certainly researched the variables you bring up, but it seems you are asking one man to study every aspect of a complex system, which is physically impossible for a human brain....and likely for a computer model as well.

Given the age of the earth what period of time should be used to establish statistically meaningful determination of the globe warming. We are fixated on yearly measurements and look at the trends in that past 100 or so years. You guys are saying we need to accept that without question?

No one is saying any such thing, And as usual you have taken a reasonable debate and exagerated the statements of your opponents to make them seem unreasonable. I believe those arguing against you here, are doing so only because YOU are putting forward a belief and expecting US to have no questions. Then when we do actually question what you say, it is for the most part ignored in favor of a rewording of the same argument without any consideration of the information we provide to counter your claims.
As for the time frame used to put Data in context, there are multiple studies using many different spans of time. Some go back tens of thousands of years, others only hundreds, but the strange thing is...they all show this to be the fastest and most dramatic increase in global atmospheric change ever seen. Just imagine the suprise when the comparison of CO2 with temperatures were showed to cooincide with each other almost perfectly (though some delay between increased CO2 and temp. is obviously there). Even more astounding was the exact same phenomenon taking place during previous bouts of warming....hmmmmm.
The thing is, now we are watching the change take place in decades....vs. hundreds of years or thousands. We are also watching the atmospheric CO2 change in lockstep with these temperatures, IN OUR LIFETIMES. In my humble opinion, there may very well be a pretty good case for the link virtually every scientist who studies the atmosphere agrees is there. Can you see why your opinion on this carries a bit less weight than theirs?

aceventura3 · 09-27-2007, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

No one is saying any such thing, And as usual you have taken a reasonable debate and exagerated the statements of your opponents to make them seem unreasonable.

I specifically asked Raveneye for clarification. We had the following exchange:

Quote:

Me:
Regardless, the main point is still on the table. Is global warming and it cause worthy of discussion and further scientific evaluation or has the question been settled?
Raveneye
There are some questions that have been settled, and there are some questions that haven’t been settled. Yours here is one of the former.

Quote:

I believe those arguing against you here, are doing so only because YOU are putting forward a belief and expecting US to have no questions. Then when we do actually question what you say, it is for the most part ignored in favor of a rewording of the same argument without any consideration of the information we provide to counter your claims.

If there are questions directed to me that I have not answered, please point them out and I will respond.

Quote:

As for the time frame used to put Data in context, there are multiple studies using many different spans of time. Some go back tens of thousands of years, others only hundreds, but the strange thing is...they all show this to be the fastest and most dramatic increase in global atmospheric change ever seen.

Are we sure about that. Some speculate that a sudden climate change lead to the extinction of dinosaurs, and that it happened in a relative short period of time.

Quote:

Just imagine the suprise when the comparison of CO2 with temperatures were showed to cooincide with each other almost perfectly (though some delay between increased CO2 and temp. is obviously there). Even more astounding was the exact same phenomenon taking place during previous bouts of warming....hmmmmm.
The thing is, now we are watching the change take place in decades....vs. hundreds of years or thousands. We are also watching the atmospheric CO2 change in lockstep with these temperatures, IN OUR LIFETIMES. In my humble opinion, there may very well be a pretty good case for the link virtually every scientist who studies the atmosphere agrees is there. Can you see why your opinion on this carries a bit less weight than theirs?

Global average temperatures have increased over x period of time. Norther hemisphere average temperatures have decreased in x period of time. I have not seen a good explanation of that.

tecoyah · 09-27-2007, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I specifically asked Raveneye for clarification. We had the following exchange:

That exchange I believe, was refering to your primary statement that Hansen was responsible for the Ice Age hypothesis. Which has indeed been put to rest.

If there are questions directed to me that I have not answered, please point them out and I will respond.

Ok...for brevity sake....lets just look at my own replys to you, that were not replied to:

1)
I would imagine, that as with most study the focus was on a certain aspect of the conditions that come into play for a climate model. Othere scientists have most certainly researched the variables you bring up, but it seems you are asking one man to study every aspect of a complex system, which is physically impossible for a human brain....and likely for a computer model as well.

2)Then I am confused I think. From what I have read I get the issue you are bringing up as inconsistencies in the Ideas put forward by Mr Hansen. I have spent the better part of this page trying to explain that he did not put the Ice Age Idea on tha table, as I believed you expressed he had. If this is not the case, then it seems you are simply stating that by virtue of his research being used by another scientist to create a hypothesis, he must then also believe in said hypothesis. Is that correct?

3)If the model used only one parameter, it would not only me a very poor model, but would also fit the criteria you just explained. All climate models take into consideration far more variables, and thus require computers to extrapolate usable data. Though I dont know the details of the hypothesis, it is likely the focus was on cloud cover changes vs. CO2 concentrations as in Earth based models of today.
Yet you still attribute the Ice Age hypothesis to the wrong individual, and refuse to address the simple issue of "Why", other than to say you "think" he was involved more deeply than documentation dictates. Then when asked to back up what you think.....you cannot do so.

Why should we then, take your assumption seriously?

In each of these statements are a series of questions about either the logic used, or the Data...your replys to them are non-commial and do not address the obvious discrepancies I bring up.

Are we sure about that. Some speculate that a sudden climate change lead to the extinction of dinosaurs, and that it happened in a relative short period of time.

Are we to now assume, you wish to revert to the speculation aspect previously criticized by yourself in this very thread?[U] <---note:another question[/U It is well established that the extinction of Dinosaurs took place over a very long period of time, as in thousands to hundreds of thousands of years, please read more before attempting to sideline with gibberish.]

Global average temperatures have increased over x period of time. Norther hemisphere average temperatures have decreased in x period of time. I have not seen a good explanation of that.

You might take a few minutes and explore this site:

Quote:

The simulations all show that it is not possible to explain the anomalous late 20th century warmth without including the contribution from anthropogenic forcing factors, and, in particular, modern greenhouse gas concentration increases. A healthy, vigorous debate can be found in the legitimate peer-reviewed climate research literature with regard to the precise details of empirically and model-based estimates of climate changes in past centuries, and it remains a challenge to reduce the substantial uncertainties that currently exist. Despite current uncertainties, it nonetheless remains a widespread view among paleoclimate researchers that late 20th century hemispheric-scale warmth is anomalous in a long-term (at least millennial) context, and that anthropogenic factors likely play an important role in explaining the anomalous recent warmth.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=7

Before you reply to this post.

aceventura3 · 09-27-2007, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=7

Before you reply to this post.

I read the link. And then read this one concerning "myths". I found this interesting.

Quote:

It is not the average 20th century warmth, but the magnitude of warming during the 20th century, and the level of warmth observed during the past few decades, which appear to be anomalous in a long-term context. Studies such as those of Soon and associates (Soon and Baliunas, 2003; Soon et al, 2003) that consider only ‘20th century’ conditions, or interpret past temperature changes using evidence incapable of resolving trends in recent decades , cannot meaningfully address the question of whether late 20th century warmth is anomalous in a long-term and large-scale context.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11

I will let others interpret what that means also given the "Little Ice Age" discussed in the link you gave.

tecoyah · 09-27-2007, 11:54 AM

So...again a change of subject rather than answering the post I spent the energy to create. I see no point in beating this horse, as you will look at only those things you wish to see.

Oh, and I agree there are many possible problems with the models used, but they are not taken alone when consensus is built.

I am done here I think...Im getting dizzy as the endless circle tightens, but thanks for the fun.

raveneye · 09-28-2007, 12:15 AM

This exchange is a nice example of typical debate behavior of global warming denialists (there are many examples). A global warming denialist is one who cannot be convinced that global warming is a fact, by any argument. The most common logical fallacy is the straw man, which is inevitable if one doesn’t bother to learn the science: if all you have is a distorted view of the scientific arguments, then all you can attack is that distorted view, and you have accomplished nothing. Some examples here: “9 year prediction of doom”, “error in the Mie function”, “no analysis of interacting variables”, “the new science says unequivocal means 90%” all of which are utter nonsense, hilarious to read for anybody actually familiar with the science.

The other major fallacy is the red herring, otherwise known as changing the subject, misdirection, or just wild goose chase. So, for example, we begin with a clever insinuation that one’s hated opponent made an embarrassing public gaffe, and therefore he needs to “come forward” and explain himself. When it is pointed out that he did no such thing, then we get the switcheroo: the REAL ISSUE is that he needs to explain why he wrote an erroneous climate model. When this claim is refuted (he wrote no climate model, rather contributed a bit of trivial code), the switcheroo: the REAL ISSUE is he needs to come forward and explain why he endorsed the falsehood that was concluded from his trivial code. When it is explained that his publications show he never endorsed the falsehood, another switcheroo: the REAL ISSUE is that he needs to come forward and explain why the trivial code he contributed was in error. When it is pointed out that it was not in error, the switcheroo: the REAL ISSUE is that he needs to come forward and explain why his correct code was misused. When it is pointed out the code was not misused and had nothing to do with the falsehood, the switcheroo: he needs to come forward and explain his “9 year prediction of doom”, or some other nonsense, which brings us back to the previous fallacy, the straw man. And so the Christmas goose hops and hops around the barnyard, always just out of reach.

In reality the REAL ISSUE is that the denialist will not be convinced that global warming is a fact. That’s what he is really asserting, and of course that is true, there’s nothing that can be done to refute it. That’s because he is a global warming denialist.

Q.E.D.

aceventura3 · 09-28-2007, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

So...again a change of subject rather than answering the post I spent the energy to create. I see no point in beating this horse, as you will look at only those things you wish to see.

Oh, and I agree there are many possible problems with the models used, but they are not taken alone when consensus is built.

I am done here I think...Im getting dizzy as the endless circle tightens, but thanks for the fun.

I am only human. There is only so much time in the day. I read the link you provided and now you accuse me of changing the subject. I have not forgotten the other points in your post, but your assumption based on the fact that I did not immediately respond, is wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

1)
I would imagine, that as with most study the focus was on a certain aspect of the conditions that come into play for a climate model. Othere scientists have most certainly researched the variables you bring up, but it seems you are asking one man to study every aspect of a complex system, which is physically impossible for a human brain....and likely for a computer model as well.

No I am not. But as an expert on the issue of global warming and as a person who has been involved in the study of this issue for approximately 40 years, I expect he has given thought to all of these issues.

Quote:

2)Then I am confused I think. From what I have read I get the issue you are bringing up as inconsistencies in the Ideas put forward by Mr Hansen. I have spent the better part of this page trying to explain that he did not put the Ice Age Idea on tha table, as I believed you expressed he had. If this is not the case, then it seems you are simply stating that by virtue of his research being used by another scientist to create a hypothesis, he must then also believe in said hypothesis. Is that correct?

I stated that I thought Hansen's involvement in the '71 report was more involved than you do. I never stated I had any other information than what was reported. In the early 70's I found nothing stating what Hansen's position was on global climate change. However, I did ask several questions that i think he could answer easily to put the issue to rest.

Regardless, my key point is that the science and models evolve and improve over time. I would think our climate models today are better than they were 40 years ago, and that 40 years from now they will even be better. I think when people suggest the question has been settled, that is a pretty "dark ages" kind of response. We know what we think we know today, tomorrow - we may know better or what we know today may prove true. I am open to both possibilities. My mind is not closed on the subject.

Quote:

3)If the model used only one parameter, it would not only me a very poor model, but would also fit the criteria you just explained. All climate models take into consideration far more variables, and thus require computers to extrapolate usable data. Though I dont know the details of the hypothesis, it is likely the focus was on cloud cover changes vs. CO2 concentrations as in Earth based models of today.
Yet you still attribute the Ice Age hypothesis to the wrong individual, and refuse to address the simple issue of "Why", other than to say you "think" he was involved more deeply than documentation dictates. Then when asked to back up what you think.....you cannot do so.

Again, we are communicating on different planes. I pretty much don't care about the '71 report of a pending Ice Age. The report was wrong. I am interested in how we come to conclusions that current models are not wrong.

Quote:

Why should we then, take your assumption seriously?

What assumption are you talking about? My focus has been on my questions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by raveneye

This exchange is a nice example of typical debate behavior of global warming denialists (there are many examples). A global warming denialist is one who cannot be convinced that global warming is a fact, by any argument.

Did you read this quote?:

Quote:

It is not the average 20th century warmth, but the magnitude of warming during the 20th century, and the level of warmth observed during the past few decades, which appear to be anomalous in a long-term context. Studies such as those of Soon and associates (Soon and Baliunas, 2003; Soon et al, 2003) that consider only ‘20th century’ conditions, or interpret past temperature changes using evidence incapable of resolving trends in recent decades , cannot meaningfully address the question of whether late 20th century warmth is anomalous in a long-term and large-scale context.

The first question is the globe is warming relative to what? Then we find, based on the link given from Tecoyah it seem that the source believes it may not be so much about current average temperatures as opposed to the more recent acceleration in the temperatures. Grant the difference between the above and what is commonly communicated may be subtle but there is a difference.

Quote:

The most common logical fallacy is the straw man, which is inevitable if one doesn’t bother to learn the science: if all you have is a distorted view of the scientific arguments, then all you can attack is that distorted view, and you have accomplished nothing. Some examples here: “9 year prediction of doom”, “error in the Mie function”, “no analysis of interacting variables”, “the new science says unequivocal means 90%” all of which are utter nonsense, hilarious to read for anybody actually familiar with the science.

The other major fallacy is the red herring, otherwise known as changing the subject, misdirection, or just wild goose chase. So, for example, we begin with a clever insinuation that one’s hated opponent made an embarrassing public gaffe, and therefore he needs to “come forward” and explain himself. When it is pointed out that he did no such thing, then we get the switcheroo: the REAL ISSUE is that he needs to explain why he wrote an erroneous climate model. When this claim is refuted (he wrote no climate model, rather contributed a bit of trivial code), the switcheroo: the REAL ISSUE is he needs to come forward and explain why he endorsed the falsehood that was concluded from his trivial code. When it is explained that his publications show he never endorsed the falsehood, another switcheroo: the REAL ISSUE is that he needs to come forward and explain why the trivial code he contributed was in error. When it is pointed out that it was not in error, the switcheroo: the REAL ISSUE is that he needs to come forward and explain why his correct code was misused. When it is pointed out the code was not misused and had nothing to do with the falsehood, the switcheroo: he needs to come forward and explain his “9 year prediction of doom”, or some other nonsense, which brings us back to the previous fallacy, the straw man. And so the Christmas goose hops and hops around the barnyard, always just out of reach.

In reality the REAL ISSUE is that the denialist will not be convinced that global warming is a fact. That’s what he is really asserting, and of course that is true, there’s nothing that can be done to refute it. That’s because he is a global warming denialist.

Q.E.D.

No matter my response it will be inadequate, and can be taken out of context. But, I will ask you a question, since you suggest I am a "global warming denialist". What is my stated opinion on "global warming"? If you can find a quote where you have been able to determine my position on "global warming", please share it with me. If you can't, what does that say about your "straw man?"

raveneye · 09-29-2007, 05:49 AM

Quote:

But, I will ask you a question, since you suggest I am a "global warming denialist". What is my stated opinion on "global warming"? If you can find a quote where you have been able to determine my position on "global warming", please share it with me. If you can't, what does that say about your "straw man?"

Well, let’s see if we can dissect this argument. You’re saying that since you’ve always been coy about your position on “global warming”, that my conclusion that you’re a denialist is false. I hate to say it, but that particular claim is also a logical fallacy, known as the “non-sequitur” It’s a non-sequitur because your coyness has absolutely no logical relevance to my argument, which is based entirely on your behavior in this thread.

Secondly, you claim that if my conclusion that you are a denialist is false, then my conclusion must be a “straw man”. Hate to say it again, but that’s also a non-sequitur. That’s because my claim would be a strawman only if (1) it is false; and (2) I used it incorrectly in an argument, as for example to argue that you’re, say, closed-minded or anti-science. Since I haven’t used it in any argument (yet), it’s nothing but a conclusion for now.

So I guess we can add two non-sequiturs to the list of logical fallacies you’ve cogently displayed on this thread.

Quote:

No matter my response it will be inadequate, and can be taken out of context.

I think anybody can be forgiven for mistaking the context of any particular post of yours, since it’s been wiggling all over the landscape like a shimmy worm at high tide.

But the general context seems pretty clear to me. It’s basically “Hansen is wrong – I just haven’t figured out why yet”.

I’d say that applies to at least 90% of your posts here, which, hey, makes it “unequivocal in our new science". Have I gotten it about right?

aceventura3 · 09-30-2007, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raveneye

Well, let’s see if we can dissect this argument. You’re saying that since you’ve always been coy about your position on “global warming”, that my conclusion that you’re a denialist is false.

From my very first post on the subject of global warming and its cause, I have been undecided and stated that I was beginning the process of looking into the issue in greater detail. Given my initial ignorance I have been using this forum as a sound board and to find direction on information and sources I was not aware of. Simply the very act of asking questions on this subject I was immediately confronted with venomous attacks on my intelligence, character, and motives from those who believe the "question is settled".

It doesn't matter what your conclusion is regarding my position on the subject, because the point is that the tone of your comments suggests a serious discussion is not possible.

Quote:

I hate to say it, but that particular claim is also a logical fallacy, known as the “non-sequitur” It’s a non-sequitur because your coyness has absolutely no logical relevance to my argument, which is based entirely on your behavior in this thread.

Another first, I have never been accused of being coy. Of course my question was a non sequitur. If you read what I wrote, it was clearly obvious that I was changing the subject. I came to the conclusion, which I also stated, that no matter what my response to the premise in your previous post, it would be pointless. You have pointed out the obvious.

Quote:

Secondly, you claim that if my conclusion that you are a denialist is false, then my conclusion must be a “straw man”. Hate to say it again, but that’s also a non-sequitur. That’s because my claim would be a strawman only if (1) it is false; and (2) I used it incorrectly in an argument, as for example to argue that you’re, say, closed-minded or anti-science. Since I haven’t used it in any argument (yet), it’s nothing but a conclusion for now.

Your argument was based on a misrepresentation of my position - that makes it a straw-man argument.

Quote:

So I guess we can add two non-sequiturs to the list of logical fallacies you’ve cogently displayed on this thread.

If proven wrong will you revisit this statement or pretend that you never made it?

Quote:

I think anybody can be forgiven for mistaking the context of any particular post of yours, since it’s been wiggling all over the landscape like a shimmy worm at high tide.

Seems to contradict your above comments. Why should forgiveness be at issue for mistaken context of clear and consistent fallacious arguments?

One thing I am confused about is when you, in this case, refer to my arguments and posts without being specific. I am the first to admit that on this subject an argument that I make may be wrong or illogical. When you and others make these broad general accusations, it doesn't help me. What argument(s) are you talking about? Another was when I was accused of libel. I even asked fro specifics and got no response.

Quote:

But the general context seems pretty clear to me. It’s basically “Hansen is wrong – I just haven’t figured out why yet”.

My question - Is Hanson wrong? It is true I have not figured it out. Have you?

Quote:

I’d say that applies to at least 90% of your posts here, which, hey, makes it “unequivocal in our new science". Have I gotten it about right?

There are some things we know, and there are some things we suspect to be true with varying degrees of certainty. I have thought that to be true most of my life. It that is not true, then it is "new science" based on what I know.

raveneye · 10-01-2007, 03:14 PM

Quote:

From my very first post on the subject of global warming and its cause, I have been undecided and stated that I was beginning the process of looking into the issue in greater detail.

And of course this, if anything, is evidence supporting my comments. You make my point for me. Thank you.

In my experience, most global warming denialists are “undecided”. Instead of accepting the overwhelming scientific consensus, they prefer to be “undecided”. Many of them are also “undecided” about the connection between cigarette smoking and cancer, and many of them are also “undecided” about whether evolution occurs. Most of them, like you, have little interest in the science. So you’re in very good company.

Quote:

Given my initial ignorance I have been using this forum as a sound board and to find direction on information and sources I was not aware of.

And despite getting links to the best science on the subject, you preferred to get your information from hacks like John McCaslin and Michael Asher. If you’re not learning anything, I’m afraid you need only look in the mirror to find the reason.

Quote:

Simply the very act of asking questions on this subject I was immediately confronted with venomous attacks on my intelligence, character, and motives from those who believe the "question is settled".

That ought to tell you something. Have you considered that your actions themselves might be to blame for that response? If you can’t stand the heat, then perhaps you should find a more air-conditioned locale to enjoy the literary merits of the editorials in Investor’s Business Daily.

Quote:

If proven wrong will you revisit this statement or pretend that you never made it?

If you ever decide to accept the scientific consensus on global warming, PM me, and I’ll be the first to admit I was wrong, and congratulate you on coming to your senses.

My prediction: it’ll never happen.

Quote:

My question - Is Hanson wrong? It is true I have not figured it out. Have you?

Sure I have. He was right that the world wasn’t entering an ice age in the 70s. He was right that the years 1998 and 1934 were a statistical tie in the U.S. He was and is right that to prevent dangerous warming in the future we need to act soon (i.e. in the next 10 years or so). And in every case you were wrong about what you breathlessly claimed he said:

Your statement that Hansen claimed that 1998 was the hottest year on record in the U.S. – wrong. Your statement that he believed that the world was heading into an ice age in 1971 – wrong. Your statement that he thinks the world will experience a cataclysm 9 years from now – wrong.

For someone who is only asking innocent questions about Hansen, you seem to be making a lot of false and incriminating accusations about him. I wonder why?

aceventura3 · 11-13-2007, 12:37 PM

It appears the consencus that humans are responsible has had some serious doubters in the scientific community based on a peer review of scientific studies.

Quote:

An abundance of new peer-reviewed studies, analyses, and data error discoveries in the last several months has prompted scientists to declare that fear of catastrophic man-made global warming “bites the dust” and the scientific underpinnings for alarm may be “falling apart.” The latest study to cast doubt on climate fears finds that even a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide would not have the previously predicted dire impacts on global temperatures. This new study is not unique, as a host of recent peer-reviewed studies have cast a chill on global warming fears.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...A-B35D0842FED8

Reading the full article was interesting.

dc_dux · 11-13-2007, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

It appears the consensus that humans are responsible has had some serious doubters in the scientific community based on a peer review of scientific studies.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...A-B35D0842FED8

Reading the full article was interesting.

No one has ever claimed that the consensus was unanimous....just overwhelming among climate scientists....and this recent "study" and its biased interpretation by Marc Morano does nothing to change that.

Marc Morano, formerly of the right wing Media Research Center (and Cybercast News Service), and currently the stooge for Sen Inhofe on the Sen Environment and Public Works Committee?

More on the first study in Morano's article:

Quote:

For a group of people that caution we must be 100% certain before drawing conclusions about human-induced climate change, the denier industry sure jumps all over a single, preliminary study as absolute proof of their own conclusions.

The subject of their breathless "I-told-you-so's" is a paper to be published shortly in The Journal of Geophysical Research by a scientist named Stephen Schwartz.

Environment and Public Work's minority chair and global warming denier grandfather Senator James Inhofe writes in a news release today: "An abundance of new peer-reviewed studies, analysis, and data error discoveries in the last several months has prompted scientists to declare that fear of catastrophic man-made global warming “bites the dust” and the scientific underpinnings for alarm may be “falling apart.”

You would think with such absolute language as the entire theory of human-induced climate change "biting the dust" that Inhofe and his mini-me spindoctor Marc Morano would actually read the study. As a legislator it is Inhofe's job to carefully weigh evidence before attempting to lead the public to believe such a claim.

That is what responsible leaders do. Anything else would be considered demagoguery.

As it turns out, the author of the paper, Stephen Schwartz, is probably not comfortable with the claims being made by Inhofe, as evidenced by the conclusion of the Schwartz paper. It states:

Finally, as the present analysis rests on a simple single-compartment energy balance model, the question must inevitably arise whether the rather obdurate climate system might be amenable to determination of its key properties through empirical analysis based on such a simple model. In response to that question it might have to be said that it remains to be seen. In this context it is hoped that the present study might stimulate further work along these lines with more complex models…. Ultimately of course the climate models are essential to provide much more refined projections of climate change than would be available from the global mean quantities that result from an analysis of the present sort.

In other words, Schwartz is suggesting that he has perhaps found an new line of interesting inquiry that he hopes can be elaborated on with further research.

I guess Inhofe and Morano didn't read that part. They've also vividly illustrated how loose and fancy their definition of certainty actually is.

It's a shame that an individual like Inhofe, in such a place of authority and trust, is willing to make such irresponsible claims. No doubt, such exaggerated claims have an effect on the average American who looks to the political leadership for guidance on issues they are concerned about, like global warming.

http://www.desmogblog.com/schwartz-s...rly-breathless
***
and more:

http://climateprogress.org/2007/08/2...change-part-i/
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/20...-estimate.html

Its only interesting if you take guys like Morano and Inhofe seriously as having any objectivity on global warming rather than promoting an industry (ie Exxon et al) agenda.

I will try to find the link where credible climate scientists demonstrated how dubious some of the studies cited by Morano are.

aceventura3 · 11-13-2007, 02:42 PM

The response to those who question humans being the cause of global warming are consistently met with an ad hominem argument. If nothing else you guys are consistent.

Quote:

NASA's James Hansen calls climate skeptics ‘court jesters’

In the face of this growing surge of scientific research and the increasing number of scientists speaking out, NASA scientist James Hansen wrote this past week that skeptics of a predicted climate catastrophe were engaging in “deceit” and were nothing more than “court jesters.”

“The contrarians will be remembered as court jesters. There is no point to joust with court jesters. They will always be present,” Hanson wrote on August 16, 2007.

Quote:

EPW Blog Note: It is ironic to have accusations of ‘deceit’ coming from a man who conceded in a 2003 issue of Natural Science that the use of “extreme scenarios" to dramatize global warming “may have been appropriate at one time” to drive the public's attention to the issue --- a disturbing admission by a prominent scientist. Also worth noting is Hansen’s humorous allegation that he was muzzled by the current Administration despite the fact he did over 1400 on-the-job media interviews.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...A-B35D0842FED8

dc_dux · 11-13-2007, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

The response to those who question humans being the cause of global warming are consistently met with an ad hominem argument. If nothing else you guys are consistent.

Actually, the more common response to the skeptics are well-reasoned articles (like the ones I posted above that you conveniently ignored) that clearly demonstrate the flaws in the skeptics studies and/or how the studies cited by skeptics are often misrepresented (again, as in the case of the first study in Morano's blog).

And then you always have Inhofe comparing people who believe in global warming to the Third Reich and the "big lie" or comparing An Inconvenient Truth to Mein Kampf...or holding hearings where his "expert" witness is a novelist and the "science" in his fictional diatribe.

aceventura3 · 11-14-2007, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Actually, the more common response to the skeptics are well-reasoned articles (like the ones I posted above that you conveniently ignored)...

There can be a difference between what I ignore and what I don't write a response to.

Again this comment further illustrates my point - your response here is directed to me rather than the point in question. The comment serves no value. If you want to know if I have an opinion on something that I have not responded to, why not ask? Perhaps we know why. A common strategy in political debate is to not "ask" in an attempt to discredit an individual. I think this technique is underhanded when employed knowingly. I think you are pretty savvy and know exactly how you want to frame your arguments.

Quote:

that clearly demonstrate the flaws in the skeptics studies and/or how the studies cited by skeptics are often misrepresented (again, as in the case of the first study in Morano's blog).

Again my comment is regarding your response and not your point.

The positions of those who state that humans are responsible for current global warming often state their positions are misrepresented when those positions are questioned or challenged. This technique is used in such a way that no single point can be discussed in detail because any point discussed out of the context of the "whole" will always be a "misrepresented" point.

Quote:

And then you always have Inhofe comparing people who believe in global warming to the Third Reich and the "big lie" or comparing An Inconvenient Truth to Mein Kampf...or holding hearings where his "expert" witness is a novelist and the "science" in his fictional diatribe.

We also have people who believe Elvis is still alive. Certainly that is not relevant nor are people who make other outlandish claims. But again, lumping together serious and thoughtful people with those who are not is another technique used to manipulate the debate rather than truly debate the merits of a point.

I have concluded that that Gore, Hansen and many others are so emotionally involved with their premise about global warming that real debate with these people is not possible.

dc_dux · 11-14-2007, 09:53 AM

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by raveneye

And of course this, if anything, is evidence supporting my comments. You make my point for me. Thank you.

In my experience, most global warming denialists are “undecided”. Instead of accepting the overwhelming scientific consensus, they prefer to be “undecided”. Many of them are also “undecided” about the connection between cigarette smoking and cancer, and many of them are also “undecided” about whether evolution occurs. Most of them, like you, have little interest in the science. So you’re in very good company.

And despite getting links to the best science on the subject, you preferred to get your information from hacks like John McCaslin and Michael Asher. If you’re not learning anything, I’m afraid you need only look in the mirror to find the reason.

That ought to tell you something. Have you considered that your actions themselves might be to blame for that response? If you can’t stand the heat, then perhaps you should find a more air-conditioned locale to enjoy the literary merits of the editorials in Investor’s Business Daily.

If you ever decide to accept the scientific consensus on global warming, PM me, and I’ll be the first to admit I was wrong, and congratulate you on coming to your senses.

My prediction: it’ll never happen.

Sure I have. He was right that the world wasn’t entering an ice age in the 70s. He was right that the years 1998 and 1934 were a statistical tie in the U.S. He was and is right that to prevent dangerous warming in the future we need to act soon (i.e. in the next 10 years or so). And in every case you were wrong about what you breathlessly claimed he said:

Your statement that Hansen claimed that 1998 was the hottest year on record in the U.S. – wrong. Your statement that he believed that the world was heading into an ice age in 1971 – wrong. Your statement that he thinks the world will experience a cataclysm 9 years from now – wrong.

For someone who is only asking innocent questions about Hansen, you seem to be making a lot of false and incriminating accusations about him. I wonder why?

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

aceventura3 · 11-14-2007, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

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 openminded about the issue of global warming.

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.

Quote:

The scientific consensus that there are man made causes to global warming is clear and unambiguous...

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

Quote:

And still not enough for you.

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.

dc_dux · 11-14-2007, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

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 thearticle. 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

aceventura3 · 11-14-2007, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

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.

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?

Quote:

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 opinon 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)

Make sense to you?

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.

dc_dux · 11-14-2007, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

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

aceventura3 · 11-14-2007, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

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

You're welcome.

raveneye · 11-15-2007, 05:20 AM

Quote:

It appears the consencus that humans are responsible has had some serious doubters in the scientific community based on a peer review of scientific studies.

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?

Quote:

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.

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.

aceventura3 · 11-15-2007, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raveneye

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 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:

Quote:

A member of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says he and many other scientists do not see global warming as a developing catastrophe and there is no smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for the warming that does occur.

John Christy is the director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama at Huntsville. He and thousands of others on the U.N. panel share half the Nobel Prize also awarded to Al Gore. But he says he cringes when he hears 100-year weather forecasts when it is incredibly difficult to accurately predict the weather five days from
now.

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.

Quote:

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.

More name calling. Part of the pattern.

Quote:

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.

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

Quote:

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.”

Heightened emotion. Part of the pattern.

Quote:

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.

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

Quote:

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.

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?

{added}

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

Quote:

My Nobel Moment
By JOHN R. CHRISTY
November 1, 2007; Page A19

I've had a lot of fun recently with my tiny (and unofficial) slice of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize awarded to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But, though I was one of thousands of IPCC participants, I don't think I will add "0.0001 Nobel Laureate" to my resume.

The other half of the prize was awarded to former Vice President Al Gore, whose carbon footprint would stomp my neighborhood flat. But that's another story.
[photo]
Large icebergs in the Weddell Sea, Antarctica. Winter sea ice around the continent set a record maximum last month.

Both halves of the award honor promoting the message that Earth's temperature is rising due to human-based emissions of greenhouse gases. The Nobel committee praises Mr. Gore and the IPCC for alerting us to a potential catastrophe and for spurring us to a carbonless economy.

I'm sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see. Rather, I see a reliance on climate models (useful but never "proof") and the coincidence that changes in carbon dioxide and global temperatures have loose similarity over time.

There are some of us who remain so humbled by the task of measuring and understanding the extraordinarily complex climate system that we are skeptical of our ability to know what it is doing and why. As we build climate data sets from scratch and look into the guts of the climate system, however, we don't find the alarmist theory matching observations. (The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration satellite data we analyze at the University of Alabama in Huntsville does show modest warming -- around 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit per century, if current warming trends of 0.25 degrees per decade continue.)

It is my turn to cringe when I hear overstated-confidence from those who describe the projected evolution of global weather patterns over the next 100 years, especially when I consider how difficult it is to accurately predict that system's behavior over the next five days.

Mother Nature simply operates at a level of complexity that is, at this point, beyond the mastery of mere mortals (such as scientists) and the tools available to us. As my high-school physics teacher admonished us in those we-shall-conquer-the-world-with-a-slide-rule days, "Begin all of your scientific pronouncements with 'At our present level of ignorance, we think we know . . .'"

I haven't seen that type of climate humility lately. Rather I see jump-to-conclusions advocates and, unfortunately, some scientists who see in every weather anomaly the specter of a global-warming apocalypse. Explaining each successive phenomenon as a result of human action gives them comfort and an easy answer.

Others of us scratch our heads and try to understand the real causes behind what we see. We discount the possibility that everything is caused by human actions, because everything we've seen the climate do has happened before. Sea levels rise and fall continually. The Arctic ice cap has shrunk before. One millennium there are hippos swimming in the Thames, and a geological blink later there is an ice bridge linking Asia and North America.

One of the challenges in studying global climate is keeping a global perspective, especially when much of the research focuses on data gathered from spots around the globe. Often observations from one region get more attention than equally valid data from another.

The recent CNN report "Planet in Peril," for instance, spent considerable time discussing shrinking Arctic sea ice cover. CNN did not note that winter sea ice around Antarctica last month set a record maximum (yes, maximum) for coverage since aerial measurements started.

Then there is the challenge of translating global trends to local climate. For instance, hasn't global warming led to the five-year drought and fires in the U.S. Southwest?

Not necessarily.

There has been a drought, but it would be a stretch to link this drought to carbon dioxide. If you look at the 1,000-year climate record for the western U.S. you will see not five-year but 50-year-long droughts. The 12th and 13th centuries were particularly dry. The inconvenient truth is that the last century has been fairly benign in the American West. A return to the region's long-term "normal" climate would present huge challenges for urban planners.

Without a doubt, atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing due primarily to carbon-based energy production (with its undisputed benefits to humanity) and many people ardently believe we must "do something" about its alleged consequence, global warming. This might seem like a legitimate concern given the potential disasters that are announced almost daily, so I've looked at a couple of ways in which humans might reduce CO2 emissions and their impact on temperatures.

California and some Northeastern states have decided to force their residents to buy cars that average 43 miles-per-gallon within the next decade. Even if you applied this law to the entire world, the net effect would reduce projected warming by about 0.05 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100, an amount so minuscule as to be undetectable. Global temperatures vary more than that from day to day.

Suppose you are very serious about making a dent in carbon emissions and could replace about 10% of the world's energy sources with non-CO2-emitting nuclear power by 2020 -- roughly equivalent to halving U.S. emissions. Based on IPCC-like projections, the required 1,000 new nuclear power plants would slow the warming by about 0.2 ?176 degrees Fahrenheit per century. It's a dent.

But what is the economic and human price, and what is it worth given the scientific uncertainty?

My experience as a missionary teacher in Africa opened my eyes to this simple fact: Without access to energy, life is brutal and short. The uncertain impacts of global warming far in the future must be weighed against disasters at our doorsteps today. Bjorn Lomborg's Copenhagen Consensus 2004, a cost-benefit analysis of health issues by leading economists (including three Nobelists), calculated that spending on health issues such as micronutrients for children, HIV/AIDS and water purification has benefits 50 to 200 times those of attempting to marginally limit "global warming."

Given the scientific uncertainty and our relative impotence regarding climate change, the moral imperative here seems clear to me.

Mr. Christy is director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and a participant in the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, co-recipient of this year's Nobel Peace Prize.

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

dc_dux · 11-15-2007, 09:05 AM

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.

roachboy · 11-15-2007, 09:39 AM

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.

aceventura3 · 11-15-2007, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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:

Quote:

California and some Northeastern states have decided to force their residents to buy cars that average 43 miles-per-gallon within the next decade. Even if you applied this law to the entire world, the net effect would reduce projected warming by about 0.05 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100, an amount so minuscule as to be undetectable. Global temperatures vary more than that from day to day.

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.

dc_dux · 11-15-2007, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

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.

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.

aceventura3 · 11-15-2007, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

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.

dc_dux · 11-15-2007, 11:50 AM

More on the consensus (that I posted earlier, which you may or may not have read): "The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change"

Quote:

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

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.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.

Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../306/5702/1686

It is clear to me what is meant.

raveneye · 11-15-2007, 11:54 AM

Quote:

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?

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.

Quote:

How about this:

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.

Quote:

More name calling. Part of the pattern

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.

aceventura3 · 11-15-2007, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raveneye

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?

Quote:

In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations"

Is that the basis of discussion? Can we begin to look at that in detail? The first part I can easily accept

Quote:

In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities

raveneye · 11-15-2007, 12:11 PM

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

Quote:

Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values determined from ice cores spanning many thousands of years. The global increases in carbon dioxide concentration are due primarily to fossil fuel use and land-use change, while those of methane and nitrous oxide are primarily due to agriculture.

The understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate has improved since the Third Assessment Report (TAR), leading to very high confidence that the globally averaged net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming, with a radiative forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4] Watts per square meter.

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level

At continental, regional, and ocean basin scales, numerous long-term changes in climate have been observed. These include changes in Arctic temperatures and ice, widespread changes in precipitation amounts, ocean salinity, wind patterns and aspects of extreme weather including droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves and the intensity of tropical cyclones10. Some aspects of climate have not been observed to change.

Paleoclimate information supports the interpretation that the warmth of the last half century is unusual in at least the previous 1300 years. The last time the polar regions were significantly warmer than present for an extended period (about 125,000 years ago), reductions in polar ice volume led to 4 to 6 metres of sea level rise.

Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. This is an advance since the TAR’s conclusion that “most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations”. Discernible human influences now extend to other aspects of climate, including ocean warming, continental-average temperatures, temperature extremes and wind patterns.

Analysis of climate models together with constraints from observations enables an assessed likely range to be given for climate sensitivity for the first time and provides increased confidence in the understanding of the climate system response to radiative forcing.

For the next two decades a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected.

Continued greenhouse gas emissions at or above current rates would cause further warming and induce many changes in the global climate system during the 21st century that would very likely be larger than those observed during the 20th century.

There is now higher confidence in projected patterns of warming and other regional-scale features, including changes in wind patterns, precipitation, and some aspects of extremes and of ice.

Anthropogenic warming and sea level rise would continue for centuries due to the timescales associated with climate processes and feedbacks, even if greenhouse gas concentrations were to be stabilized.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/WG...oved_05Feb.pdf

Quote:

I think the basic problem with us understanding each other is that you perceive my questions as arguments.

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.

aceventura3 · 11-15-2007, 12:34 PM

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

Quote:

Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values determined from ice cores spanning many thousands of years. The global increases in carbon dioxide concentration are due primarily to fossil fuel use and land-use change, while those of methane and nitrous oxide are primarily due to agriculture.

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?

raveneye · 11-16-2007, 01:46 AM

Quote:

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.

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.

aceventura3 · 11-16-2007, 08:21 AM

Post #21 my first, here is my comment:

Quote:

Looks like they did.

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

Quote:

I have read many references to the data and the correction. I did not see any bloggers using the corrected data in the manner in which DC's post suggests. Most clearly acknowledge the correction was minor.
However, what many do question the significance of many of the warmest days on record occurring prior to WWII. There was no intent to deceive, in anything I read on this issue. I think Hansen is overreacting and appears to be overly sensitive.
At any rate this issue has received almost no attention by any media source of merit conservative or liberal. I simply pointed it out because it seemed ironic that Tecoyah hoped someone "screwed up" and they had.

Here is my third #25:

Quote:

When Asher (the author of the citation I provided) says: "but the effect on the U.S. global warming propaganda machine could be huge." He is stating his opinion and he was wrong and stated the likelihood that he would be wrong. There is no intent to deceive, confuse or to even discredit Hansen.
When he says NASA silently released corrected figures he is being factually correct.
When he writes the changes are "astounding" he is specifically referring to the top 10 list of the warmest years. Many people including me, actively question the correlation between CO2 emissions and global warming. I think this is a legitimate question, the updated data lessens the evidence of a causal correlation. As you can see '01 goes off the list, and all of the changes shows more current years dropping and older years moving up, there are 4 instances of that on a list of 10. There are 4 years from the decade of the 30's on the list.
I hope Hansen sees these changes as being worthy of legitimate statistical discussion relative to the correlation between CO2 and global warming trends. As you know many scientist have proposed alternative explanations for the current global warming trend.
Also, I think what you may have picked up on was the tone from backyard scientist who got a kick out of sticking it to NASA and got pissed off at Hansen for his stonewalling on the issue. This is more a "nerd" (in many ways I consider myself a "nerd" and a backyard scientist, and I am not being derogatory) thing than a political thing.
P.S. Look at the two charts you provided. The first is based on US land surface, which account for 2% of the total global land surface, yet the US accounts for most of the increase in CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels. In that chart from 1930 to 2000 there is virtually no upward trend. When you look at the second chart the one based on global temperatures, you can see a clear upward trend for the 1930's. Perhaps you can provide a scientific explanation from someone who supports the theory that CO2 emissions are the cause. I won't hold my breath.

Here is my 4th #29

Quote:

Please address the question concerning US CO2 emissions and the appearance of a lack of a warming trend in the US since the 30's. That is the most important question to me at this time.

Here is my 5th #32

Quote:

Why do you continuously make personal attacks? The US land mass is 2% of the global land mass yet accounts for the majority of the increase in CO2 emissions since the industrial revolution. Yet, the US land mass has not incurred the same level of warming as in other areas of the globe. My question is a question in good faith. I first started reading research on this topic within the last 6 months or so. I have not read or seen all of the relevant information, and I have stated in the past that I my lack on knowledge on this subject and developing my views. Since I have been reading a lot of information, and to date nothing has adequately addressed this question. If what Rev says is true, I have not seen this question answered a million times.

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.

Quote:

Pasadena (CA) - NASA reported on Tuesday that after years of research, a team of scientists have assembled data showing that normal, decade-long changes in Arctic Ocean currents are largely responsible for the major Arctic climate shifts observed over the past several years. These periodic reversals in the ocean currents move warmer and cooler water around to new places, greatly affecting the climate. While they are not ruling out the possibility of a continual warming trend, the rate at which the Earth is warming seems to be far more stable than the Arctic would indicate.

The research team also discovered that the ocean currents have recently switched back to the route they took in the previous decades, prior to the significant warming seen throughout the 1990s. These new changes will likely put the Arctic regions back into a cooling cycle again, although it will likely take several years to be observed as changes on these immense scales, millions of cubic miles of water, take time.

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

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

09-27-2007, 06:53 AM	#84 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	In the science community at large, the Issue of Global Warming has indeed been settled, it is in virtual universal agreement that indeed this atmosphere in warming significantly at a spped that cannot be explained by any natural cycle, or Global natural system. While the contribution to this climate change by CO2 is still heavily debated in places like this, the arguments against this influence in the community of scientists that study it is coming to a close, as most now understand it is the only viable explanation for such an abrupt shift. While I also call into question the "9 year" statement, It seems somewhat irrelevant when taken into the context of the actual Issue...I dont really care if its nine years....or 50, its obviously going to be pretty bad at some point. __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

09-27-2007, 11:54 AM	#90 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	So...again a change of subject rather than answering the post I spent the energy to create. I see no point in beating this horse, as you will look at only those things you wish to see. Oh, and I agree there are many possible problems with the models used, but they are not taken alone when consensus is built. I am done here I think...Im getting dizzy as the endless circle tightens, but thanks for the fun. __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

09-28-2007, 12:15 AM	#91 (permalink)
raveneye Born Against	This exchange is a nice example of typical debate behavior of global warming denialists (there are many examples). A global warming denialist is one who cannot be convinced that global warming is a fact, by any argument. The most common logical fallacy is the straw man, which is inevitable if one doesn’t bother to learn the science: if all you have is a distorted view of the scientific arguments, then all you can attack is that distorted view, and you have accomplished nothing. Some examples here: “9 year prediction of doom”, “error in the Mie function”, “no analysis of interacting variables”, “the new science says unequivocal means 90%” all of which are utter nonsense, hilarious to read for anybody actually familiar with the science. The other major fallacy is the red herring, otherwise known as changing the subject, misdirection, or just wild goose chase. So, for example, we begin with a clever insinuation that one’s hated opponent made an embarrassing public gaffe, and therefore he needs to “come forward” and explain himself. When it is pointed out that he did no such thing, then we get the switcheroo: the REAL ISSUE is that he needs to explain why he wrote an erroneous climate model. When this claim is refuted (he wrote no climate model, rather contributed a bit of trivial code), the switcheroo: the REAL ISSUE is he needs to come forward and explain why he endorsed the falsehood that was concluded from his trivial code. When it is explained that his publications show he never endorsed the falsehood, another switcheroo: the REAL ISSUE is that he needs to come forward and explain why the trivial code he contributed was in error. When it is pointed out that it was not in error, the switcheroo: the REAL ISSUE is that he needs to come forward and explain why his correct code was misused. When it is pointed out the code was not misused and had nothing to do with the falsehood, the switcheroo: he needs to come forward and explain his “9 year prediction of doom”, or some other nonsense, which brings us back to the previous fallacy, the straw man. And so the Christmas goose hops and hops around the barnyard, always just out of reach. In reality the REAL ISSUE is that the denialist will not be convinced that global warming is a fact. That’s what he is really asserting, and of course that is true, there’s nothing that can be done to refute it. That’s because he is a global warming denialist. Q.E.D. Last edited by raveneye; 09-28-2007 at 12:25 AM..

11-15-2007, 09:05 AM	#109 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	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. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 11-15-2007 at 09:19 AM..

11-15-2007, 09:39 AM	#110 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	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. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite