Global Warming Debate ???<!-- Wacco - display repostinfo --><!-- /Wacco - display repostinfo --> <!-- Wacco - Add Threadfields Pluggin --> <!-- /Wacco - Add Threadfields Pluggin --> <hr style="color: rgb(166, 168, 82);" size="1"> <!-- / icon and title --> <!-- message --> I was curious what kind of response I would get from this post. In the past, when I have proposed anything like the following to other Sebastopol groups I have been subjected to irrational Reducto Absurdo Ad Hominem Apples vs Oranges insulting attacks instead of reasoned debate.
Let me start this off by saying that I am all for completely changing how we live towards a more sustainable, holistic, organic, spiritual, thoughtful way of living. My only real point is that Global Warming is still very much a rationally debatable topic and the extreme conclusions that Gore and others have drawn are based on flawed and invalid logic with no proper considerations of the considerable levels of uncertainties and sources of error.
As a completely off-the-cuff and irrational remark let me say that I really believe that Gore has many more personal/political reasons for his crusade than some kind of altruistic save-the-planet motivation.
This should be interesting.
Below is a copy and pasted editorial from the IBD as posted on the National Center for Policy Analysis website. There are plenty plenty more where this came from.
The Chill Is On
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, April 04, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Climate Change: Global warming? Don't worry about it. It's over. No longer does Al Gore have to fly around the world in private jets emitting greenhouse gases to save the world from — greenhouse gases.
<hr size="1"> Read More: Global Warming (https://www.ibdeditorials.com/FeaturedCategories.aspx?sid=1802)
<hr size="1"> The United Nations World Meteorological Organization is reporting that global temperatures have not risen since 1998. That would be the same temperatures that models from the U.N.'s Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change said would be scorching the earth into an unlivable wasteland — except for those coastal areas flooded by seas gorged with water from melting ice sheets.
Of course the IPCC spins the news.
"You should look at trends over a pretty long period," said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud, "and the trend of temperature globally is still very much indicative of warming."
His explanation for the cool spell is the effect of the Pacific Ocean's La Nina current, "part of what we call 'variability.' "
If that's the case, then why can't the Pacific's El Nino current, which played a large part in the warm reading for 1998, simply been seen as a "variability" and not part of a greater warming trend? Because it doesn't fit the agenda?
Were the IPCC not dedicated to spreading fear, it would admit its climate models, on which much of the global warming madness is based, are flawed. While pandering politicians, media sycophants and Hollywood dupes desperately seeking significance have lectured us about our carbon monoxide emissions, real temperature changes measured over the past 30 years have not matched well with increases predicted by the IPCC's models.
This is not some gas-guzzler's fantasy but the finding of a credible study published last year in the International Journal of Climatology. Looking at the data, four researchers concluded "the weight of the current evidence . . . supports the conclusion" there is no agreement between the models and the observation temperatures.
That means that projections of future warming are too high, that the entire global warming assumption is suspect, and that Gore should find something more productive to do with his time.
It also proves that Howard Hayden, physics professor emeritus at the University of Connecticut, was correct in describing the machinery of the climate model-hysteria industrial complex as one that takes "garbage in" and spits "gospel out."
The global warming debate is not over. Indeed, the debate is beginning to favor the skeptics.
thewholetruth
04-23-2008, 07:34 PM
"Let me start this off by saying that I am all for completely changing how we live towards a more sustainable, holistic, organic, spiritual, thoughtful way of living."
I'm with you there!
"My only real point is that Global Warming is still very much a rationally debatable topic and the extreme conclusions that Gore and others have drawn are based on flawed and invalid logic with no proper considerations of the considerable levels of uncertainties and sources of error."
Exactly.
"As a completely off-the-cuff and irrational remark let me say that I really believe that Gore has many more personal/political reasons for his crusade than some kind of altruistic save-the-planet motivation."
I agree completely and don't consider your remark "irrational" in the least. Gore has DUPED the international leaders who believe his Chicken Little routine, has DUPED the Nobel Committee, and has DUPED many concerned citizens of the Earth in his mission for personal fame and fortune. He said he invented the INTERNET, for goodness sake! Didn't any of the Chicken Littles read the news THAT DAY? LOL And didn't THAT raise any red flags when he started in with the global warming 'warnings'?
It did for me.
"The global warming debate is not over. Indeed, the debate is beginning to favor the skeptics."
It is. That's because the entire scare was about appealing to people's guilt and emotionalism, and the scare was initially effective, as there are many, many people who wallow in guilt and emotionalism.
For some of us who don't trust any life threatening claim that doesn't have evidence attached, we've been reluctant to join hands with the Chicken Littles.
More will be revealed.
Don :wink:
Zeno Swijtink
04-23-2008, 09:00 PM
Let me start this off by saying that I am all for completely changing how we live towards a more sustainable, holistic, organic, spiritual, thoughtful way of living. My only real point is that Global Warming is still very much a rationally debatable topic and the extreme conclusions that Gore and others have drawn are based on flawed and invalid logic with no proper considerations of the considerable levels of uncertainties and sources of error. (...) The United Nations World Meteorological Organization is reporting that global temperatures have not risen since 1998.
Are you for real?? Are you up to the task that you have set yourself?? Tell us about your "more sustainable, holistic, organic, spiritual, thoughtful way of living." And then tell us whether that way of living includes doing just a little more study than the mere repeating of the bad journalism of some crummy, low-quality website.
If you had done your homework you would have discovered that that very same United Nations World Meteorological Organization wrote in their report "State of the climate in 2005 " on page vi: "the globally averaged annual mean surface temperature in 2005 was the warmest since the inception of consistent temperature observations in 1880." And that (p. v) "all years of the new century rank among the 10 warmest years of the observational period, including 2005."
Are you for real?? Are you up to the task that you have set yourself?? Tell us about your "more sustainable, holistic, organic, spiritual, thoughtful way of living."
Why is my personal way of living important to the veracity of the debate ? Just an excuse to get personal and insulting rather than having a rational debate ? If I was living a, in your opinion, green holistic lifestyle does that make my point more valid ? What would you do if it turned out that I was living very green and yet I still had criticisms of the GW alarmist theory ?
And then tell us whether that way of living includes doing just a little more study than the mere repeating of the bad journalism of some crummy, low-quality website.
Thus the irrational insulting begins. Having read your posts before it surprises me that the silly insults would come from you. Its rather hypocritical that you accuse me of 'repeating bad journalism of some crummy, low-quality website' when you later on, in this post, refer to the same organization I am quoting as being a credible source. Do you have some rational, non-insulting (or, at least, rationally insulting) reason to label the website or the source as bad or you just gonna childishly sling mud ?
If you had done your homework you would have discovered that that very same United Nations World Meteorological Organization wrote in their report "State of the climate in 2005 " on page vi: "the globally averaged annual mean surface temperature in 2005 was the warmest since the inception of consistent temperature observations in 1880." And that (p. v) "all years of the new century rank among the 10 warmest years of the observational period, including 2005."
This is just too easy. First, your are quoting from the same original source I used, to back your insulting counterargument and then you are using data that is 3 years older than mine ! You have backed my point which is that GW is still a rationally debatable topic. WMO's own data is subject to interpretation and revision. One of the biggest sources of error in the whole GORE version of the GW debate is the reliability of global temperature measurements. What you call 'reliable' temperature measurements I (and many others who are not given near enough air time) call very prone to uncertainty. In order to get really reliable data on global temperature changes you would need thousands (maybe millions) of temperature measurements around the world. The only well-kept temperature stations are near urban environments which have naturally grown into more intense heat islands since 'reliable' temperature measurements have been made. The temperature stations in rural and remote areas have not nearly been kept up (the surfaces must be kept well painted in order to have reliable measurements). Yes, we have had satellites for something like the last 50 years but they haven't done global temperature measurements that consistently or with very large data sets for 50 years (not to mention that 50 years is not a large sample size when you are trying to prove a definite climate trend). Don't get me started on ice core samples which have HUGE uncertainties and indicate gas content and levels not actual temperature measurements (there is strong evidence that the lag time between CO2 levels and temperature increases may be centuries)
What about the possible heating of the other planets at the same time ? Statistically speaking to blame it all on a mutually happening Markovian effect has similar odds to the lottery.
Zeno- feel free to debate the actual content of what I say and feel free to require me to back said content but do me a favor and wave off the childish insulting. You gonna factual and rationally debate the actual content or just spit at me ?!?
Tai
Zeno Swijtink
04-23-2008, 10:33 PM
This is just too easy. First, your are quoting from the same original source I used, to back your insulting counterargument and then you are using data that is 3 years older than mine !
You did not use my 2005 source. You used a 2008 source from a crummy website that did not do its homework, just as you didn't do your homework. Study the 2005 report and get back to me. Show me that there is anything in the 2005 WMO report that justifies the crummy website's misreporting.
taishon
04-24-2008, 08:10 AM
You did not use my 2005 source. You used a 2008 source from a crummy website that did not do its homework, just as you didn't do your homework. Study the 2005 report and get back to me. Show me that there is anything in the 2005 WMO report that justifies the crummy website's misreporting.
Actually I quoted a source that used, not only the document you mention (the 2005 WMO report) but the IGPC report and the International Journal of Climatology as its sources. One of the main points, (had you done your homework) was that The WMO/IGPC itself admits that 2005 is not statistically significant than 1998 (global temperature wise) and that the WMO/IGPC selectively uses La Nina to explaining cooling variability rather than allowing El Nino as a variability in explaining warming trends. I have many other sources that caste significant uncertainty on the reliability of global temperature measurements. By the way, we both should stray away from a simple 'argument from authority' type debate (in which you probably will argue that your climate scare authority figures are more reliable and less biased than my climate scare skeptical authority figures). You may notice that I've tried to add more direct science principals arguments as well as quoting 'authorities'.
Again, you use words like 'crummy website's misreporting' without rational backing that up. I am honestly interested in what rational, factual reasons you might have for disputing the credibility of the the websites I used - the IBD and the NCPI, which use, as sources, many websites including the one you deem as credible (the WMO).
Zeno, I have read your posts and know you are capable of better debate than this. I am actually very worried about possible climate change and the purpose behind posting articles that I know are going to provoke is that I want to get some honest fact checking behind my thought process. I want someone to factual, accurately and rationally criticize my conclusions. I will do my best to admit errors in my assumptions and be clear when I am pontificating (such as my personal comments about Gore) and will often criticize and admit uncertainties to my own argument (actions which seem to be very very rare, especially on the climate scare side of the debate).
I insist that the signal to noise ratio in this debate be fairly high or I am not going to participate (the signal being the actual first principles rational debate and the noise being the silly insulting remarks) other than to briefly explain why I am opting out.
As an aside, it appears that we will know, pretty confidently, how prevalently Anthropogenic GW is within a decade since we are heading into solar cooling cycle that will peak within a decade or so.
Peace,
Tai
Orm Embar
04-24-2008, 08:34 AM
Actually I quoted a source that used, not only the document you mention (the 2005 WMO report) but the IGPC report and the International Journal of Climatology as its sources.
[COLOR=Blue]Peace,
Tai
Maybe it would be helpful to include direct access to our references. It seems that websites are our most-used reference, so a simple link to the page used would suffice.
-Larkin
OrchardDweller
04-24-2008, 09:27 AM
World might be heading towards Ice Age
CANBERRA: Scientists have warned that the world might once again be heading towards an Ice Age, with global warming approaching a possible end. Evidence in support of this theory has come from pictures obtained from the US Solar and Heliospheric Observatory, which showed no spots on the sun, thus determining that sunspot activity has not resumed after hitting an 11-year low in March last year. A sunspot is a region on the sun that is cooler than the rest and appears dark...
Maybe it would be helpful to include direct access to our references. It seems that websites are our most-used reference, so a simple link to the page used would suffice.
-Larkin
I agree. Here are a few of many;
A. The following is a 2007 Journal of Climatology paper which, basically states that there is significant discrepency between climate model predictions and actual observation and that climate model predictions should be viewed with 'caution'. Read the summary paragraph at the end
https://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf
B. The orginal 2005 WMO document as presented by Zeno and referenced by the article I quoted;
In the article they state that 2005 is not statistically different than 1998 (global temperature wise) and 4 other years during the same decade (read the abstract and then check parts of the body referring to temperature. in several parts of the article they refer to La Nina as a credible variability in cooling measurements but seem to discount El Nino as a credible variability in warming data. It should be noted that most all of the global temperature data cited is in the lower troposphere which can be argued may be heavily influenced by urban heat island evolution. I leave it to better qualified individuals to determine whether that is a credible uncertainty or influence and will call that last statement of mine currently unsupported.
C. A technical paper (2007) on the uncertainties of temperature change data. The conclusion, if I am reading it right, is that the uncertainties are definitely statistically significant and typical error correction schemes are not confident enough to discount the uncertainties;
D. A 2005 NCDC report that also states that 2005 is statistically insignificant from 1998. The paper also goes on to mention two global warming periods from 1910-1945 and from 1976- present. There has been significant debate (which has included climatologists as well as lay people on both sides) as to the causes of the longer term warming trends and the reliability of the data (from industrialization/ world wars/solar luminosity and to anthropogenic greenhouse gases)
E. The next one is from Tierney, a NYTimes reporter. He is not a credentialed scientist but he often interviews credentialed scientists and tends to back his assertion with the actual data so its a good jumping point for climate change skepticism (or a place to try to get data to fight climate skepticism);
My point will always be that there is very significant uncertainty and valid uncertainty extreme climate change predictions. The Al Gore extreme scare camp has relied on extremly complex and arbitrary climate models that use error correcting that is so far removed from the actual data and actual physical measurements as to be, at best, extreme scientific speculation rather than highly reliable tested conclusions. (IE- there still a valid debate)
Peace,
Tai
taishon
04-24-2008, 10:25 AM
World might be heading towards Ice Age
CANBERRA: Scientists have warned that the world might once again be heading towards an Ice Age, with global warming approaching a possible end. Evidence in support of this theory has come from pictures obtained from the US Solar and Heliospheric Observatory, which showed no spots on the sun, thus determining that sunspot activity has not resumed after hitting an 11-year low in March last year. A sunspot is a region on the sun that is cooler than the rest and appears dark...
An interesting article that addresses this subject and relates to Napoleon's defeat..Just to be clear..I don't consider the article itself (which comes from , in Zeno's words, a 'crummy' website) but it does provide an interesting slant and does reference sources I consider credible.
Global Warming Debate ???<!-- Wacco - display repostinfo --><!-- /Wacco - display repostinfo --> <!-- Wacco - Add Threadfields Pluggin --> <!-- /Wacco - Add Threadfields Pluggin --> <hr style="color: rgb(166, 168, 82);" size="1"> <!-- / icon and title --> <!-- message --> I was curious what kind of response I would get from this post. ...
Did you follow the very long "Global Warming Fraud" thread:
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?t=25476&highlight=%2Afraud%2A
I think all your arguments have been made.
-Jeff
Zeno Swijtink
04-24-2008, 11:02 AM
I agree. Here are a few of many;
A. The following is a 2007 Journal of Climatology paper which, basically states that there is significant discrepency between climate model predictions and actual observation and that climate model predictions should be viewed with 'caution'. Read the summary paragraph at the end
https://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf
This paper by Fred Singer et al. is discussed on realclimate.org:
E. The next one is from Tierney, a NYTimes reporter. He is not a credentialed scientist but he often interviews credentialed scientists and tends to back his assertion with the actual data so its a good jumping point for climate change skepticism (or a place to try to get data to fight climate skepticism);
Did you follow the very long "Global Warming Fraud" thread:
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?t=25476&highlight=%2Afraud%2A
I think all your arguments have been made.
-Jeff
I followed some of it but not all..thought that the debate should be resurrected because of earth day and thought I had some more points to make. Thanx,
Tai
taishon
04-24-2008, 11:44 AM
This paper by Fred Singer et al. is discussed on realclimate.org:
I don't consider realclimate.org to be unbiased based on its origins (funded by environmental media services which was started by Al Gore's former communications director Arlie Schardt).I don't discount it, i just state that it should be suspect based on its origins (equivalent, IMHO to the skepticism you should have for a NY Times article or any other website you have referred to as 'crummy') I would still look to primary journal sources for the most credible info. What I do like about Realclimate.org is the response and counter responses at the bottom of each article. It just confirms, for me, that the debate is still valid. I saw many good skeptical responses to the article that went unanswered.
Model-data comparisons are discussed at
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php?s=tierney
with reference to the Tierney challenge.
I'll have to look at this in more detail when I have time but, at first glance, it looks like they are disputing Tierney and his sources claims of uncertainty by using the same argument that Tierney and his sources used to cast uncertainty on their original premise. I don't interpret Tierney as saying that climate models are wrong, just that their confidence should be heavily disputed which I (and many more people more qualified than me) agree with.
Again, its insightful too look deeply at the responses (and counter responses) in addition to the original articles.
Peace,
Tai
Valley Oak
04-24-2008, 12:58 PM
Steve, I'm very curious to know how a science teacher such as yourself finds source material suspect simply because it is associated with Al Gore?
Thank you,
Edward
I'll have to look at this in more detail when I have time but, at first glance, it looks like they are disputing Tierney and his sources claims of uncertainty by using the same argument that Tierney and his sources used to cast uncertainty on their original premise. I don't interpret Tierney as saying that climate models are wrong, just that their confidence should be heavily disputed which I (and many more people more qualified than me) agree with.
Again, its insightful too look deeply at the responses (and counter responses) in addition to the original articles.
Peace,
Tai
taishon
04-24-2008, 01:25 PM
Steve, I'm very curious to know how a science teacher such as yourself finds source material suspect simply because it is associated with Al Gore?
Thank you,
Edward
For the same reason that I would find it suspect for be associated with Rupert Murdoch, George Bush, or any other people or organizations I consider to have a specific political/social/personal agenda. Being skeptical due to funding sources is healthy and valid. The association with GORE is not the only reason, simple or otherwise, that I question realclimate.org. I did not say the site doesn't have any credibility, just subject to valid skepticism based on its origins and funding. I do consider it credible in the sense that it appears to allow open response and counter response (though the authors seem to be pretty selective about what responses they address).
What does my being a Science teacher have to do with it ? My skepticism is valid whether I am a dishwasher or published researcher (both of which I have been in the past).
Peace,
Tai
taishon
04-24-2008, 01:44 PM
I am sure many of you have already seen this but I thought I'd repeat it here;
https://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp
Its the comparison of the houses of Bush and Gore. I don't claim anything beyond what it is but it is interesting.
Tai
Valley Oak
04-24-2008, 05:54 PM
Fine, Al Gore has a hypocritically energy guzzling house; an inconvenient truth (although snopes is not exactly a reliable source but I'll humor you).
I also read your thread starting post, which is really what this is all about. I think we should start our little debate there instead of wasting time on the other quibbles.
You are asserting that Global Warming has no scientific basis? (Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding what you are trying to say). That Global Warming is assumed as a fact and a given when it still has to be proved?
I challenge you. Although I still have to fetch the reliable references and refereed articles, I will state right now that you are wrong. Global Warming (GW) is indeed a fact. GW is a serious threat to you and me and everyone else on the planet. GW is an urgent issue that needs to be dealt with ASAP. GW is a gross reality that too many people, especially conservatives and Republicans, are in denial about because it challenges their public policy (I'm not saying that you are necessarily a Republican or a conservative. We do know that you are a science teacher though, which really surprises me).
Please offer your reliable sources (not snopes or other suspicious sources). Please show everyone here on this talk list your scientific back up for your claims. I will provide mine. So please be ready and well prepared to support your statements.
Edward
I am sure many of you have already seen this but I thought I'd repeat it here;
https://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp
Its the comparison of the houses of Bush and Gore. I don't claim anything beyond what it is but it is interesting.
Tai
taishon
04-24-2008, 06:37 PM
Ok..here goes
Fine, Al Gore has a hypocritically energy guzzling house; an inconvenient truth (although snopes is not exactly a reliable source but I'll humor you).
Never claimed it was..though its probably as reliable as many of the sources posted on the GW scare side..plus they do a pretty good job of posting the data for their reasoning along with their assertions. By the way, don't 'humor' me. If you think you have a valid criticism, go for it..but be prepared for a rebuttal.
I also read your thread starting post, which is really what this is all about. I think we should start our little debate there instead of wasting time on the other quibbles.
I agree..unaware of any 'quibbles' that have happened yet..The tone you are using makes me fear that your post will devolve into insults rather than debate but I will reserve judgement.
You are asserting that Global Warming has no scientific basis? (Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding what you are trying to say).
Let me correct you..I quoted an article that has a stronger (though not necessarily invalid) view than I have. So my point (reread my posts, I am not going to constantly repeat this) is that the extreme view of the GW Alarmists is based on invalid reasoning and a lack of proper attention to the extreme levels of uncertainty and sources of error.
That Global Warming is assumed as a fact and a given when it still has to be proved?
There are very very few things in science that your truly prove as a fact. Science, by nature, is the pursuit of disproving things.
I challenge you. Although I still have to fetch the reliable references and refereed articles, please do..But also insert some first principles and original data..I really hate debates based solely on 'argument from authority' types of arguments.
I will state right now that you are wrong. Global Warming (GW) is indeed a fact.
I don't see how you can reliably state something as Complex as the planet's climate as fact. That would be arrogant and unscientific. Now, giving me a reliable degree of confidence measurement based on real data with deep error checking..that would impress me.
GW is a serious threat to you and me and everyone else on the planet. GW is an urgent issue that needs to be dealt with ASAP. GW is a gross reality that too many people, especially conservatives and Republicans, are in denial about because it challenges their public policy
It would be interesting to see if you would admit you are wrong if, within 10 years we see a serious cooling trend.
(I'm not saying that you are necessarily a Republican or a conservative. We do know that you are a science teacher though, which really surprises me).
You know..this is the second time someone has alluded to my profession. I hope that you will not get personally insulting about this or, at least, make a valid rational argument why anything I said contradicts my current profession. Why don't we just leave my profession out of it and stick to the actual content and data shall we ?
Please offer your reliable sources (not snopes or other suspicious sources).
I only used Snopes (which is fairly reliable compared to a lot of sources) for the GORE/Bush House factoid. Did you pay attention to the other sources I used (several of which provide some support to your point of view)
Please show everyone here on this talk list your scientific back up for your claims.
I already have shown a small sampling (which no one so far has rationally disputed as being wrong) of whats available. Before I devote much effort into showing you more I want you to demonstrate that this isn't going to be the typical irrational insult-fest I've encountered in the past and also I would like you (or anyone) to invalidate the sources (or data) I've posted so far.
I will provide mine. So please be ready and well prepared to support your statements.
I already am..keep in mind that the past few days I've had an unusual parcel of time to devote to this..my turn around may be as long as a week or more in the future..if this gets personally insulting then I probably won't bother with much effort at all. Its gotta be useful for me and I've had my fill of petty irrational arguments.
Edward
Valley Oak
04-24-2008, 07:11 PM
I will also have a turn around time of about a week or so as well, maybe sooner.
Best Regards,
Edward
Ok..here goes
Zeno Swijtink
04-25-2008, 09:02 AM
Ok..here goes
Taishon,
What action is, according to you, presently warranted on green house gas emissions given the state of the science and given some ethically and practically motivated goals you see for mankind?
And how do you argue for that warrant, what's your risk analysis argument?
I would be interested to converse with you about these questions.
Zeno
Lenny
04-25-2008, 11:17 AM
For those of us over 30, more like over 50, the Original Earth Day, and those that promoted, promulgated it, and behaved as chicken littles, was not about Global Warming.
It was about Global FREEZING.
Look it up, kids. National Geographic, Time, Scientific American, Look, News Week, all of them had several cover articles on how we were to freeze to death, before today. Interviews, lectures, media, politicians, preachers, all of the social "infrastructure" was blah, blah, blahing The Big Freeze. Remember that, you old farts?
Way to...., for me. :2cents:
Bacl to my garden.
Zeno Swijtink
04-25-2008, 12:49 PM
For those of us over 30, more like over 50, the Original Earth Day, and those that promoted, promulgated it, and behaved as chicken littles, was not about Global Warming.
It was about Global FREEZING.
Look it up, kids. National Geographic, Time, Scientific American, Look, News Week, all of them had several cover articles on how we were to freeze to death, before today. Interviews, lectures, media, politicians, preachers, all of the social "infrastructure" was blah, blah, blahing The Big Freeze. Remember that, you old farts?
Way to...., for me. :2cents:
Bacl to my garden.
Wikipedia has a good discussion of "Global Cooling."
"Global cooling in general can refer to an overall cooling of the Earth. In this article it refers primarily to a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere along with a posited commencement of glaciation. This hypothesis never had significant scientific support, but gained temporary popular attention due to press reports that did not accurately reflect the scientific understandings of ice age cycles and a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s. Scientific consensus is that the Earth has not durably cooled, but undergone a period of global warming in the 20th century."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_freezing
Anybody can provide references to the scientific literature that gave credence to Global Cooling in the 1970s? Even a Scientific American article would be great.
According to this wikipedia entry, which discusses various scientific climate discussions at the time, there was no significance support for this hypothesis among scientists. Very different now with Global Warming and our better understanding of the climate forcing of green house gasses, the residence time of greenhouse gasses and the role of oceans.
taishon
04-25-2008, 01:03 PM
I'm gonna have to give a quick and dirty answer and may not be able to reply for awhile.
Taishon,
What action is, according to you, presently warranted on green house gas emissions given the state of the science and given some ethically and practically motivated goals you see for mankind?
I think, to give a really credible answer to this (you are asking for a action-oriented policy analysis) would require a recommendation from a panel of 100+ lifelong devoted climatology/social economcis PhDs. However, I will give you a less informed answer based on my own researches, which are far from adequate.
And how do you argue for that warrant, what's your risk analysis argument?
If you are looking for specific numbers and 'hard' data where I can quantifiable say, for example, that we should devote X$ and X% resources and must change soceity by X amount and enact these specific wide-reaching laws then you won't get it from me. If I did you should be heavily suspect. When it comes to GW arguments there are very few 'hard' numbers one most scales except for very local subsets.
I would say my rough opinion is that we should put whole sale efforts into using and developing alternative resources and lifestyles tempered by good research. I think we should proceed fairly aggressively with ideas that have strong track records and should be cautious of ones that don't. I think that an in-depth analysis, which includes socioeconomic considerations should be done for anything we decide to subsidize and that causes dramatic changes in lifestyle and infrastructure.
Let me argue by analogy and example (which is never air tight but it is illustrative).
I cannot think of a single alternative to our current fossil fuels infrastructure that is zero polluting (or even zero net polluting) or has no greenhouse gas emissions (or no net GHGE). Solar cells use fossil fuels and carbon emissions to make (from the mining of silicon to the transportation to the disposal etc etc...interesting to note that oil companies have been buying up silicon in droves..I assume it is to drive up silicon prices and make solar cells more expensive). Theoretically, they have a degradation rate of 1/2% to 1/4% per year, giving them a useable lifetime of 50-100 years. The we will have to dispose/recycle them (these are optimistic projections promoted by solar cell vendors). When we first decided to replace refrigerants with chemicals we thought would be better for the ozone layer, the replacement turned out to be about a 10x worse Ozone destoyer. When we first decided to do curbside recycling there were studies done that indicated an immature curbside recycling program might actually be worse for the environment. I can't think of a comprehensive study that has evaluated the effect on global and local wind patterns from huge windmill farms (I think I have read a science journal article that indicate the wind mill farms of California have contributed heavily to increasing pollution patterns in the LA basin area which translates into increased health issues which translates into more carbon emissions from the healthcare industry etc) I am willing to provide sources for these examples when I have time, and if I get non-insulting responses. Fossil fuels, especially oil, are about the cheapest source of energy and building material that we use, if you don't factor in the environmental and health costs which probably are huge. We use oil for building (plastics and such) at a rate probably twice as much as fuel (see some Peak Oil debate). Hydrogen fuel cells, currently, only seem useful in very large industrial applications. They don't last long, they use fossil fuel membranes and are bulky.
What is my point and what would I like to see happen ? I would like to see a moderately aggressive campaign towards replacing our fossil fuel economy and wasteful lifestyle with something more organic and more considered and, evidently, more healthful for society and the Earth. As more dramatic, credible, and solid evidence of anthropogenic GW influence becomes availible I will tend to believe in more aggressive actions towards alternatives (the rational debate is what qualifies as solid evidence in something so complex). I can give you some personal lifestyle choices if you like. Do I have a proven plan that I know is absolutely right ? No..and neither does anyone reading this or probably anyone on this planet. I can only base what I think should be done based on a limited amount of time devoted to the the actual debate and a true and honest consideration of both sides of the debate. To give you a complete picture of my current beliefs on social action related to GW I would have to post 100+ pages of referenced material and spend days outlining my arguments.
What are the consequences of being really aggressive from a social policy economic and technology perspective ? It depends on which 'experts' and studies you consider credible but varies from being completely wrong about our GW influence and causing extreme economic and social hardship (paying a huge cost for specific medicine or not having access to it in the first place is a small example..consider how we get, make, and transport medicines) to be being completely right and maybe not being able to avert global disaster no matter what. I favor the more moderate view that there may be some strong human GW influence, that GW (over the short term) may exist, that we may be heading towards a global cooling cycle and that we should proceed cautiously but more aggressively towards alternatives (which should include social lifestyle changes.
I, personally, intend on buying a hybrid after driving my pick up into the ground, getting solar cells, only putting my recycling container on the curb (my family is almost there), continuing to change my lifestyle and commercial choices and to continue trying to promote rational debate. I would do this whether there was a GW scare or not. Overall, I like the GW scare, not on its own merits, but on its effect on social awareness and lifestyle changes.
I would be interested to converse with you about these questions.
I would be too..so long as it stays civil and rational. My purpose in devoting time to these posts is to (1) get a peer review of my convictions and (2) to gather more data resources and (3) test my debate skills and (4) flush out other locals who wish to debate this topic.
Zeno
Peace,
Tai
thewholetruth
04-25-2008, 10:06 PM
Amen, Lenny. That is why it is so absurd to me to see the modern day Chicken Littles in the uproar of the imaginary man-made global warming.
To them I say this: Go help a homeless person, develop a skill, get a hobby, learn how to have healthy relationships, get a second job, get some counseling, go do gardening, AnYtHiNg that will get you out of your head, because THAT'S where the problem really lies: in your head.
People are so gullible it's amazing.
Don
For those of us over 30, more like over 50, the Original Earth Day, and those that promoted, promulgated it, and behaved as chicken littles, was not about Global Warming.
It was about Global FREEZING.
Look it up, kids. National Geographic, Time, Scientific American, Look, News Week, all of them had several cover articles on how we were to freeze to death, before today. Interviews, lectures, media, politicians, preachers, all of the social "infrastructure" was blah, blah, blahing The Big Freeze. Remember that, you old farts?
Way to...., for me. :2cents:
Bacl to my garden.
thewholetruth
04-25-2008, 10:12 PM
Zeno, I'm amazed at your comment. So you think we're any more intelligent and less prone to Chicken Littlism than we were just 30 years ago?
LOL We're not. We're just as gullible, however, and susceptible to people preying on our fears, our guilt and our egos that tell us we know things that we simply do not have enough information about. Scientists and people like Nobel Peace Prize winner Al Gore (BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahaha - I'm sorry, please excuse my outburst) prey on people's fears, guilt and ego, because they want fame, fortune and respect. They are predators, Zeno, researchers who want to believe - and want US to believe - that they are really figuring out some important stuff...and really they're just guessing, and have no basis in fact for their guesswork. But if YOU will buy their b.s., then they can get more FUNDING to continue their research and keep their jobs investigating stuff.
See how that works?
They thought they were right about global cooling, Zeno. They were wrong. They've no conclusive evidence now of global warming, either. We're really no further away from being Cavemen than we were 30 years ago, sir.
Don
Wikipedia has a good discussion of "Global Cooling."
"Global cooling in general can refer to an overall cooling of the Earth. In this article it refers primarily to a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere along with a posited commencement of glaciation. This hypothesis never had significant scientific support, but gained temporary popular attention due to press reports that did not accurately reflect the scientific understandings of ice age cycles and a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s. Scientific consensus is that the Earth has not durably cooled, but undergone a period of global warming in the 20th century."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_freezing
Anybody can provide references to the scientific literature that gave credence to Global Cooling in the 1970s? Even a Scientific American article would be great.
According to this wikipedia entry, which discusses various scientific climate discussions at the time, there was no significance support for this hypothesis among scientists. Very different now with Global Warming and our better understanding of the climate forcing of green house gasses, the residence time of greenhouse gasses and the role of oceans.
Zeno Swijtink
04-26-2008, 07:33 AM
https://www.obu.edu/news/story.asp?ID=2513
DeWitt presents “A Christian Perspective on Environmental Stewardship”
Environmental scientist and author Dr. Calvin B. DeWitt visited the campus of Ouachita Baptist University on April 15. In light of the recent concern with environmental consciousness, OBU has launched several “green initiatives” to do its part toward protecting the world. DeWitt was invited to campus as a part of the Birkett Williams Lecture Series to present “A Christian Perspective on Environmental Stewardship.”
DeWitt addressed the university community at chapel, talked with students in several zoology classes and met faculty, staff and students at an evening meal and reception. His visit culminated in his presentation of the Birkett Williams Lecture. OBU continued the theme of Christian environmental stewardship later in the week by celebrating Earth Day and offering a free canoeing activity.
During the lecture, DeWitt discussed the biblical principles of earthkeeping, fruitfulness, sabbath and conservation. “This world is God’s creation—period,” DeWitt said. “It’s because of Him that all these things exist. Environmental stewardship means that we image God’s love for the world.
“Being enthusiastic for God’s creation means you will not have to do it alone,” DeWitt added. “We are a Christian community.”
DeWitt serves on the faculty of the Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies at the University of Wisconsin in Madison. A noted environmental scientist, lecturer and award-winning teacher, he is the author of Earth-Wise: A Biblical Response to Environmental Issues, a practical handbook for discussing Christian environmental stewardship in the church. He holds degrees in biology from Calvin College and in biology and zoology from the University of Michigan.
DeWitt has been influential in many collaborative efforts among evangelicals, scientists and politicians, including the Evangelical Climate Initiative, a statement calling for concerted action to battle global warming.
Among his awards is the 2005 National Wildlife Federation “Connie Award” which recognized his work in bridging environmental science and ethics. He has given addresses at more than 70 North American colleges and universities and worldwide in such countries as China, Korea, India, Indonesia, Russia and the United Kingdom, most recently at the Faraday Institute for Science at Cambridge University.
Dr. Mike Reynolds, associate professor of kinesiology and leisure studies at Ouachita, was one of the committee members responsible for inviting DeWitt to campus. “With climate change, ‘green initiatives’ and Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth making daily headlines, we felt like a Christian perspective on these topics would be of interest to OBU’s faculty, staff and students,” Reynolds explained. “Dr. DeWitt’s lifetime commitment to Christian environmental stewardship, his academic credentials, his speaking experience and his involvements with current Christian organizations dealing with climate change made Dr. DeWitt our No. 1 candidate.
“Dr. DeWitt stressed that part of our mission as a Christian liberal arts institution is to consider not only the human global impact of our decisions, but the environmental impact as well,” Reynolds noted.
Ouachita’s Birkett Williams Lecture Series honors the late Birkett Williams of Cleveland, Ohio, a 1910 graduate and benefactor of Ouachita. In 1977, Williams established a generous endowment to extend the concepts of a liberal arts education beyond the classroom environment.
by Brooke Showalter
web published on 4/23/2008 4:49:28 PM
thewholetruth
04-26-2008, 08:08 AM
There is no question in my mind that, having been made stewards of this planet for the time being, we will be held accountable for what was done on our shift. No other creature on the planet appears to have the desire or ability to care or to care for the environmental health of the entire globe except for Man.
I believe that one day we will be held accountable for what we're doing while we're here, and that includes not only the poisoning of the oceans, air and land, but the clean up that is clearly required, as well as refraining from continue to pollute the Earth.
Don
https://www.obu.edu/news/story.asp?ID=2513
DeWitt presents “A Christian Perspective on Environmental Stewardship”
Environmental scientist and author Dr. Calvin B. DeWitt visited the campus of Ouachita Baptist University on April 15. In light of the recent concern with environmental consciousness, OBU has launched several “green initiatives” to do its part toward protecting the world. DeWitt was invited to campus as a part of the Birkett Williams Lecture Series to present “A Christian Perspective on Environmental Stewardship.”
DeWitt addressed the university community at chapel, talked with students in several zoology classes and met faculty, staff and students at an evening meal and reception. His visit culminated in his presentation of the Birkett Williams Lecture. OBU continued the theme of Christian environmental stewardship later in the week by celebrating Earth Day and offering a free canoeing activity.
During the lecture, DeWitt discussed the biblical principles of earthkeeping, fruitfulness, sabbath and conservation. “This world is God’s creation—period,” DeWitt said. “It’s because of Him that all these things exist. Environmental stewardship means that we image God’s love for the world.
“Being enthusiastic for God’s creation means you will not have to do it alone,” DeWitt added. “We are a Christian community.”
DeWitt serves on the faculty of the Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies at the University of Wisconsin in Madison. A noted environmental scientist, lecturer and award-winning teacher, he is the author of Earth-Wise: A Biblical Response to Environmental Issues, a practical handbook for discussing Christian environmental stewardship in the church. He holds degrees in biology from Calvin College and in biology and zoology from the University of Michigan.
DeWitt has been influential in many collaborative efforts among evangelicals, scientists and politicians, including the Evangelical Climate Initiative, a statement calling for concerted action to battle global warming.
Among his awards is the 2005 National Wildlife Federation “Connie Award” which recognized his work in bridging environmental science and ethics. He has given addresses at more than 70 North American colleges and universities and worldwide in such countries as China, Korea, India, Indonesia, Russia and the United Kingdom, most recently at the Faraday Institute for Science at Cambridge University.
Dr. Mike Reynolds, associate professor of kinesiology and leisure studies at Ouachita, was one of the committee members responsible for inviting DeWitt to campus. “With climate change, ‘green initiatives’ and Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth making daily headlines, we felt like a Christian perspective on these topics would be of interest to OBU’s faculty, staff and students,” Reynolds explained. “Dr. DeWitt’s lifetime commitment to Christian environmental stewardship, his academic credentials, his speaking experience and his involvements with current Christian organizations dealing with climate change made Dr. DeWitt our No. 1 candidate.
“Dr. DeWitt stressed that part of our mission as a Christian liberal arts institution is to consider not only the human global impact of our decisions, but the environmental impact as well,” Reynolds noted.
Ouachita’s Birkett Williams Lecture Series honors the late Birkett Williams of Cleveland, Ohio, a 1910 graduate and benefactor of Ouachita. In 1977, Williams established a generous endowment to extend the concepts of a liberal arts education beyond the classroom environment.
by Brooke Showalter
web published on 4/23/2008 4:49:28 PM
taishon
04-26-2008, 01:06 PM
Zeno, I'm amazed at your comment. So you think we're any more intelligent and less prone to Chicken Littlism than we were just 30 years ago?
LOL We're not. We're just as gullible, however, and susceptible to people preying on our fears, our guilt and our egos that tell us we know things that we simply do not have enough information about. Scientists and people like Nobel Peace Prize winner Al Gore (BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahaha - I'm sorry, please excuse my outburst) prey on people's fears, guilt and ego, because they want fame, fortune and respect. They are predators, Zeno, researchers who want to believe - and want US to believe - that they are really figuring out some important stuff...and really they're just guessing, and have no basis in fact for their guesswork. But if YOU will buy their b.s., then they can get more FUNDING to continue their research and keep their jobs investigating stuff.
Sorry Don,as much as I appreciate the seeming support of my argument, a lot of this last paragraph is pure speculation (I don't necessarily disagree with you but think its mainly opinionation). I am going to have to side with Zeno here (to a certain extent) and say that there seems to be considerable more scientific evidence (though definitely not conclusive by a long shot) that GW exists and that Anthopogenic GHG forcing exists (though the degree is heavily debateable).
See how that works?
They thought they were right about global cooling, Zeno. They were wrong. They've no conclusive evidence now of global warming, either. We're really no further away from being Cavemen than we were 30 years ago, sir.
Again, I am going to have to respectfully disagree...I think we have much more satellite data and better modeling and such and a much larger audience of peer review than 30 years ago (although maybe less discplined and more short-sighted in the ADD internet environment). I do think there is heavy bias on both sides...the possible bias is on GW Scare side is not given enough coverage to rational individuals and organizations.
Don
Some side notes;
1. My dad, ex-navy fighter pilot used to fly helicopter up in Antartica for 'Operation Deep Freeze' back in the 50s and he gave me a first hand account about how biased those Scientists were..it was obvious from someone like him (who has a limited grounding in the Scientific Method and Peer Review Process) how selfish the motivations of research scientists can be. I don't believe that argument by Anecdote is particularly pursuasive (unless you have a statistically large number of anecdotes) but I, myself, have seen first-hand the easily biased conclusions of so-called non-biased researchers..this happens even with the best intentions.
2. I read an interesting study (I will try to dig it up as time and motivation allow) about the socio-economic policy recommendations of diseases vectors. The current GW Scare side of the debate has been arguing that we are experiencing higher disease vectors and such due to GW when it can be argued that the evidence points towards urban density and political/social practices in those countries. One Socio-economic analysis drew a conclusions that dealing with the political and social epidemeology of disease vectors would be much more effective than any GW solutions(plus those same solutions would produce many many more side benefits to life quality and world peace).
Sal
thewholetruth
04-26-2008, 03:24 PM
Hi Sal,
The bottom line, which I believe you'll agree, is that they don't have conclusive evidence to be making the claims they're making. It's just not there. Sure, if you throw in the guilt and shame we have from our knowledge that we're polluting this planet, and then add our ego's desire to be right about things we really don't know, THEN it looks like they're right: Mankind is causing global warming. But take away the guilt and ego and there isn't enough evidence to conclude anything factual.
That's why so many scientists are warning against becoming alarmed.
Don
taishon
04-26-2008, 07:55 PM
Hi Sal,
The bottom line, which I believe you'll agree, is that they don't have conclusive evidence to be making the claims they're making. It's just not there. Sure, if you throw in the guilt and shame we have from our knowledge that we're polluting this planet, and then add our ego's desire to be right about things we really don't know, THEN it looks like they're right: Mankind is causing global warming. But take away the guilt and ego and there isn't enough evidence to conclude anything factual.
That's why so many scientists are warning against becoming alarmed.
Friday 25 April 2008
Is environmentalism the opiate of the liberals?
In this extract from his new book, Iain Murray argues that greens – who worship both a Weather God (the climate) and an Earth Mother (Gaia) and who brook no dissent – have become hectoring, intolerant religionists.
Iain Murray
Religion plays a vitally important role in human life. This is especially true in America, and America’s religion has always been Christianity.
In 2004, the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found that 71 per cent of Americans agreed with three central Christian statements: ‘prayer is an important part of my daily life’; ‘we will all be called before God on judgment day to answer for our sins’; and ‘I never doubt the existence of God’. That figure was only 54 per cent for self-identified liberals and 52 per cent for self-identified liberal Democrats.
Liberal involvement with traditional religion has been falling for 20 years. In 1988, the last full year of Ronald Reagan’s presidency, Pew found that as many white evangelical Protestants identified themselves as Democrat as Republican (33 per cent each). By 2004, only 22 per cent of such Protestants identified themselves as Democrats (compared to 43 per cent as Republicans). Among Roman Catholics, affiliation with the Democratic Party fell from 41 per cent as recently as 1994 to just 28 per cent in 2004.
Human nature abhors a religious vacuum. Of course there are people who really don’t believe in any kind of higher power, but they are few indeed and not representative of the population at large. Even in largely secular Britain, 70 per cent self-identify as Christian. In general, people really do feel the need to answer to some higher power.
Just as environmentalism has replaced Marxism as the central economic theory of the far left, so too has environmentalism begun to replace liberal Christianity as the left’s motivating religious force. Were it not for the presence of powerful black Protestant churches in the liberal alliance, environmentalism might have supplanted liberal Christianity already.
The causality works both ways: the environmental movement has taken on the facets of religion, while the movement’s increasingly religious tone has drawn those thirsty for spiritual gratification but averse to traditional religions.
There are two dominant mythical forces in the cosmologies of ancient Indo-European religions: the Weather God (Zeus, Jupiter, Thor) and the Earth Mother (Gaia, Ceres, Freya). The Weather God resides in the sky and lashes down rain, hail and thunder on those who do not propitiate him. The Earth Mother gives her faithful followers her bounty, but when they fail her in some way, she retaliates with famine. Frequently, the two are married.
Today, both the Weather God and Earth Mother are central to the global warming issue. The atmosphere is to be protected at all costs, its avatar propitiated by the closing of power stations and silencing of internal combustion engines. Thus, his hurricanes are to be averted and his beneficent winds are to drive turbines. Moreover, the Earth is to be worshipped by returning to her simpler ways, with people shunning biotechnology and nuclear power. She will reward them.
These two gods are supported by a variety of hierophants and augurs. Shamefully, many of them are supposed scientists. A scientist who says that the atmosphere is warming, and cites certain physical processes, is still a scientist. A scientist who goes further, contending the people must take certain acts precisely to avoid disaster, has become a priest. It is no coincidence that words like ‘prophet’, ‘seer’ and ‘sage’, historically associated with religious figures, now are routinely applied to leading alarmist scientists. The leader of the movement, the sermoniser supreme Al Gore, is even adoringly referred to by true believers as ‘The Goracle’.
Who makes up the rank and file of the clergy, the hedge-priests as it were? That is where the internet comes in. The role of a priest is to reveal mysteries, to soothe the faithful. No one fits this description better these days than bloggers. When some new scientific finding comes out which challenges their worldview, the blogs vigorously defend the creed.
Take, for example, last December’s release of a report by US Senator Jim Inhofe chronicling how no fewer than 400 academics working in the field of climate analysis had cast doubt during the year on the theory of manmade climate catastrophe. Despite the fact that the paper reported the researchers’ own words, the bloggers acted to discredit the study and reassure the faithful that their creed stood unchallenged.
Taking their cue from The Goracle, whose office condemned the report on the grounds that ‘twenty-five or thirty of the scientists may have received funding from Exxon Mobile [sic] Corp’, DeSmogBlog was first into the fray, calling the report ‘bunk’. It contended that the list was made up of ‘deniers-for-hire’. Forced to concede that many names were not on the usual environmental enemies list, the blog simply asserted that: ‘It seems fair to assume that this, too, is an ideologically driven document with no merit whatsoever, either as a piece of research or, even more laughably, a reliable comment on science.’
Next up was Grist magazine, where Andrew Dessler dismissed the report with a wave of his priestly hand. He said that the report ‘provides a long list of names of people who disagree with the consensus, and I have no doubt that many on this list are indeed sceptics. The question is: does their opinion matter? Should you revise your views about climate change accordingly? Considering the source, I think we all know the answer to that.’ Dessler observed that physicist Freeman Dyson (a leading theoretical physicist) had made the list, but that just as you would not take a sick child to Dyson to heal, so too would you not take a sick planet to him either. The fact that no one has ever been in the business of healing planets does not matter.
The list of environmentalism-as-religion critics went on. The American Prospect’s blog simply contended that Senator Inhofe’s staff were ‘still tirelessly plugging away at global warming denialism’, thus blaming the messenger rather than confronting the arguments of 400 academics. The blog also called the report ‘false’ and ‘blatantly misleading’. Former Clinton administration appointee Joseph Romm characterised the study as ‘recyc[ling] unscientific attacks on global warming’. When the New York Times’ environment correspondent Andrew Revkin, one of the few reporters to cover the global warming debate even-handedly, mentioned the Inhofe study on his blog, Romm slammed him for legitimising it, calling Revkin’s coverage ‘amazing’. Romm went on to suggest that Freeman Dyson was not a serious scientist. That’s a bit like saying Tiger Woods isn’t a good golfer.
The Inhofe report was released on 21 December 2007. These many reactions were posted and disseminated to the faithful by 22 December. No one needed to read the report to make up his mind. The priesthood did it for us. Such is the power of America’s new environmental religion.
Iain Murray is the author of Really Inconvenient Truths, published by Regnery Publishing. (Buy this book from Amazon(UK).)
Go ahead and spend all your time driving to work at a McJob, such as sitting at a computer, then come home and sit in front of the TV and have chips and beer for dinner. It's the American dream, after all.
Meanwhile, the rest of us can get busy with sustainable economic development (aka eco-villages) that will provide local economic security through self-sufficiency, local security through relocalization in the face of natural or military disasters, and lower health care costs because we will be getting more exercise biking, gardening, etc., and eating healthier food. And having more fun because we will be doing it together, cooperatively.
Then after we have it all figured out, we can hire you to pull weeds in the yard, and work your way up.
Mike
Agreed :0)
Sal
thewholetruth
04-30-2008, 08:00 AM
Not exactly what one would consider a convincing argument, Mike. Sounds more like the comments of one who cannot offer any proof to his position. That, after all, was what my comment was about, which Sal posted back with "Agreed", which you then responded to. There is no conclusive proof that we're causing global warming, Mike. In fact, now they're starting to say we're causing global cooling again. LOL
Perhaps you can offer some proof that we're causing global warming, Mike, as it would be sure to motivate others to get to work on saving the planet from ourselves, like you think you are. Anything less than offering proof, sir, just looks like cool sounding clap-trap*.
Don
*Cool sounding clap-trap - copyright 2008 by Lenny or Zeno (I forget which one!)
Go ahead and spend all your time driving to work at a McJob, such as sitting at a computer, then come home and sit in front of the TV and have chips and beer for dinner. It's the American dream, after all.
Meanwhile, the rest of us can get busy with sustainable economic development (aka eco-villages) that will provide local economic security through self-sufficiency, local security through relocalization in the face of natural or military disasters, and lower health care costs because we will be getting more exercise biking, gardening, etc., and eating healthier food. And having more fun because we will be doing it together, cooperatively.
Then after we have it all figured out, we can hire you to pull weeds in the yard, and work your way up.
Mike
taishon
04-30-2008, 09:08 AM
Go ahead and spend all your time driving to work at a McJob, such as sitting at a computer, then come home and sit in front of the TV and have chips and beer for dinner. It's the American dream, after all.
Meanwhile, the rest of us can get busy with sustainable economic development (aka eco-villages) that will provide local economic security through self-sufficiency, local security through relocalization in the face of natural or military disasters, and lower health care costs because we will be getting more exercise biking, gardening, etc., and eating healthier food. And having more fun because we will be doing it together, cooperatively.
Then after we have it all figured out, we can hire you to pull weeds in the yard, and work your way up.
Mike
What I find so frustratingly ridiculous about statements like this is the belief that I can't be reasonable skeptical about global warming AND be working towards a sustainable future (a term thats way overused and abused). I have been instrumental in promoting compact fluorescent bulbs throughout my school district and my neighborhood, I use a human powered lawnmower (not gas nor electric but human mechanical), I have almost no trash to put out on trash pick-up day (in fact, I am thinking of putting out my trash once every 3 weeks), I have been pushing for full spectrum lightbulbs and solar cells in my district and bike to work when day care issues don't interfere. Shall we have a pissing contest about who can claim more efforts towards sustainability ? Ya gotta love the 'either this or that' irrationally specious arguments.
It would interesting to talk about how, when you take into account many other factors, so-called eco-villages may not be so sustainable and environmental when you look at larger scales.
Mike, I like your utopian ideals just wish they didn't come with such an unrealistic sense of superiority and hyprocrisy.
Tai
taishon
05-02-2008, 08:46 PM
Interesting thread I came across when I was doing some reading on Peak Oil;
Similar to the back and forth banter we have been having only with more in-depth technical discussion. I especially like the calculation response to the sea buoy data. Also, some info about GW causing a Negative feedback effect, which I've thought about before...clear that the data is inconclusive.
As a indirect side-line, I am thinking of buying a commuter scooter..any suggestions as to dealers etc in the area ?
Tai
handy
05-03-2008, 12:23 PM
Interesting thread I came across when I was doing some reading on Peak Oil;
Similar to the back and forth banter we have been having only with more in-depth technical discussion. I especially like the calculation response to the sea buoy data. Also, some info about GW causing a Negative feedback effect, which I've thought about before...clear that the data is inconclusive.
As a indirect side-line, I am thinking of buying a commuter scooter..any suggestions as to dealers etc in the area ?
Tai
Hi,
You say negative like it's a bad thing...
A little off topic, but our common usage of positive and negative to mean good and bad is relatively recent and mentally crippling.
Positive and negative are scientific terms having to do with polarity and charge. They have NOTHING to do with notions of good and bad.
In general systems, self error correction is always the result of negative feedback. Positive feedback ALWAYS leads to runaway oscillation and system destruction.
"Positive" is NOT "good".
thewholetruth
05-03-2008, 12:32 PM
Hi,
You say negative like it's a bad thing...
In our culture, it tends to be construed as bad.
A little off topic, but our common usage of positive and negative to mean good and bad is relatively recent and mentally crippling.
Positive and negative are scientific terms having to do with polarity and charge. They have NOTHING to do with notions of good and bad.
In general systems, self error correction is always the result of negative feedback. Positive feedback ALWAYS leads to runaway oscillation and system destruction.
"Positive" is NOT "good".
Culturally speaking it is.
Don
handy
05-03-2008, 02:07 PM
In our culture, it tends to be construed as bad.
Culturally speaking it is.
Don
Yes... and the displacement of of scientific accuracy with this sort of "culture" is what brings us to endless argument over perceived issues like "human caused global warming". Or "choices" like Obama/McCain/Clinton.
Organic is another favorite. Scientifically, it means the branch of chemistry devoted to Carbon based compounds. (Petroleum IS organic.)
Culturally, it means "I'd rather put shit on my food than powder."
Bastardization and misuse of perfectly good words ("cultural reassignment?") is just one more way of keeping the dumbing down process on autopilot.
thewholetruth
05-03-2008, 02:41 PM
Yes... and the displacement of of scientific accuracy with this sort of "culture" is what brings us to endless argument over perceived issues like "human caused global warming". Or "choices" like Obama/McCain/Clinton.
Organic is another favorite. Scientifically, it means the branch of chemistry devoted to Carbon based compounds. (Petroleum IS organic.)
Culturally, it means "I'd rather put shit on my food than powder."
Bastardization and misuse of perfectly good words ("cultural reassignment?") is just one more way of keeping the dumbing down process on autopilot.
LOL Amen. I agree completely. What amazes me most, perhaps, is that people can even be AWARE of stuff like this, and still hunker down in their own warm, snug little place in this crap and let it continue to happen.
Just watch on Election Day. Another stooge for the Good Old Boys will be President of the United States.
Don
taishon
05-03-2008, 06:32 PM
hasdfk
Hi,
You say negative like it's a bad thing...
Nope..in this case I refer to the technical usage of the term which, in this instance, means that GW may be setting up conditions whereby Nature corrects things back towards a stable equilibrium. The GW scare model seems to believe that Nature is an unstable equilibrium system (think a ball balanced on top of pyramid) with any significant movement in any direction causes a very difficult to control downward fall...whereas some GW skeptics, using the Sea Buoy data and other data as evidence, view Nature in stable equilibirum (picture a ball in a bowl) with any pushes being balanced by a falling back to equilibrium. There are anologies in Cosmology, Biology, Economies, Physics etc.
Tai
A little off topic, but our common usage of positive and negative to mean good and bad is relatively recent and mentally crippling.
Positive and negative are scientific terms having to do with polarity and charge. They have NOTHING to do with notions of good and bad.
In general systems, self error correction is always the result of negative feedback. Positive feedback ALWAYS leads to runaway oscillation and system destruction.
"Positive" is NOT "good".
handy
05-03-2008, 07:54 PM
hasdfk
Nope..in this case I refer to the technical usage of the term which, in this instance, means that GW may be setting up conditions whereby Nature corrects things back towards a stable equilibrium. The GW scare model seems to believe that Nature is an unstable equilibrium system (think a ball balanced on top of pyramid) with any significant movement in any direction causes a very difficult to control downward fall...whereas some GW skeptics, using the Sea Buoy data and other data as evidence, view Nature in stable equilibirum (picture a ball in a bowl) with any pushes being balanced by a falling back to equilibrium. There are anologies in Cosmology, Biology, Economies, Physics etc.
Tai
Cool. Good. Just checking. Glad you got the sign right. https://www.waccobb.net/forums/images/NewSmilies/thumbsup.gif
"In terms of PhD scientists alone, it already has 15 times more scientists than are seriously involved in the United Nations' campaign to vilify hydrocarbons, officials told WND."
So what? Nobody has vetted the identities of these "scientists" or checked on their biases. They might all work for Exxon or the White House, either of which invalidates their opinion on this topic. Sorry for that flat out statement, but it's pretty clear the science if being bent by both sides on this "issue."
Also, the global warming "debate" is a waste of time and energy anyway. All the things we should be doing to limit "greenhouse gasses" are things we should be doing anyway for other reasons, so human caused global warming isn't an issue anyway. Poisoning the atmosphere and polluting the oceans and rivers and lakes as well as destroying topsoil are all reasons to STOP the madness of "green revolution" factory farming and massive burning of petroleum. Stopping the use of petroleum based pesticides and fertilizers as soon as we can also makes sense. Is there anyone arguing that we should be poisoning our land and water?
Taishon, why are you bothering with this argument? It's pointless.
-Jeff
taishon
05-20-2008, 08:26 AM
Look at my in-text replies below.
No it doesn't.
"In terms of PhD scientists alone, it already has 15 times more scientists than are seriously involved in the United Nations' campaign to vilify hydrocarbons, officials told WND."
So what? Nobody has vetted the identities of these "scientists" or checked on their biases. They might all work for Exxon or the White House, either of which invalidates their opinion on this topic. Sorry for that flat out statement, but it's pretty clear the science if being bent by both sides on this "issue."
Actually not true..the article has links to the list of names as well as affiliations..they have been checked out, at least cursorily (look deeper before you discount something like this). By the way, working for Exxon or the White House (which the vast majority don't) shouldn't automatically exclude them..should cause skepticism but not exclusion (any more than excluding the climatechange.org scientists because of their Gore-related funding source). I am glad that you are acknowledging possible bias on both sides.
Also, the global warming "debate" is a waste of time and energy anyway. All the things we should be doing to limit "greenhouse gasses" are things we should be doing anyway for other reasons, so human caused global warming isn't an issue anyway. Poisoning the atmosphere and polluting the oceans and rivers and lakes as well as destroying topsoil are all reasons to STOP the madness of "green revolution" factory farming and massive burning of petroleum. Stopping the use of petroleum based pesticides and fertilizers as soon as we can also makes sense. Is there anyone arguing that we should be poisoning our land and water?
I would be willing to argue that poisoning land and water in one way is better than another (I defy you to come up with a way of living that doesn't cause a net loss to the environment by a human). Top-down mandated changes without valid reasoning can cause more harm than good (look to my previous arguments). Tanking the economy can cause, ultimately more environmental damage than its benefits (not to mention the other hardships). How we go about changing lifestyle and habits and views must be based on truth and rational thought rather than blind fanaticism.
Taishon, why are you bothering with this argument? It's pointless.
Um..cause I care about actual truth and the only way I know of getting to the truth on something this complex is through rational debate. Also, refer to my original post to see my reasons. If you think this is pointless, why are you participating ? Most of the time (not always) I prefer the rational truth over irrational falsehoods no matter what the perceived benefits would be.
Sal
-Jeff
Braggi
05-23-2008, 08:17 AM
The article below is one argument that trumps the global warming debate. Why are we arguing about global warming when there are so many other reasons to stop the madness of burning fossil fuels?
Human carbon emissions make oceans corrosive: study
By Deborah Zabarenko, Environment Correspondent
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Carbon dioxide spewed by human activities has made ocean water so acidic that it is eating away at the shells and skeletons of starfish, coral, clams and other sea creatures, scientists said on Thursday.
Marine researchers knew that ocean acidification, as it's called, was occurring in deep water far from land. What they called "truly astonishing" was the appearance of this damaging phenomenon on the Pacific North American continental shelf, stretching from Mexico to Canada.
"This means that ocean acidification may be seriously impacting our marine life on our continental shelf right now, today," said Richard Feely of the Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, part of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Other continental shelf regions around the world are likely to face the same fate, he said. ... [end quote]
Follow the link and read to the end of the article for the truly astonishing and devastating conclusion. This phenomenon may help explain, BTW, why the salmon are in such trouble this year.
-Jeff
OrchardDweller
06-02-2008, 10:00 PM
Climate change hits Mars
https://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1720024.ece
Mars is Melting
https://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/07aug_southpole.htm
Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
New Storm on Jupiter Hints at Climate Change
https://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_jr.html
Global Warming on Jupiter
https://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap080523.html
MIT researcher finds evidence of global warming on Neptune's largest moon
https://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1998/triton.html
Pluto is undergoing global warming
https://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2002/pluto.html
World might be heading towards Ice Age
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Earth/Are_we_heading_to_ice_age/articleshow/2975016.cms
Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations
Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations
His Excellency Ban Ki-Moon,
Secretary-General, United Nations
New York, N.Y.
Dec. 13, 2007
Dear Mr. Secretary-General,
Re: UN climate conference taking the World in entirely the wrong direction
It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation.
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.
The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by government representatives. The great majority of IPCC contributors and reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts.
Contrary to the impression left by the IPCC Summary reports:Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability.
The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years.
Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today's computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling.
In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is "settled," significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming. But because IPCC working groups were generally instructed (see https://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/wg1_timetable_2006-08-14.pdf) to consider work published only through May, 2005, these important findings are not included in their reports; i.e., the IPCC assessment reports are already materially outdated.
The UN climate conference in Bali has been planned to take the world along a path of severe CO2 restrictions, ignoring the lessons apparent from the failure of the Kyoto Protocol, the chaotic nature of the European CO2 trading market, and the ineffectiveness of other costly initiatives to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Balanced cost/benefit analyses provide no support for the introduction of global measures to cap and reduce energy consumption for the purpose of restricting CO2 emissions. Furthermore, it is irrational to apply the "precautionary principle" because many scientists recognize that both climatic coolings and warmings are realistic possibilities over the medium-term future.
The current UN focus on "fighting climate change," as illustrated in the Nov. 27 UN Development Programme's Human Development Report, is distracting governments from adapting to the threat of inevitable natural climate changes, whatever forms they may take. National and international planning for such changes is needed, with a focus on helping our most vulnerable citizens adapt to conditions that lie ahead. Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems.
Yours faithfully,
Copy to: Heads of state of countries of the signatory persons.
The following are signatories:
1. Don Aitkin, PhD, Professor, social scientist, retired vice-chancellor and president, University of Canberra, Australia
2. William J.R. Alexander, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa; Member, UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000
3. Bjarne Andresen, PhD, physicist, Professor, The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
4. Geoff L. Austin, PhD, FNZIP, FRSNZ, Professor, Dept. of Physics, University of Auckland, New Zealand
5. Timothy F. Ball, PhD, environmental consultant, former climatology professor, University of Winnipeg
7. Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen, PhD, Reader, Dept. of Geography, Hull University, U.K.; Editor, Energy & Environment journal
8. Chris C. Borel, PhD, remote sensing scientist, U.S.
9. Reid A. Bryson, PhD, DSc, DEngr, UNE P. Global 500 Laureate; Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research; Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, of Geography, and of Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin
10. Dan Carruthers, M.Sc., wildlife biology consultant specializing in animal ecology in Arctic and Subarctic regions, Alberta
11. R.M. Carter, PhD, Professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia
12. Ian D. Clark, PhD, Professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
13. Richard S. Courtney, PhD, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.
14. Willem de Lange, PhD, Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences, School of Science and Engineering, Waikato University, New Zealand
15. David Deming, PhD (Geophysics), Associate Professor, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Oklahoma
16. Freeman J. Dyson, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.
17. Don J. Easterbrook, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington University
18. Lance Endersbee, Emeritus Professor, former dean of Engineering and Pro-Vice Chancellor of Monasy University, Australia
19. Hans Erren, Doctorandus, geophysicist and climate specialist, Sittard, The Netherlands
20. Robert H. Essenhigh, PhD, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
21. Christopher Essex, PhD, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Associate Director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario
22. David Evans, PhD, mathematician, carbon accountant, computer and electrical engineer and head of 'Science Speak,' Australia
23. William Evans, PhD, editor, American Midland Naturalist; Dept. of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame
24. Stewart Franks, PhD, Professor, Hydroclimatologist, University of Newcastle, Australia
25. R. W. Gauldie, PhD, Research Professor, Hawai'i Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology, University of Hawai'i at Manoa
26. Lee C. Gerhard, PhD, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas; former director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey
27. Gerhard Gerlich, Professor for Mathematical and Theoretical Physics, Institut für Mathematische Physik der TU Braunschweig, Germany
28. Albrecht Glatzle, PhD, sc.agr., Agro-Biologist and Gerente ejecutivo, INTTAS, Paraguay
29. Fred Goldberg, PhD, Adjunct Professor, Royal Institute of Technology, Mechanical Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden
30. Vincent Gray, PhD, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001, Wellington, New Zealand
31. William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University and Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project
32. Howard Hayden, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut
33. Louis Hissink MSc, M.A.I.G., editor, AIG News, and consulting geologist, Perth, Western Australia
34. Craig D. Idso, PhD, Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Arizona
35. Sherwood B. Idso, PhD, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, AZ, USA
36. Andrei Illarionov, PhD, Senior Fellow, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity; founder and director of the Institute of Economic Analysis
37. Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhD, physicist, Chairman - Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland
38. Jon Jenkins, PhD, MD, computer modelling - virology, NSW, Australia
39. Wibjorn Karlen, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden
40. Olavi Kärner, Ph.D., Research Associate, Dept. of Atmospheric Physics, Institute of Astrophysics and Atmospheric Physics, Toravere, Estonia
41. Joel M. Kauffman, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia
42. David Kear, PhD, FRSNZ, CMG, geologist, former Director-General of NZ Dept. of Scientific & Industrial Research, New Zealand
43. Madhav Khandekar, PhD, former research scientist, Environment Canada; editor, Climate Research (2003-05); editorial board member, Natural Hazards; IPCC expert reviewer 2007
44. William Kininmonth M.Sc., M.Admin., former head of Australia's National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization's Commission for Climatology Jan J.H. Kop, MSc Ceng FICE (Civil Engineer Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers), Emeritus Prof. of Public Health Engineering, Technical University Delft, The Netherlands
45. Prof. R.W.J. Kouffeld, Emeritus Professor, Energy Conversion, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
46. Salomon Kroonenberg, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Geotechnology, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
47. Hans H.J. Labohm, PhD, economist, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations), The Netherlands
48. The Rt. Hon. Lord Lawson of Blaby, economist; Chairman of the Central Europe Trust; former Chancellor of the Exchequer, U.K.
49. Douglas Leahey, PhD, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary
50. David R. Legates, PhD, Director, Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware
51. Marcel Leroux, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS
52. Bryan Leyland, International Climate Science Coalition, consultant and power engineer, Auckland, New Zealand
53. William Lindqvist, PhD, independent consulting geologist, Calif.
54. Richard S. Lindzen, PhD, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
55. A.J. Tom van Loon, PhD, Professor of Geology (Quaternary Geology), Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland; former President of the European Association of Science Editors
56. Anthony R. Lupo, PhD, Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science, Dept. of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri-Columbia
57. Richard Mackey, PhD, Statistician, Australia
58. Horst Malberg, PhD, Professor for Meteorology and Climatology, Institut für Meteorologie, Berlin, Germany
59. John Maunder, PhD, Climatologist, former President of the Commission for Climatology of the World Meteorological Organization (89-97), New Zealand
60. Alister McFarquhar, PhD, international economy, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.
61. Ross McKitrick, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph
62. John McLean, PhD, climate data analyst, computer scientist, Australia
63. Owen McShane, PhD, economist, head of the International Climate Science Coalition;
Director, Centre for Resource Management Studies, New Zealand
64. Fred Michel, PhD, Director, Institute of Environmental Sciences and Associate Professor of Earth Sciences, Carleton University
65. Frank Milne, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Economics, Queen's University
66. Asmunn Moene, PhD, former head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway
67. Alan Moran, PhD, Energy Economist, Director of the IPA's Deregulation Unit, Australia
68. Nils-Axel Morner, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden
69. Lubos Motl, PhD, Physicist, former Harvard string theorist, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
70. John Nicol, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Physics, James Cook University, Australia
71. David Nowell, M.Sc., Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, former chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa
72. James J. O'Brien, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Meteorology and Oceanography, Florida State University
73. Cliff Ollier, PhD, Professor Emeritus (Geology), Research Fellow, University of Western Australia
74. Garth W. Paltridge, PhD, atmospheric physicist, Emeritus Professor and former Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia
75. R. Timothy Patterson, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University
76. Al Pekarek, PhD, Associate Professor of Geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, Minnesota
77. Ian Plimer, PhD, Professor of Geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia
78. Brian Pratt, PhD, Professor of Geology, Sedimentology, University of Saskatchewan
79. Harry N.A. Priem, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Planetary Geology and Isotope Geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences
80. Alex Robson, PhD, Economics, Australian National University Colonel F.P.M. Rombouts, Branch Chief - Safety, Quality and Environment, Royal Netherland Air Force
81. R.G. Roper, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology
82. Arthur Rorsch, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands
83. Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, B.C.
84. Tom V. Segalstad, PhD, (Geology/Geochemistry), Head of the Geological Museum and Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology, University of Oslo, Norway
85. Gary D. Sharp, PhD, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, CA
86. S. Fred Singer, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia and former director Weather Satellite Service
87. L. Graham Smith, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario
88. Roy W. Spencer, PhD, climatologist, Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville
89. Peter Stilbs, TeknD, Professor of Physical Chemistry, Research Leader, School of Chemical Science and Engineering, KTH (Royal Institute of Technology), Stockholm, Sweden
90. Hendrik Tennekes, PhD, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
91. Dick Thoenes, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands
92. Brian G Valentine, PhD, PE (Chem.), Technology Manager - Industrial Energy Efficiency, Adjunct Associate Professor of Engineering Science, University of Maryland at College Park; Dept of Energy, Washington, DC
93. Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhD, geologist and paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand
94. Len Walker, PhD, Power Engineering, Australia
95. Edward J. Wegman, PhD, Department of Computational and Data Sciences, George Mason University, Virginia
96. Stephan Wilksch, PhD, Professor for Innovation and Technology Management, Production Management and Logistics, University of Technolgy and Economics Berlin, Germany
97. Boris Winterhalter, PhD, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland
98. David E. Wojick, PhD, P.Eng., energy consultant, Virginia
99. Raphael Wust, PhD, Lecturer, Marine Geology/Sedimentology, James Cook University, Australia
100. Zichichi, PhD, President of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva, Switzerland; Emeritus Professor of Advanced Physics, University of Bologna, Italy
https://www.prisonplanet.com/images/july2007/090707madonna.jpg
Madonna, owner of 6 gas-guzzling cars and producer of 440 tonnes of CO2 during her Confessions tour, performs at Live Earth in London.
https://www.mediaright.ca/pics/sheryl_crow.jpg
Singer Sheryl Crow demanded that we all use one square of toilet paper per bathroom visit to help save the planet. Crow's touring requirements includes three tractor trailers, four buses and six cars.
Oldest DNA Ever Recovered Shows Warmer Planet
https://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070705191403.gahmdtoi&show_article=1
Sun Seems Eerily Calm
https://www.livescience.com/space/080611-sunspot-activity.html
32,000 scientists dissent from global-warming “consensus”
https://www.aapsonline.org/newsoftheday/0026
Billions wasted on UN climate programme
https://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/may/26/climatechange.greenpolitics
Green taxes 'are making billions'
The government is raising billions of pounds more in green taxes than it needs to remove the UK's "carbon footprint", a report says.
https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6972759.stm
UK judge: 'Alarmism' in Gore film
https://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/10/12/britain.gore.ap/index.html
British Court: Gore Film 'Political'
https://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1670882,00.html
Al Gore told there are nine inconvienient truths in his film
judge says errors were made in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration” in order to support Mr Gore’s thesis on global warming
https://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2632660.ece
Al Gore's green-investing partner goes for the gold
https://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/al-gores-fund-manager-green/story.aspx?guid=%7BAD36430D-4AFD-48AE-8CFA-4A20E83CFAF0%7D
Scientists threatened for 'climate denial'
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1545134/Scientists-threatened-for-%27climate-denial%27.html
Death Threats for man-made-global-warming-doesn't-exist scientist
https://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/cover031207.htm
Former UN Environmental Advisor on Climate Change Confusion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUUYcfsaSnw
Green House Conspiracy
https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5949034802461518010
Climate Catastrophe Cancelled: What You're Not Being Told
https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4468713209160533271
An Open Letter to the Community from Chris Landsea
Dear Colleagues,
After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.
With this open letter to the community, I wish to explain the basis for my decision and bring awareness to what I view as a problem in the IPCC process. The IPCC is a group of climate researchers from around the world that every few years summarize how climate is changing and how it may be altered in the future due to manmade global warming. I had served both as an author for the Observations chapter and a Reviewer for the 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, primarily on the topic of tropical cyclones (hurricanes and typhoons). My work on hurricanes, and tropical cyclones more generally, has been widely cited by the IPCC. For the upcoming AR4, I was asked several weeks ago by the Observations chapter Lead Author Dr. Kevin Trenberth to provide the writeup for Atlantic hurricanes. As I had in the past, I agreed to assist the IPCC in what I thought was to be an important and politically neutral determination of what is happening with our climate.
Shortly after Dr. Trenberth requested that I draft the Atlantic hurricane section for the AR4's Observations chapter, Dr. Trenberth participated in a press conference organized by scientists at Harvard on the topic "Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity" along with other media interviews on the topic. The result of this media interaction was widespread coverage that directly connected the very busy 2004 Atlantic hurricane season as being caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming occurring today.
Listening to and reading transcripts of this press conference and media interviews, it is apparent that Dr. Trenberth was being accurately quoted and summarized in such statements and was not being misrepresented in the media. These media sessions have potential to result in a widespread perception that global warming has made recent hurricane activity much more severe.
I found it a bit perplexing that the participants in the Harvard press conference had come to the conclusion that global warming was impacting hurricane activity today. To my knowledge, none of the participants in that press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability, nor were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin. The IPCC assessments in 1995 and 2001 also concluded that there was no global warming signal found in the hurricane record.
Moreover, the evidence is quite strong and supported by the most recent credible studies that any impact in the future from global warming upon hurricanes will likely be quite small. The latest results from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (Knutson and Tuleya, Journal of Climate, 2004) suggest that by around 2080, hurricanes may have winds and rainfall about 5% more intense than today. It has been proposed that even this tiny change may be an exaggeration as to what may happen by the end of the 21st Century (Michaels, Knappenberger, and Landsea, Journal of Climate, 2005, submitted).
It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming. Given Dr. Trenberth's role as the IPCC's Lead Author responsible for preparing the text on hurricanes, his public statements so far outside of current scientific understanding led me to concern that it would be very difficult for the IPCC process to proceed objectively with regards to the assessment on hurricane activity. My view is that when people identify themselves as being associated with the IPCC and then make pronouncements far outside current scientific understandings that this will harm the credibility of climate change science and will in the longer term diminish our role in public policy.
My concerns go beyond the actions of Dr. Trenberth and his colleagues to how he and other IPCC officials responded to my concerns. I did caution Dr. Trenberth before the media event and provided him a summary of the current understanding within the hurricane research community. I was disappointed when the IPCC leadership dismissed my concerns when I brought up the misrepresentation of climate science while invoking the authority of the IPCC.
Specifically, the IPCC leadership said that Dr. Trenberth was speaking as an individual even though he was introduced in the press conference as an IPCC lead author; I was told that the media was exaggerating or misrepresenting his words, even though the audio from the press conference and interview tells a different story (available on the Web directly); and that Dr. Trenberth was accurately reflecting conclusions from the TAR, even though it is quite clear that the TAR stated that there was no connection between global warming and hurricane activity. The IPCC leadership saw nothing to be concerned with in Dr. Trenberth's unfounded pronouncements to the media, despite his supposedly impartial important role that he must undertake as a Lead Author on the upcoming AR4.
It is certainly true that "individual scientists can do what they wish in their own rights," as one of the folks in the IPCC leadership suggested. Differing conclusions and robust debates are certainly crucial to progress in climate science. However, this case is not an honest scientific discussion conducted at a meeting of climate researchers. Instead, a scientist with an important role in the IPCC who represented himself as a Lead Author for the IPCC [Dr. Trenberth] has used that position to promulgate to the media and general public his own opinion that the busy 2004 hurricane season was caused by global warming, which is in direct opposition to research written in the field and is counter to conclusions in the TAR.
This becomes problematic when I am then asked to provide the draft about observed hurricane activity variations for the AR4 with, ironically, Dr. Trenberth as the Lead Author for this chapter. Because of Dr. Trenberth's pronouncements, the IPCC process on our assessment of these crucial extreme events in our climate system has been subverted and compromised, its neutrality lost. While no one can "tell" scientists what to say or not say (nor am I suggesting that), the IPCC did select Dr. Trenberth as a Lead Author and entrusted to him to carry out this duty in a non-biased, neutral point of view. When scientists hold press conferences and speak with the media, much care is needed not to reflect poorly upon the IPCC.
It is of more than passing interest to note that Dr. Trenberth, while eager to share his views on global warming and hurricanes with the media, declined to do so at the Climate Variability and Change Conference in January where he made several presentations. Perhaps he was concerned that such speculation--though worthy in his mind of public pronouncements--would not stand up to the scrutiny of fellow climate scientists.
I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by preconceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth's actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4.
Sincerely,
Chris Landsea
17 January 2005
https://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=16806
taishon
06-16-2008, 10:28 AM
Its been a constant source of tragic amusement for me when I see celebrities preaching about global warming and environmentalism when they are, by far, some of the most decadent, wasteful, resource abusing individuals on the planet. I could fit my entire extended family, friends, acquaintences etc. into one celebrities carbon foot print and still have room for everyone I've met. Its tragic that so many people thing that a celebrity has something valid and non-hypocritical about these issues. The Paris Hilton quote about turning off her tv when she leaves the house is priceless (read turns off her theater sized projection system when she drives off with her gas-guzzling sports car). Even the 'best' celebrities are much worse than the average Joe. Point in case- I find it ridiculous that Brad Pitt is doing the whole African zero poverty thing when Bradjolie could simply sell one of their multimillion dollar estates and support 1000+ African kids for life.
A provoking side note: When I resurrected this discussion I was attempting to see if I would get some rational debate. As an experiment this failed (which I hypothesized it would). So far, several data driven criticisms of the the whole Global Warming assumptions (as espoused by the Gore camp) have been made with absolutely no valid counterarguments. The responses have been ad hominem, reducto absurdo, hypocritical, apples for oranges, or simply non-existent (instead of rational debating, as promised, they have just gone away). I've been invited to speak to an audience of several hundred school kids who are going to be watching "An Inconvenient Truth". The purpose of my talk will to be to promote honest valid skepticism of the conclusions of the movie. As an analogy its like you have 5 suspects for a murder (global warming). All 5 are bad people who should probably go to jail (Co2 emissions, natural sun warming etc) but its important to convict the right person for the right crime. I am honestly interested in some honest valid criticism of my criticisms (:0) so that I am not misleading students. If anything, my convictions have become stronger in light of the specious responses I have seen.
I have several friends who are, variably, historians, psychologists etc. and they have brought the religious fanatic analogy forward. The Global Warming issue has all the overtones of religious fanaticism which include 'burnings at the stake", 'Witch-hunting", denialism you name it. Someone who has been reading this thread and has originally believed in the Gore-promoted GW viewpoint should be saying "Gosh some valid criticisms have been made and it makes me rethink some of my conclusions".
Sal
https://www.prisonplanet.com/images/july2007/090707madonna.jpg
Madonna, owner of 6 gas-guzzling cars and producer of 440 tonnes of CO2 during her Confessions tour, performs at Live Earth in London.
https://www.mediaright.ca/pics/sheryl_crow.jpg
Singer Sheryl Crow demanded that we all use one square of toilet paper per bathroom visit to help save the planet. Crow's touring requirements includes three tractor trailers, four buses and six cars.
Oldest DNA Ever Recovered Shows Warmer Planet
https://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070705191403.gahmdtoi&show_article=1
Sun Seems Eerily Calm
https://www.livescience.com/space/080611-sunspot-activity.html
32,000 scientists dissent from global-warming “consensus”
https://www.aapsonline.org/newsoftheday/0026
Billions wasted on UN climate programme
https://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/may/26/climatechange.greenpolitics
Green taxes 'are making billions'
The government is raising billions of pounds more in green taxes than it needs to remove the UK's "carbon footprint", a report says.
https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6972759.stm
UK judge: 'Alarmism' in Gore film
https://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/10/12/britain.gore.ap/index.html
British Court: Gore Film 'Political'
https://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1670882,00.html
Al Gore told there are nine inconvienient truths in his film
judge says errors were made in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration” in order to support Mr Gore’s thesis on global warming
https://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2632660.ece
Al Gore's green-investing partner goes for the gold
https://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/al-gores-fund-manager-green/story.aspx?guid=%7BAD36430D-4AFD-48AE-8CFA-4A20E83CFAF0%7D
Scientists threatened for 'climate denial'
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1545134/Scientists-threatened-for-%27climate-denial%27.html
Death Threats for man-made-global-warming-doesn't-exist scientist
https://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/cover031207.htm
Former UN Environmental Advisor on Climate Change Confusion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUUYcfsaSnw
Green House Conspiracy
https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5949034802461518010
Climate Catastrophe Cancelled: What You're Not Being Told
https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4468713209160533271
An Open Letter to the Community from Chris Landsea
Dear Colleagues,
After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.
With this open letter to the community, I wish to explain the basis for my decision and bring awareness to what I view as a problem in the IPCC process. The IPCC is a group of climate researchers from around the world that every few years summarize how climate is changing and how it may be altered in the future due to manmade global warming. I had served both as an author for the Observations chapter and a Reviewer for the 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, primarily on the topic of tropical cyclones (hurricanes and typhoons). My work on hurricanes, and tropical cyclones more generally, has been widely cited by the IPCC. For the upcoming AR4, I was asked several weeks ago by the Observations chapter Lead Author Dr. Kevin Trenberth to provide the writeup for Atlantic hurricanes. As I had in the past, I agreed to assist the IPCC in what I thought was to be an important and politically neutral determination of what is happening with our climate.
Shortly after Dr. Trenberth requested that I draft the Atlantic hurricane section for the AR4's Observations chapter, Dr. Trenberth participated in a press conference organized by scientists at Harvard on the topic "Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity" along with other media interviews on the topic. The result of this media interaction was widespread coverage that directly connected the very busy 2004 Atlantic hurricane season as being caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming occurring today.
Listening to and reading transcripts of this press conference and media interviews, it is apparent that Dr. Trenberth was being accurately quoted and summarized in such statements and was not being misrepresented in the media. These media sessions have potential to result in a widespread perception that global warming has made recent hurricane activity much more severe.
I found it a bit perplexing that the participants in the Harvard press conference had come to the conclusion that global warming was impacting hurricane activity today. To my knowledge, none of the participants in that press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability, nor were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin. The IPCC assessments in 1995 and 2001 also concluded that there was no global warming signal found in the hurricane record.
Moreover, the evidence is quite strong and supported by the most recent credible studies that any impact in the future from global warming upon hurricanes will likely be quite small. The latest results from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (Knutson and Tuleya, Journal of Climate, 2004) suggest that by around 2080, hurricanes may have winds and rainfall about 5% more intense than today. It has been proposed that even this tiny change may be an exaggeration as to what may happen by the end of the 21st Century (Michaels, Knappenberger, and Landsea, Journal of Climate, 2005, submitted).
It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming. Given Dr. Trenberth's role as the IPCC's Lead Author responsible for preparing the text on hurricanes, his public statements so far outside of current scientific understanding led me to concern that it would be very difficult for the IPCC process to proceed objectively with regards to the assessment on hurricane activity. My view is that when people identify themselves as being associated with the IPCC and then make pronouncements far outside current scientific understandings that this will harm the credibility of climate change science and will in the longer term diminish our role in public policy.
My concerns go beyond the actions of Dr. Trenberth and his colleagues to how he and other IPCC officials responded to my concerns. I did caution Dr. Trenberth before the media event and provided him a summary of the current understanding within the hurricane research community. I was disappointed when the IPCC leadership dismissed my concerns when I brought up the misrepresentation of climate science while invoking the authority of the IPCC.
Specifically, the IPCC leadership said that Dr. Trenberth was speaking as an individual even though he was introduced in the press conference as an IPCC lead author; I was told that the media was exaggerating or misrepresenting his words, even though the audio from the press conference and interview tells a different story (available on the Web directly); and that Dr. Trenberth was accurately reflecting conclusions from the TAR, even though it is quite clear that the TAR stated that there was no connection between global warming and hurricane activity. The IPCC leadership saw nothing to be concerned with in Dr. Trenberth's unfounded pronouncements to the media, despite his supposedly impartial important role that he must undertake as a Lead Author on the upcoming AR4.
It is certainly true that "individual scientists can do what they wish in their own rights," as one of the folks in the IPCC leadership suggested. Differing conclusions and robust debates are certainly crucial to progress in climate science. However, this case is not an honest scientific discussion conducted at a meeting of climate researchers. Instead, a scientist with an important role in the IPCC who represented himself as a Lead Author for the IPCC [Dr. Trenberth] has used that position to promulgate to the media and general public his own opinion that the busy 2004 hurricane season was caused by global warming, which is in direct opposition to research written in the field and is counter to conclusions in the TAR.
This becomes problematic when I am then asked to provide the draft about observed hurricane activity variations for the AR4 with, ironically, Dr. Trenberth as the Lead Author for this chapter. Because of Dr. Trenberth's pronouncements, the IPCC process on our assessment of these crucial extreme events in our climate system has been subverted and compromised, its neutrality lost. While no one can "tell" scientists what to say or not say (nor am I suggesting that), the IPCC did select Dr. Trenberth as a Lead Author and entrusted to him to carry out this duty in a non-biased, neutral point of view. When scientists hold press conferences and speak with the media, much care is needed not to reflect poorly upon the IPCC.
It is of more than passing interest to note that Dr. Trenberth, while eager to share his views on global warming and hurricanes with the media, declined to do so at the Climate Variability and Change Conference in January where he made several presentations. Perhaps he was concerned that such speculation--though worthy in his mind of public pronouncements--would not stand up to the scrutiny of fellow climate scientists.
I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by preconceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth's actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4.
Sincerely,
Chris Landsea
17 January 2005
https://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=16806
Zeno Swijtink
06-16-2008, 10:59 AM
I've been invited to speak to an audience of several hundred school kids who are going to be watching "An Inconvenient Truth". The purpose of my talk will to be to promote honest valid skepticism of the conclusions of the movie. As an analogy its like you have 5 suspects for a murder (global warming). All 5 are bad people who should probably go to jail (Co2 emissions, natural sun warming etc) but its important to convict the right person for the right crime. I am honestly interested in some honest valid criticism of my criticisms (:0) so that I am not misleading students. If anything, my convictions have become stronger in light of the specious responses I have seen.
Sal
I'm interested in hearing what you have to say against the conclusion of "An Inconvenient Truth."
How would you formulate the conclusion of this movie?
To simplify the conversation you could raise first your most salient objection.
PS I reread some of this thread and I now regret some of the language I used in my contributions.
taishon
06-16-2008, 11:50 AM
I am not so certain I am willing to reduce my criticisms to just 'one salient objection' or reduce the movie IT to one overall conclusion. My point is that there were several very invalid arguments made and invalid conclusions based on vast interpretations of data with very large uncertainties (look at my earlier posts for the meat behind some of my criticisms). I will make the point to the students that Gore may be ultimately right (human created CO2 emissions may be causing GW which may have extremly dire consequences) but he got to this conclusion in a very invalid and misleading way and I ultimately believe there is a case to be made for personal and subjective conflict of interest.
Sal
I'm interested in hearing what you have to say against the conclusion of "An Inconvenient Truth."
How would you formulate the conclusion of this movie?
To simplify the conversation you could raise first your most salient objection.
PS I reread some of this thread and I now regret some of the language I used in my contributions.
Zeno Swijtink
06-16-2008, 12:23 PM
I am not so certain I am willing to reduce my criticisms to just 'one salient objection' or reduce the movie IT to one overall conclusion. My point is that there were several very invalid arguments made and invalid conclusions based on vast interpretations of data with very large uncertainties (look at my earlier posts for the meat behind some of my criticisms). I will make the point to the students that Gore may be ultimately right (human created CO2 emissions may be causing GW which may have extremly dire consequences) but he got to this conclusion in a very invalid and misleading way and I ultimately believe there is a case to be made for personal and subjective conflict of interest.
Sal
So then you are not arguing _against_ the conclusion of the movie, but against Gore's reasoning towards the conclusion;
And you are arguing that presently there is no valid argument with premises known to be true that leads to Gore's conclusion.
Correct??
I was only suggesting to start with one salient objection for the purposes of this conversation. A second one can be brought up later.
So what's your problem with Gore's reasoning?
taishon
06-16-2008, 01:34 PM
So then you are not arguing _against_ the conclusion of the movie, but against Gore's reasoning towards the conclusion;
And you are arguing that presently there is no valid argument with premises known to be true that leads to Gore's conclusion.
Correct??
Yes..except that "known to be true" almost never happens in Science where we tend to try to disprove things. I would change it to what I have said which is that he has made several conclusions reached through invalid and very misleading reasoning.
I was only suggesting to start with one salient objection for the purposes of this conversation. A second one can be brought up later.
So what's your problem with Gore's reasoning?
Reread my previous posts..I have plenty more where those came from. I would prefer that you choose a criticism I have made and attempt to tear it apart using valid non-specious reasoning rather than repeating what I have already stated.
From the movie;
Al Gore: [quoting Mark Twain] "What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so."
Methinks perhaps some GORE GW scare camp hypocrisy exists.
Sal
Zeno Swijtink
06-16-2008, 01:54 PM
Reread my previous posts..I have plenty more where those came from. I would prefer that you choose a criticism I have made and attempt to tear it apart using valid non-specious reasoning rather than repeating what I have already stated.
Sorry, I don't have the time to read through all you have written. That's why I asked you to focus on your most salient criticism.
If you wish to get some feedback for your upcoming presentation to students you need to do some work.
taishon
06-16-2008, 04:38 PM
Sorry, I don't have the time to read through all you have written. That's why I asked you to focus on your most salient criticism.
If you wish to get some feedback for your upcoming presentation to students you need to do some work.
Then, in brief;
1. Reliable worldwide temp measurements go back, at most, only 50 years (first weather satellite). Reliable measurements that include broad oceanic data (important considering how much of the surface world is ocean) much more recent. The reliability is even in question considering that the most well-maintained weather stations are near urban heat islands which are, naturally, going to register increases due to urban growth. In fact, some data (sea buoy data, for example) indicate contrary results that may be due to cooling feedback effects. The CO2 data expoused by the movie IT is unreliable and subject to heavy interpretations and uncertainty. There is no certainty as to which came first the heating or the CO2 and the error bar is in the plus or minus THOUSANDS of years. H2O is probably a much more pervasive greenhouse gas and water vapor can also have a cooling feedback effect.
2. The majority consensus view of climate scientists that GORE claims is heavily in question and there are, in fact, hundreds of credible climatologists that either have serious doubts about his conclusions or hold downright contrary views (there are many reasons why it is prudent for them to remain somewhat less vocal given the current social climate :0)
3. If human produced greenhouse gases are the primary cause of any serious GW than how is the data on other planets' warming explained ?
Coincidence ? Some kind of fantastical simultaneous Markovian effect ?
I have about 20 more along these lines but I will probably stick to these as my main points.
Sal
Zeno Swijtink
06-16-2008, 06:39 PM
Then, in brief;
1. Reliable worldwide temp measurements go back, at most, only 50 years (first weather satellite). Reliable measurements that include broad oceanic data (important considering how much of the surface world is ocean) much more recent. The reliability is even in question considering that the most well-maintained weather stations are near urban heat islands which are, naturally, going to register increases due to urban growth. In fact, some data (sea buoy data, for example) indicate contrary results that may be due to cooling feedback effects. The CO2 data expoused by the movie IT is unreliable and subject to heavy interpretations and uncertainty. There is no certainty as to which came first the heating or the CO2 and the error bar is in the plus or minus THOUSANDS of years. H2O is probably a much more pervasive greenhouse gas and water vapor can also have a cooling feedback effect.
2. The majority consensus view of climate scientists that GORE claims is heavily in question and there are, in fact, hundreds of credible climatologists that either have serious doubts about his conclusions or hold downright contrary views (there are many reasons why it is prudent for them to remain somewhat less vocal given the current social climate :0)
3. If human produced greenhouse gases are the primary cause of any serious GW than how is the data on other planets' warming explained ?
Coincidence ? Some kind of fantastical simultaneous Markovian effect ?
I have about 20 more along these lines but I will probably stick to these as my main points.
Sal
You make a number of points, and I can't right now respond to all of them. Here I will respond to part of point 1, and point 2 and 3.
1. I think that the consensus is that historically temperature increases have triggered CO2 increases (release from ocean as warmer water can hold less CO2) which then led to further temperature increases. It is a valid criticism of Gore's exposition that he does not make this clear, although as I remember the video, he also does not explicitly state the opposite. He only says as I remember him something to the effect that high CO2 and low temperatures are incompatible. If you know differently let me know where in the exposition he says so, or even better, give me a page in the book that accompanies the video. (I hope you will encourage students to get the book as reading leads to deeper knowledge then watching videos.)
Click here (https://www.realclimate.org/index.php?s=%22inconvenient+truth%22&submit=Search&qt=&q=&cx=009744842749537478185%3Ahwbuiarvsbo&client=google-coop-np&cof=GALT%3A808080%3BGL%3A1%3BDIV%3A34374A%3BVLC%3AAA8610%3BAH%3Aleft%3BBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BLBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BALC%3A66AA55%3BLC%3A66AA55%3BT%3A000000%3BGFNT%3 A66AA55%3BGIMP%3A66AA55%3BFORID%3A11%3B&searchdatabase=site) for a series of what I consider good and informative discussions of Gore video and the response to it.
2. If you claim that there are more than 200 climatologists who have published research on causes of climate change in peer reviewed journals and who disagree with the conclusion of Gore's movie ("Recent increases in global average temperature are very likely mostly due to humanly induced greenhouse gas emissions"), I think that's false. I at least have never seen such a list. I could personally not even give ten names.
3.
"There are three fundamental flaws in the 'other planets are warming' argument:
Not all planets are warming - some are cooling
The sun has shown no long term trend since 1950
There are explanations for why other planets are warming"
For an elaboration of this quote see here (https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-other-planets-solar-system.htm)
taishon
06-17-2008, 06:55 AM
You make a number of points, and I can't right now respond to all of them. Here I will respond to part of point 1, and point 2 and 3.
1. I think that the consensus is that historically temperature increases have triggered CO2 increases (release from ocean as warmer water can hold less CO2) which then led to further temperature increases. It is a valid criticism of Gore's exposition that he does not make this clear, although as I remember the video, he also does not explicitly state the opposite. He only says as I remember him something to the effect that high CO2 and low temperatures are incompatible. If you know differently let me know where in the exposition he says so, or even better, give me a page in the book that accompanies the video. (I hope you will encourage students to get the book as reading leads to deeper knowledge then watching videos.)
Click here (https://www.realclimate.org/index.php?s=%22inconvenient+truth%22&submit=Search&qt=&q=&cx=009744842749537478185%3Ahwbuiarvsbo&client=google-coop-np&cof=GALT%3A808080%3BGL%3A1%3BDIV%3A34374A%3BVLC%3AAA8610%3BAH%3Aleft%3BBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BLBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BALC%3A66AA55%3BLC%3A66AA55%3BT%3A000000%3BGFNT%3 A66AA55%3BGIMP%3A66AA55%3BFORID%3A11%3B&searchdatabase=site) for a series of what I consider good and informative discussions of Gore video and the response to it.
2. If you claim that there are more than 200 climatologists who have published research on causes of climate change in peer reviewed journals and who disagree with the conclusion of Gore's movie ("Recent increases in global average temperature are very likely mostly due to humanly induced greenhouse gas emissions"), I think that's false. I at least have never seen such a list. I could personally not even give ten names.
3.
For an elaboration of this quote see here (https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-other-planets-solar-system.htm)
Thank you for a reasoned and valid response. I appreciate the reference to sources I hadn't seen yet and will use those. I need to chastise myself (and I thank you for not jumping on this point which you would have been justified for doing) for making the point that the temperature data is unreliable and inconclusive while also using more unreliable temperature data (the data on other planet warming) to make a point. I think I will skip using the other planet warming argument except to express that it is inconclusive. By the way, I still think (see previous sources) that there is some (albeit very incomplete) evidence that there is a general solar system warming trend. Claiming a reason that is not solar for warming of a planet doesn't mean that is the actual reason and what and how much warming (or if certain planets are cooling) is highly debateble. The data on other planets is even more indirect and unrealiable than Earth by far.
The consensus view is not a valid argument (either way) but I do want to bring up the very valid point that there are quite a few credible climatologists who don't agree with the IT conclusions. (See previous posts or be patient and I will dig the lists up). What is more important is the actual content.
I think I will stick to two main points- the unreliability of the temp data and the misleading use of 'one-off' events (such as hurricane Katrina). Gore did, quite blatently claim that CO2 levels corresponded very directly with temperature rises and falls (to the point where he claimed specific concentrations of CO2 corresponded to specific amounts of ice and, reciprocally, specific amounts of temperature rise). That just ain't necessarily so in a system as complex as the Earth's atmosphere.
He never specifically claimed that Katrina was due to global warming but he did claim that global warming will cause certain specific weather patterns which is highly debateable.
More later as I have time.
Thanx for the reasoned response and feedback.
Sal
Zeno Swijtink
06-17-2008, 09:34 AM
I think I will stick to two main points- the unreliability of the temp data and the misleading use of 'one-off' events (such as hurricane Katrina). Gore did, quite blatently claim that CO2 levels corresponded very directly with temperature rises and falls (to the point where he claimed specific concentrations of CO2 corresponded to specific amounts of ice and, reciprocally, specific amounts of temperature rise). That just ain't necessarily so in a system as complex as the Earth's atmosphere.
He never specifically claimed that Katrina was due to global warming but he did claim that global warming will cause certain specific weather patterns which is highly debatable.
Right, I thinks it's very useful to discuss with the students the difference between the concepts "weather" and "climate" and that single, isolated events do not in themselves say anything about changes in climate.
There is a lot of unnecessary anxiety produces in people who do not grasp that difference and who take any unusually hot day or extreme weather event as evidence of climate change.
On the other hand there is not a sharp line to be drawn here either. Climate is patterns of weather cycles. It's statistical and there is no sharp boundary between small uninformative data sets and data sets that are larger and may exhibit convincing patterns. I do not think that Gore confused the two though in his presentation.
This brings me to another point: what the goal of showing this movie and of your commentary? Is it do develop critical thinking skills, critical media skills? In that case one would analyze with the students the presentation technique of Gore, the use language, visuals, statistics, and critique them.
And/or is it to teach the students about climate and climate change? An Inconvenient Truth came out in 2006. Since then the IPCC published its Fourth Assessment Report in 2007. Why use an older exposition from a educated lay person if there are more recent syntheses of the literature available? How are you introducing more recent, vetted material?
It is difficult to teach both at the same time to unsophisticated pupils since it requires a firm grasp of the difference between the correctness of a conclusion and the correctness of arguments for a conclusion. If you show that an argument has flaws you have not argued against the conclusion. Most students find that hard to grasp.
I want to say something more about uncertainties in data and inferences and their relevance for choosing what to do with all the information and insights but need to do that later.
taishon
06-17-2008, 01:59 PM
Right, I thinks it's very useful to discuss with the students the difference between the concepts "weather" and "climate" and that single, isolated events do not in themselves say anything about changes in climate.
There is a lot of unnecessary anxiety produces in people who do not grasp that difference and who take any unusually hot day or extreme weather event as evidence of climate change.
On the other hand there is not a sharp line to be drawn here either. Climate is patterns of weather cycles. It's statistical and there is no sharp boundary between small uninformative data sets and data sets that are larger and may exhibit convincing patterns. I do not think that Gore confused the two though in his presentation.
I do..at least by implication..he should have, at least, discussed the difference with reference to what he was actual presenting as 'factual data'.
This brings me to another point: what the goal of showing this movie and of your commentary? Is it do develop critical thinking skills, critical media skills? In that case one would analyze with the students the presentation technique of Gore, the use language, visuals, statistics, and critique them.
1.a) Don't know...I am not showing it
1. b)To demonstrate scientific uncertainties, the misleading and invalid method used to reach conclusions in what has become a very iconic and popularly quoted media source, to talk some about the actual science and methods behind climatology etc etc
And/or is it to teach the students about climate and climate change? An Inconvenient Truth came out in 2006. Since then the IPCC published its Fourth Assessment Report in 2007. Why use an older exposition from a educated lay person if there are more recent syntheses of the literature available? How are you introducing more recent, vetted material?
Its not accessible to them without watering it down considerably and summarizing it in a very simplistic way. The IPCC reports are not the primary source used to push the GW scare forward to the general public and, in particular, to school kids.
It is difficult to teach both at the same time to unsophisticated pupils since it requires a firm grasp of the difference between the correctness of a conclusion and the correctness of arguments for a conclusion. If you show that an argument has flaws you have not argued against the conclusion. Most students find that hard to grasp.
True..but I still think they can handle it with my guidance.
I want to say something more about uncertainties in data and inferences and their relevance for choosing what to do with all the information and insights but need to do that later.
Let me say something long-winded here. I have a friend who is a doctor of Epidemiology and has worked in the field for 30+ years. When I proposed my IT skepticism to him he made a good point (though he did so in an insulting, condescending and not really relevant way) of stating that, in science, you can validly claim some uncertainty in almost any conclusion and, therefore, make a fallacious argument that almost any scientific theory law conclusion is seemingly invalid (you could make something as easily and readily observed as gravity seem inconclusive with some misleading discussion on scientific uncertainty that are only valid at a small scale). I don't think that is what the GW scare skeptics are doing..it really is beyond being nitpicky.
I will stand by my original point that the theory of extreme AGW still has statistically very significant uncertainties (including some counterevidence), that the movie IT has some very invalid interpretations of data which has statistically large uncertainties (and many of the secondary conclusions can be explained very plausibly), and the movie, as a science documentary (I put it somewhere between a Michael Moore Political VideoCommentary and a 'hard' science Documentary), is misleading.
Thanx, again for all the info and rational debate.
Sal
Zeno Swijtink
06-17-2008, 03:05 PM
Sal, I said: "It is difficult to teach both [critical thinking skils and subject material] at the same time to unsophisticated pupils since it requires a firm grasp of the difference between the correctness of a conclusion and the correctness of arguments for a conclusion. If you show that an argument has flaws you have not argued against the conclusion. Most students find that hard to grasp."
You responded: "True..but I still think they can handle it with my guidance."
I am not sure how much experience you have teaching or how old your students are. But in my own teaching experience of over 35 year, first year college students still struggle with that.
And, to be frank, I am not sure how good a grasp you yourself have of the difference between showing that an argument in its reasoning and support structure has problems and showing that the conclusion of the argument is (likely to be) incorrect. It appears to me that in the report of your friend the epidemiologist you make yourself the mistake of skipping from critiquing the reasoning to critiquing the conclusion.
Or do I understand you incorrectly? Could you rephrase this? What the force of the therefore?
I have a friend who is a doctor of Epidemiology (...). When I proposed my IT skepticism to him he made a good point (...) of stating that, in science, you can validly claim some uncertainty in almost any conclusion [?? or do you mean data] and, therefore, make a fallacious argument that almost any scientific theory law conclusion is seemingly invalid (...). [My emphasis-ZS]
Zeno Swijtink
06-17-2008, 10:52 PM
[The IPCC published its Fourth Assessment Report in 2007] is not accessible to [my students] without watering it down considerably and summarizing it in a very simplistic way. The IPCC reports are not the primary source used to push the GW scare forward to the general public and, in particular, to school kids.
But isn't Gore's presentation An Inconvenient Truth exactly that, a simplified, watered down presentation of the ICPP reports? If the original IPCC reports are not accessible to these students why criticize Gore for trying to put the whole issue in simplified, layman's terms? Or if you think it can be done better, why not do that, provide a better simplified presentation that people still can take in, but that does not have the flaws you think Gore's effort has?
I will stand by my original point that the theory of extreme AGW still has statistically very significant uncertainties (including some counterevidence), that the movie IT has some very invalid interpretations of data which has statistically large uncertainties (and many of the secondary conclusions can be explained very plausibly), and the movie, as a science documentary (I put it somewhere between a Michael Moore Political VideoCommentary and a 'hard' science Documentary), is misleading.
The fact that data points have uncertainties does not mean that a conclusion cannot be validly derived from them. It all depend on what conclusion, how it is formulated.
An example: Suppose I have a coin and I claim that it is biased towards heads. To test my claim and provide data I believe will support my claim I suggest to toss it a thousand times. My friend agrees and we do so, and in 922 out of 1000 tosses we see the coin coming up heads. I say we have strong evidence that the coin is strongly biased towards heads.
My friend however objects. When we tossed the coin it was night, and we were tossing it by candlelight. Such observation, my friend says, are unreliable. I don't disagree with that, but say that they may have an error rate of 20%, and my friend agrees.
I won't do a full probabilistic analysis of this example but I hope you intuitively feel that even if each data point has an error probability of 20% I still have convincing evidence that the coin is strongly biased towards heads. (If you need that full probabilistic analysis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Jeffrey) let me know.)
So just pointing out that Gore's data are uncertain in itself does not show that he cannot validly draw his conclusion about the anthropic nature of climate change. You need to do more work here.
I still need to address another issue that is important I think to evaluate Gore's presentation: he does not asks us to accept a conclusion (a belief) but to change our behavior (an action). So the proper context to put his reasoning is not statistical inference but decision theory, where the conclusion is an action, rather then a belief (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_theory#Choice_under_uncertainty). More about that later.
taishon
06-18-2008, 09:26 AM
I need to apologize because I don't have time to really respond to these excellent comments in tha manner I would like. So my answers are going to be sporadic and incomplete (ie- without included original data and full explanations..I had more time).
But isn't Gore's presentation An Inconvenient Truth exactly that, a simplified, watered down presentation of the ICPP reports? If the original IPCC reports are not accessible to these students why criticize Gore for trying to put the whole issue in simplified, layman's terms? Or if you think it can be done better, why not do that, provide a better simplified presentation that people still can take in, but that does not have the flaws you think Gore's effort has?
Nope...My purpose is to talk to the students about the flaws (and the reason I think there are flaws) before or after they see IT..I am not teaching a class here..I am speaking to a large audience of students either before or after they see an IT..I am just speaking for 15 minutes at a town hall meeting that goes on for 1 hour a day for abotu 20 days.
The fact that data points have uncertainties does not mean that a conclusion cannot be validly derived from them. It all depend on what conclusion, how it is formulated.
No..but the uncertainites should most certainly be included, especially when they are statisically very significant. GORE uses data with very large uncertainities that are subject to many scientific plausible interpretations besides the ones he uses..he should, at minimum (if he is claiming to be using the scientific method) have included my concerns as part of his discussion.
An example: Suppose I have a coin and I claim that it is biased towards heads. To test my claim and provide data I believe will support my claim I suggest to toss it a thousand times. My friend agrees and we do so, and in 922 out of 1000 tosses we see the coin coming up heads. I say we have strong evidence that the coin is strongly biased towards heads.
My friend however objects. When we tossed the coin it was night, and we were tossing it by candlelight. Such observation, my friend says, are unreliable. I don't disagree with that, but say that they may have an error rate of 20%, and my friend agrees.
With respect, this is a bad anaology...There is no uncertainity about whether the coin turned up heads or tails. To compare it to Gore you would have to use a coin with almost no way to distinguish heads or tails and have the same low light conditions. Gore is claiming that scientists know, with certainity that the coin has turned up head or tails when, in fact, the climate 'coin' has dozens of faces that are very hard to read with certainity.
I won't do a full probabilistic analysis of this example but I hope you intuitively feel that even if each data point has an error probability of 20% I still have convincing evidence that the coin is strongly biased towards heads. (If you need that full probabilistic analysis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Jeffrey) let me know.)
True..but any experiment with coins that is done with very large number of trials has produced an average that is close to 50% heads and, the more you trials you have, the more the average approaches 50% (you can make anologies to climate vs weather here).
So just pointing out that Gore's data are uncertain in itself does not show that he cannot validly draw his conclusion about the anthropic nature of climate change. You need to do more work here.
Yes it does if the uncertainties are large enough. What you are saying here is like saying there is a lot of uncertainty in eyewitness testimony but that doesn't invalidate the conclusion that aliens have landed. Yes, I realize that arguing by analogy is imperfect (but its what you did in the last paragraphs) an GORE's arguments are more rational aliend sightings but your last paragraph is invalid for the same reasons. I have not shown you the full extent of my reasons for skepticism but I disagree that I haven't shown enough to be highly skeptical of the IC truth's (or the ICPP for that matter)conclusions.
I still need to address another issue that is important I think to evaluate Gore's presentation: he does not asks us to accept a conclusion (a belief)
I don't agree..he most certainly does expect us to accept his conclusions- about AGW, the future affects of GW and what we should do based on these conclusions.
but to change our behavior (an action). So the proper context to put his reasoning is not statistical inference but decision theory, where the conclusion is an action, rather then a belief (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_theory#Choice_under_uncertainty). More about that later.
If the action is based on a conclusion that is invalid then the action may be good or bad but the conclusion should definitely be questioned and the skepticism should be brought to light. I can think of numerous examples of false conslusions leading to bad actions even with well-meaning intent (refigerants replaced with worse Ozone destroying chemicals, for example).
I used to work in statics in SE Asia (I got a paper published on trauma room statistics) and even with proper error analysis (where you state a certain level of confidence based on mathematical constructs) you still need to be careful of your final conclusions. I see no proper error analysis in Gore's conclusions other than references to authorities which may have used proper error analysis.
Sal
taishon
06-18-2008, 11:24 AM
Sal, I said: "It is difficult to teach both [critical thinking skils and subject material] at the same time to unsophisticated pupils since it requires a firm grasp of the difference between the correctness of a conclusion and the correctness of arguments for a conclusion. If you show that an argument has flaws you have not argued against the conclusion. Most students find that hard to grasp."
This is getting a little too much "forest for the trees" for my tastes and time. I think I have responded to this several times. You are fundamentally correct but, again, it is important and valid to talk about the level in uncertainty of the data which tells you how confident you can be about a conclusion. Otherwise, you can argue that there is almost no way you can 'prove' the moon isn't made of cheese. Although Gore's conclusions are not the same level of "the moon's made of cheese" they are most certainly not the same confidence level that he claims.
You responded: "True..but I still think they can handle it with my guidance."
I am not sure how much experience you have teaching or how old your students are. But in my own teaching experience of over 35 year, first year college students still struggle with that.
And, to be frank, I am not sure how good a grasp you yourself have of the difference between showing that an argument in its reasoning and support structure has problems and showing that the conclusion of the argument is (likely to be) incorrect. It appears to me that in the report of your friend the epidemiologist you make yourself the mistake of skipping from critiquing the reasoning to critiquing the conclusion.
Thats insulting and makes me wonder if you grasp the same thing or even my point. If you are going to say something that strong, do me a favor and reference, directly where you think I have confused the two..you know very little about my conversation with my friend to make that kind of jump..I don't really want to explain or respond to criticisms that are based on broad and insulting assumptions. Be specific if you are going to be insulting or don't count on a response.
Or do I understand you incorrectly? Could you rephrase this? What the force of the therefore?
Nope..I am tired of repeating myself and getting into a 'forest for the trees situation'. Be specific about your criticisms (with reference to the entirety of what I said rather than paraphrasing).
Ultimately, what you and I seem to realy be disagreeing on is the level of uncertainity in the AGW scare camps data analysis and conclusion. You seem to take the view that the uncertainites are not big enough to make a certain conclusion that AGW is primary and dire and I take the view that the uncertainties are big enough. I think we both have a valid, but opposite view (ie- the debate is valid). If you don't think my view is valid then you will need to specifically tear down the arguments (and sources) I have already made to back my view. I don't believe you have come close to doing that yet. But, thanx for trying :0)
Sal
Zeno Swijtink
06-18-2008, 12:48 PM
Ultimately, what you and I seem to realy be disagreeing on is the level of uncertainity in the AGW scare camps data analysis and conclusion. You seem to take the view that the uncertainites are not big enough to make a certain conclusion that AGW is primary and dire and I take the view that the uncertainties are big enough. I think we both have a valid, but opposite view (ie- the debate is valid). If you don't think my view is valid then you will need to specifically tear down the arguments (and sources) I have already made to back my view. I don't believe you have come close to doing that yet. But, thanx for trying :0)
Sal
Sorry of being sharp and offending you. On rereading what I wrote I take the offending remark back, if you allow me.
To get back to what you wrote above I do not take the view that the uncertainties are not big enough to make it unlikely enough (note the difference) that Anthropogenic Global Warming is primary, at least not in the sense that I do not take that point of view on the basis of an extensive study of all the primary material having all the necessary skills to read and interpret that correctly, am sufficiently informed and familiar with all the measurement techniques, questions of modeling, etc, etc.
I hold a PhD in the Foundations of Statistical Inference from Stanford (1982), but I do not have the qualification to base an opinion about this matter on that close a familiarity with the issue.
I trust that that the uncertainties are too small to stop us from concluding at the moment that it likely enough (note the difference) that Anthropogenic Global Warming is primary. I trust this because I trust the qualifications of the people who have come to this conclusion and because I think that my education, and all the information I do have access to, makes me confident in that trust.
I gave you an example where uncertainty in information about what sides came up in coin flipping trials with a possibly doctored coin still allows us to infer that the coin is biased.
So it is not enough to point out that data are uncertain if you want to show that a conclusion is not supported by the data. You need to give your argument more detail.
Your target I think should be the ICPP. Gore's is merely a popularization of their ideas and arguments, and I for one do not blame him for not putting in enough error bars or spreads in his graphs. The audience simply would not get it.
Above I wrote that I trust that it is likely enough that Anthropogenic Global Warming is primary.
Likely enough for what, you may ask?
For a decision theoretic argument, a risk analysis argument, that we better do something about it soon. I think Greg Craven has articulated that argument well.
See https://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/67503 and search for his videos on YouTube.
As a form of argument it goes back to Pascal's argument The Wager (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager), but it does not have certain of the problems that Pascal's argument had.
PS Forgive the double negatives in the above. I not even sure myself that I got them right. :):
taishon
06-18-2008, 01:41 PM
Sorry of being sharp and offending you. On rereading what I wrote I take the offending remark back, if you allow me.
Done..and I appreciate you recognizing this. I don't mind being heavily criticized about a specific point (even if its done in a rude manner if it contains validity) I've made but, when you state an insulting generality then it gets personal. Thanx.
To get back to what you wrote above I do not take the view that the uncertainties are not big enough to make it unlikely enough (note the difference) that Anthropogenic Global Warming is primary, at least not in the sense that I do not take that point of view on the basis of an extensive study of all the primary material having all the necessary skills to read and interpret that correctly, am sufficiently informed and familiar with all the measurement techniques, questions of modeling, etc, etc.
I hold a PhD in the Foundations of Statistical Inference from Stanford (1982), but I do not have the qualification to base an opinion about this matter on that close a familiarity with the issue.
I trust that that the uncertainties are too small to stop us from concluding at the moment that it likely enough (note the difference) that Anthropogenic Global Warming is primary. I trust this because I trust the qualifications of the people who have come to this conclusion and because I think that my education, and all the information I do have access to, makes me confident in that trust.
My first glance interpretive summary of what you just said is that you have some good grounding in science and statistics but you are not an expert in climatology so you have relied on a large number of what you consider to be credible experts to agree with the AGW conclusion and its predicted consequences. I would put my self in the same position and state that we agree with different experts who have different conclusions. I also think that, while I have no expertise in climatology I have a enough of a solid grounding in the Scientific method and error analysis to make a credible conclusion and credible criticisms that are serious enough to cast actionable doubt.
I gave you an example where uncertainty in information about what sides came up in coin flipping trials with a possibly doctored coin still allows us to infer that the coin is biased.
The problem, again, with the coin analogy is that, if you were to really do the experiment, you would either state, with 100% confidence, whether the coin is heads or not, or you would disallow the data set (either you can accurately claim a definite state in a binary condition or you don't use the data or change what you are truly testing). GW is far from a binary condition.
So it is not enough to point out that data are uncertain if you want to show that a conclusion is not supported by the data.
Sure it is..its done all the time if the data is uncertain enough. Most peer reviewed criticism either criticize the intepretation of the data or the uncertainity of the data and then decide if the conclusion is valid (publisheable are open to public critcism).
You need to give your argument more detail.
I don't understand why. If you are saying I need to site more resources then I might agree (and, unfortunately, that may not be rectified here due to time contraints). I think I have pretty clearly stated why I think Gore's conclusions are invalid by the uncertainity in the data and misleading presentation.
Your target I think should be the ICPP. Gore's is merely a popularization of their ideas and arguments, and I for one do not blame him for not putting in enough error bars or spreads in his graphs. The audience simply would not get it.
It is but I am more concerned, for the high school students and popular culture as a whole, to expose the fallacies in his reasoning (which are definitely not above their heads). I rely on experts who tell me, for example, the level of uncertainity in his data and I use those layers of uncertainity to explain why I believe his presentation has fallacies. I do not expect him to put forth a completly rigourous Scientific American worthy paper in a video but I do expect a better presentation of the actual uncertainities and assumptions than something so popularly used and quoted actually gives. There are significant risks in making really dramatic social actions based on a possible false AGW conclusion (cautious but steady is different). There are experts who have done risk analysis on both sides of the issue. It seems to come down to who you decide is a more credible and accurate expert.
Above I wrote that I trust that it is likely enough that Anthropogenic Global Warming is primary.
Likely enough for what, you may ask?
For a decision theoretic argument, a risk analysis argument, that we better do something about it soon. I think Greg Craven has articulated that argument well.
See https://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/67503 and search for his videos on YouTube.
Thank you for this. I have seen similiar on the other side (and I apologize for not citing it here..I may or may not get the cites anytime soon). Probaby the biggest criticism I would have of my own views, as presented here, is that I haven't listed all my sources in an organized way in one posting. For that I deserve some criticism.
As a form of argument it goes back to Pascal's argument The Wager (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager), but it does not have certain of the problems that Pascal's argument had.
PS Forgive the double negatives in the above. I not even sure myself that I got them right. :):
No problem. Again, thank you for the reasoned debate. Hasn't changed my primary concerns but it has given me more credible data and ideas to look at.
Sal
taishon
06-18-2008, 02:29 PM
Here have one of my many sources;
https://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
Good stuff on how water vapor is a much more dominant greenhouse gas and how CO2 'greenhouses' at saturated wavelengths, and, therefore may not be able to contribute significantly to GW (and, if it does do any GW forcing then it is logarithmic rather than exponential) Also has some good overview of the debate with further references.
Zeno- have you talked to a large group of High Schoolers before ? I might be instructive yo give you views either before or after mine to them (hope you don't mind but I will be referring to this BB for those students who are interested in the counterviews to what I will be presentring).
Sal
Zeno Swijtink
06-18-2008, 03:09 PM
Here have one of my many sources;
https://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
Good stuff on how water vapor is a much more dominant greenhouse gas and how CO2 'greenhouses' at saturated wavelengths, and, therefore may not be able to contribute significantly to GW (and, if it does do any GW forcing then it is logarithmic rather than exponential) Also has some good overview of the debate with further references.
Zeno- have you talked to a large group of High Schoolers before ? I might be instructive yo give you views either before or after mine to them (hope you don't mind but I will be referring to this BB for those students who are interested in the counterviews to what I will be presentring).
Sal
Who wrote this reference? Unusual to quote seemingly anonymous sources. Why does this source have authority for you?
According to climate science, water vapour is indeed an important greenhouse gas and it is included in all climate models. But it is a feedback and not a forcing, because of the short residence time of about 10 days for water in the atmosphere. CO2 and CH4 (methane) stay much longer in the atmosphere to force the equilibrium average temperature of the atmosphere to rise. The amount of water vapor in the air is a function of temperature, a response to temperature, does not drive temperature increases.
See https://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142
(written by Gavin Schmidt, a climate modeller at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York)
Written by Spencer Weart, a historian of physics at the American Institute of Physics, author of The Discovery of Global Warming, with collaboration by Raymond T. Pierrehumbert, Professor, Department of the Geophysical Sciences and the College
When is your presentation?? I may be interested!
taishon
06-18-2008, 05:08 PM
Who wrote this reference? Unusual to quote seemingly anonymous sources. Why does this source have authority for you?
The author (or, I am assuming editor at least) is Steven J. Milloy https://junkscience.com/Junkman.html)...The source isn't anonymous since it is 'Junk Science' which is run by said person. He is not a Climatologist but his articles (including the one above) reference Geophysicists and Publishes Climatologists. He is more of a science journalist who pieces together others arguments (and I don't think cookie cutter way but in a credible way). I care about the actual content and whether the actual data is accurate. To rely on the veracity of the data I look at who is referenced (and how they got the data). To rely on the logic of the content I use what I know of physics and the confirmation of others who, supposedly, know more than me.
According to climate science, water vapour is indeed an important greenhouse gas and it is included in all climate models. But it is a feedback and not a forcing, because of the short residence time of about 10 days for water in the atmosphere. CO2 and CH4 (methane) stay much longer in the atmosphere to force the equilibrium average temperature of the atmosphere to rise. The amount of water vapor in the air is a function of temperature, a response to temperature, does not drive temperature increases.
If you look at the responses, thats debateable. Just because something is a function of something doesn't mean it can't force what its dependent on (positive feedback or negative feedback). It may not fit the semantical definition favored by climatologists as a standard forcing agent doesn't mean that it can't force warming or cooling through other factors which cause climate change (and, therefore a higher saturation point etc etc)
See https://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142
(written by Gavin Schmidt, a climate modeller at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York)
You are correct and, if I mentioned that H2O is a forcing gas than I shouldn't have (it actual may be a forcing agent but thats very fuzzy). However, read the responses to the article (many of which were written by published Climate Modelers) which make a strong case for and against the real contributions of H2O vs CO2. CO2 cycling times are highly debateable.
Written by Spencer Weart, a historian of physics at the American Institute of Physics, author of The Discovery of Global Warming, with collaboration by Raymond T. Pierrehumbert, Professor, Department of the Geophysical Sciences and the College
I was unaware of even lingering of CO2 in the upper layers of the atmosphere. Again, the cycling times are in debate and make a huge difference in the overall picture, but thanx for pointing this out.
When is your presentation?? I may be interested!
Let me get back to you..we would probably have to present on different days (because of the time slots) if you decide you are interested.
taishon
06-18-2008, 07:22 PM
I just reread the following three sources;
1. My source (which does a pretty good job of presenting the hard data and its limitations)
If I am rereading them right, the conclusions is that CO2 dominates the GHG forcing in the upper troposphere and stratosphere and 2,3 above do not talk about negative feedback effects. CO2 GH bandwidths seem to be saturated in the troposphere and unsaturated in the stratosphere. If you are looking at total atmosphere GHG contributions then water still way out greenhouses all other gases by many factors. Ignoring negative feedback effects and assuming that CO2 doesn't get sucked out of the atmosphere shorter than decades (dubious since the recent coral destroying carbonic acid effect would be difficult without carbon being sucked out of the atmosphere somehow :0) CO2 quadrupling since Pre-Industrial times seems to have produced a very pessimistic change of less than 2C...significant but , if CO2 is not exponential in its negative effects (and evidence suggests many benefits) then I vote for the more cautious and much less drastic GHG forcing climate consequences.
Sal
lynn
07-11-2008, 05:59 PM
taishon..."I have several friends who are, variably, historians, psychologists etc. and they have brought the religious fanatic analogy forward. The Global Warming issue has all the overtones of religious fanaticism which include 'burnings at the stake", 'Witch-hunting", denialism you name it. Someone who has been reading this thread and has originally believed in the Gore-promoted GW viewpoint should be saying "Gosh some valid criticisms have been made and it makes me rethink some of my conclusions"."
======
I've heard this before also...A science teacher on another board I go on...Started calling 'em 'global warming fundies' - quite a while ago...For him trying to talk to them about the scientific facts in relation to 'global warming', so far as we know them, was the same as trying to talk to Christian 'fundies' about the 'theory of evolution'...
Zeno Swijtink
07-11-2008, 09:01 PM
taishon..."I have several friends who are, variably, historians, psychologists etc. and they have brought the religious fanatic analogy forward. The Global Warming issue has all the overtones of religious fanaticism which include 'burnings at the stake", 'Witch-hunting", denialism you name it. Someone who has been reading this thread and has originally believed in the Gore-promoted GW viewpoint should be saying "Gosh some valid criticisms have been made and it makes me rethink some of my conclusions"."
======
I've heard this before also...A science teacher on another board I go on...Started calling 'em 'global warming fundies' - quite a while ago...For him trying to talk to them about the scientific facts in relation to 'global warming', so far as we know them, was the same as trying to talk to Christian 'fundies' about the 'theory of evolution'...
We've heard about all these "friends," undoubtedly some of whom are economy teachers re the monetary issue, but why are they so shy that we never hear of them?
taishon
07-11-2008, 11:55 PM
We've heard about all these "friends," undoubtedly some of whom are economy teachers re the monetary issue, but why are they so shy that we never hear of them?
Because they know better than to respond or post in a forum inhabited by people who ask immature baiting/leading questions like that. What does the presence or absence of these 'friends' have to do with anything ? Do you honestly believe I am just making them up ? They aren't part of this forum and I've never invited them (partially because they probably really wouldn't be interested). Zeno, thus far, you have legitimately challenged my views on this issue the best but that isn't saying much. Every time I've put the debate forward, the opposing side has always always devolved into some sort of speciously personal insult/bait argument..that in itself probably supports my views as much as anything. You have a better signal to noise ratio compared to most who have opposed me but you still have a fairly large noise level (off-hand I think you have been insulting at least 3 times to me on this debate and baiting at least twice)
I think the experiment's done and my hypothesis has been mostly confirmed (with some present surprise posts that didn't conform to my negative predictions). I will be restricting my responses to those who will truly listen and respond to the actual content..which probably means mainly preaching to the choir and to students. By the way, when I bring up GW skepticism to my students I expect them to be skeptical of both sides..I actively insist that they be really critical of what I present to them and will often give them extra credit for debating against me even if it isn't perfectly rational.
Side point- Gore has apparently refuse every debate offered from the GW skeptic side.
Really highly speculative unsupported opinion (notice that I admit it when I am not being rationally fact driven)- I think Gore is a Hypocritical highly politically motivated individual. I never got why he tried to vaguely link his son's death to becoming a driven AGW advocate. If my son died that way I would more likely kill myself or become a monk or promote family social services issues or adopt.
Sal
Zeno Swijtink
07-12-2008, 08:48 AM
Because they [the expert friends] know better than to respond or post in a forum inhabited by people who ask immature baiting/leading questions like that. What does the presence or absence of these 'friends' have to do with anything ? Do you honestly believe I am just making them up ? They aren't part of this forum and I've never invited them (partially because they probably really wouldn't be interested).
I made this response because it struck me that two climate change skeptics, if I may call you so, both referred to otherwise unnamed expert friends, apparently to bolster the opinion expressed.
I think this is a fallacious way of arguing from a critical thinking point of view: Fallacious Appeal to Authority, or something like that. There is no way for the reader to assess the level or relevance of the authority that is referred to, and there is otherwise too little for the reader intellectually to chew on.
On another point, I think you are too much fixated on Al Gore. If you really wish to critically assess the claims of anthropic climate change follow the literature in the five or six important journals of the topic, rather than the life and work of a popularizer.
You seem to have a deep hatred or at least uneasiness with Gore. Where is that coming from? Some psychologist friend of mine told me that this is often because of a hidden or unrecognized similarity. Like you could be both scions of old Southern money.
Lenny
07-12-2008, 10:50 AM
On another point, I think you are too much fixated on Al Gore. You seem to have a deep hatred or at least uneasiness with Gore. Where is that coming from? Some psychologist friend of mine told me that this is often because of a hidden or unrecognized similarity. Like you could be both scions of old Southern money.
Are you aware of Senior Senator Gore and his money source and the relationship he had with a guy named Armand Hammer? The coal mine in Tennessee was the primary and initial source of their wealth! I can certainly understand any fixation one may have with the current Gore scion! I was amazed when I googled gore, armand hammer, and read the stuff! And from that it is clear why Al Jr. is such an environmentalist.
I've noticed the same deep hatred for GW. I know the right had one going on for Bill, so I suppose "turn about is fair play", but it really is a waste of energy, to be green-speakingly correct.
taishon
07-12-2008, 10:29 PM
I made this response because it struck me that two climate change skeptics, if I may call you so, both referred to otherwise unnamed expert friends, apparently to bolster the opinion expressed.
I think this is a fallacious way of arguing from a critical thinking point of view: Fallacious Appeal to Authority, or something like that. There is no way for the reader to assess the level or relevance of the authority that is referred to, and there is otherwise too little for the reader intellectually to chew on.
I was expressing speculative fanatical analogies and being blatent about the fact that I was expressing an opinion. I never claimed they were expert merely intelligent people with interesting and well thought out opinion. I have noticed that, most of the time, you seem to promote the argue from authority tact (continuously linking papers and 'experts' as opposed to arguing the data or the actual science) rather than sticking to a first principles analyzation of the data. True neither you or I are apparently climate experts but we both seem to know enough about physics etc, the scientific method, and data to make some first principles debate.
On another point, I think you are too much fixated on Al Gore. If you really wish to critically assess the claims of anthropic climate change follow the literature in the five or six important journals of the topic, rather than the life and work of a popularizer.
From what I can tell, the only journals you consider important are the ones that push the AGW byline. What journals do you consider the only '5 or 6' important ones ? Not one of the journals that you will probably mention has a climate change model that doesn't have a generous amount of data fitting bias to self-support the model and the assumed beliefs behind the models. IE- every single AGW scare climate model is buts on graph and data fitting that supports its own assumptions rather than a truly rigorous presentation of the data (very little of which is 'hard data')
You seem to have a deep hatred or at least uneasiness with Gore. Where is that coming from? Some psychologist friend of mine told me that this is often because of a hidden or unrecognized similarity. Like you could be both scions of old Southern money.
Again, a cheap and specious dig. I think your psychologist friend needs to get his money back from whatever educational institution s/he came from. If anything my background is more white trash cosmopolitan (I am the first and only one in my entire family history to get a 4 year degree). Again with the personal jabs attempts. What I dislike about Al Gore has to do with Al Gore not his particular background but what he currently is doing or stands for. By the way..your last paragraph was an 'argument from authority' attempt to reducto absurdo my criticisms to some personal emotional baggage rather than the real rational concerns I have. This has been fun but I think I am going to spend less time responding to attempts like this in the future..too much time not enough pay-off.
Sal
taishon
07-12-2008, 10:46 PM
Are you aware of Senior Senator Gore and his money source and the relationship he had with a guy named Armand Hammer? The coal mine in Tennessee was the primary and initial source of their wealth! I can certainly understand any fixation one may have with the current Gore scion! I was amazed when I googled gore, armand hammer, and read the stuff! And from that it is clear why Al Jr. is such an environmentalist.
I've noticed the same deep hatred for GW. I know the right had one going on for Bill, so I suppose "turn about is fair play", but it really is a waste of energy, to be green-speakingly correct.
Name one person who has had a stronger influence on popular opinion on climate change than Al Gore. And popular opinion is what usually drives political, social, and economic change. When I criticize Al Gore, I am criticizing the entire side he represents, funds, promotes etc etc. I just don't feel like naming all the thousands of people that have devoted themselves to the view he is promoting. I don't think it wasteful to try to keep the public debate alive. I think the emphasis on carbon emissions (which is pretty 'fuzzy' at best) is taking resources away from many more serious issues which are more likely, based on my understanding and research of the science, to cause catastrophic and dire consequences.
Sal
Braggi
07-12-2008, 10:48 PM
... This has been fun but I think I am going to spend less time responding to attempts like this in the future..too much time not enough pay-off.
I don't think anyone will miss you Sal. As a parting shot let me suggest one reason why you didn't develop much of a debate on this forum. You popped in, declared how right you were, then suggested anyone who argued with you was wrong, and then figuratively folded your arms and asked us to take our best shot (which you would then shoot down since you're so right and we're so wrong).
It's just not much fun to be in a conversation like that. That's one reason most here have avoided you. You didn't really ask for any kind of a conscious discussion. You were here to make people who don't agree with you look like fools. That's fine, people won't play with you.
That's what happened.
-Jeff
taishon
07-13-2008, 11:16 AM
I don't think anyone will miss you Sal. As a parting shot let me suggest one reason why you didn't develop much of a debate on this forum. You popped in, declared how right you were, then suggested anyone who argued with you was wrong, and then figuratively folded your arms and asked us to take our best shot (which you would then shoot down since you're so right and we're so wrong).
Childish and innaccurate.
It's just not much fun to be in a conversation like that. That's one reason most here have avoided you. You didn't really ask for any kind of a conscious discussion. You were here to make people who don't agree with you look like fools. That's fine, people won't play with you.
Nope..I was here to point out the foolish logic.
That's what happened.
-Jeff
Yer wrong..on just about every count. :)
'nuff said.
Sal
Braggi
07-13-2008, 11:35 AM
Yer wrong..on just about every count. :)
'nuff said.
Sal
You were here to make people who don't agree with you look like fools. That's fine, people won't play with you.
Nope..I was here to point out the foolish logic.
That's what I mean Sal. You were here to make fools of us. Most reasonable people won't play that game. I tried to point out the foolishness of the very argument, since global warming isn't even an issue worth discussing. Every bottom line of the global warming folks should be followed for other reasons anyway, but you brushed aside those comments because you wanted to argue.
I don't like arguing for the sake of arguing. Neither do most other reasonable people.
'nuff said.
-Jeff
Zeno Swijtink
07-13-2008, 12:24 PM
Again, a cheap and specious dig. I think your psychologist friend needs to get his money back from whatever educational institution s/he came from. If anything my background is more white trash cosmopolitan (I am the first and only one in my entire family history to get a 4 year degree). Again with the personal jabs attempts. What I dislike about Al Gore has to do with Al Gore not his particular background but what he currently is doing or stands for. By the way..your last paragraph was an 'argument from authority' attempt to reducto absurdo my criticisms to some personal emotional baggage rather than the real rational concerns I have. This has been fun but I think I am going to spend less time responding to attempts like this in the future..too much time not enough pay-off.
Sal
Sal, you are not blind to a bit of irony, are you?
Of course I don't have such a friend, and whether you have or why you have hatred for Al Gore is neither here nor there.
My point is that if you disagree with Gore's conclusions you need to go back to his warrants for these conclusions, and these are discussed in the scientific literature. And yes, I include in my short list of important journals one or more that have published articles that have discussed data or theory that pose problems for the Standard View, such as the Royal Meteorological Society's International Journal of Climatology.
As a popularizer and as a politician from a rich family Gore is a red herring and an easy target for your arguments since many people cannot distinguish between Gore and what he says or between Gore's conclusions and what other warrants there may exists, not mentioned by him, for his conclusions.
taishon
07-13-2008, 01:08 PM
Sal, you are not blind to a bit of irony, are you?
I understand..you were attempting (in an Apple vs Oranges insulting sort of way) to denigrate my mention of my friends opinions by making up an analogy to a friend of yours who is a psychologist ?
Of course I don't have such a friend, and whether you have or why you have hatred for Al Gore is neither here nor there.
No..but I figured I would opinionize once in awhile (and be clear that I am doing so) since this is a social forum rather than a strict science court.
My point is that if you disagree with Gore's conclusions you need to go back to his warrants for these conclusions, and these are discussed in the scientific literature.
I have been.
And yes, I include in my short list of important journals one or more that have published articles that have discussed data or theory that pose problems for the Standard View, such as the Royal Meteorological Society's International Journal of Climatology.
I challenge you to reference an AGW climate scare paper that doesn't reference a climate model that is highly speculative and has heavy data/graph fitting bias.
As a popularizer and as a politician from a rich family Gore is a red herring and an easy target for your arguments since many people cannot distinguish between Gore and what he says or between Gore's conclusions and what other warrants there may exists, not mentioned by him, for his conclusions.
But I do and am able to distinguish. I think his conclusions are invalid based on the content of his argument not on his social, political, economic status.
Sal
taishon
07-13-2008, 01:13 PM
That's what I mean Sal. You were here to make fools of us. Most reasonable people won't play that game. I tried to point out the foolishness of the very argument, since global warming isn't even an issue worth discussing. Every bottom line of the global warming folks should be followed for other reasons anyway, but you brushed aside those comments because you wanted to argue.
I didn't brush them aside, I rationally argued against them.
I don't like arguing for the sake of arguing. Neither do most other reasonable people.
True..there is an actual purpose behind my bothering to continue this.
'nuff said.
-Jeff
Anybody whom I've made a fool of has fit the job description. In actuality I have been pretty polite and gentle with some of the posts. Believe me, I could have been much rougher and pulled some of the same personal insult tactics that have been pulled on me.
You really don't know me or my motivations that well (and I am guessing your filters and walls probably wouldn't allow you to know me very well) so why pretend you do ? You have me (and the content of my arguments) pretty much completly wrong.
Sal
MsTerry
07-13-2008, 01:25 PM
I just want to publicly acknowledge that I have no knowledge, associations or interests in fashion.
I haven't encouraged him nor communicated with him or anybody that might know how to communicate with fashion.
Anybody whom I've made a fool of has fit the job description. In actuality I have been pretty polite and gentle with some of the posts. Believe me, I could have been much rougher and pulled some of the same personal insult tactics that have been pulled on me.
You really don't know me or my motivations that well (and I am guessing your filters and walls probably wouldn't allow you to know me very well) so why pretend you do ? You have me (and the content of my arguments) pretty much completly wrong.
Sal
taishon
07-13-2008, 01:45 PM
My 5-10 min summary of the two sides;
AGW Scare Side
Historically, temperatures are going up and the rate of increase is increasing.This is based on a variety of temperature measurements from ice core samples to more current data from satellites.
Other pieces of evidence for dramatic and possibly catastrophic climate change/global heating include ocean level rises, arctic pole melting, storm/hurricane intensity, wildfires, and environmental indicators (disease/virus vectors, salt in the fresh water tributaries in Bangladesh etc)
The cause of GW is anthropogenic and mainly from carbon emissions. CO2 is the primary GW forcing mechanism right now and has an exponential, positive feedback and Carbon stays up in the atmosphere for decades.
If we don't stop and reverse, right now, our carbon emissions then we will see catastrophic consequences which include much increased storm intensity and frequency, massive coastal flooding, ice age conditions, food chain catastrophies etc).
Most credible climate scientists agree with this view.
GW Skeptic Camp
Temperature measurements have only recently become global and at all reliable. Even then the instruments are not always kept up or monitored especially in remote areas which are away from urban heat islands). Historical temperature measurements are not reliable at all and really only valid for maybe the last 50 years or so. Some of the temp data has actually indicated a possible negative feedback cooling effect (sea buoy data).
The other indicators used to support GW are subject to interpretation and were not reliably measured until recently. For example, wind speed and destruction statistics are used to categorize and judge storms. Hurricane wind speeds were not reliably catelogued until doppler radar and any damage and life lost estimates must take into account inflation and increased population density. Wildfires, as another example, are not reliable as many of the current wildfire issues we have most likely have a lot to do with increased urban-wild interface and more aggressive forest management at those interfaces (which increases the amount of dangerous brush fuels making big fires less common but more intense and big).
CO2 which can be variously estimated as having from a low of less than 1% to a high of around 5% of the overall 33C greenhouse effect does not necessarily correspond to temperature in any direct way. The ice core samples that are often referenced may easily show that global warming may force carbon release rather than the other way around. Humankind is maybe 50% of the actual carbon emissions. Carbon may not necessarily stay in the atmosphere for decades. Carbon emissions are selective greenhouse gases and the wavelengths that greenhouse may be saturated.
Finally, there are models to indicate that carbon emissions follow a logryhtmic (sorry about the spelling) greenhouse curve rather than an exponential one.
Other reasonable explanations for any warming include solar changes, natural climate progressions and undersea volcanism. There are some dangers with concentrating so much energy on just carbon emissions. This consequences can be political, economical, and environmental. As an example, there hasn't been a comprehensive study done on the actual environmental cost of a massive adoption of hydrogen fuel cell technology.
The cells are fossil fuel products and don't last long, the refueling stations require carbon emissions to build and maintain etc etc.A true cost- benefit analysis (which includes the 'real' environmental costs) should be done before whole-heartedly adopting any radical new social technology.
Every AGW Scare Climate model has biased data/graph fitting to self-support its conclusions.
There are many climate scientists who disagree with the AGW Scare view. There have been threats (career and physical wise) to dissenters.There are some definite personal motivation factors (politics, social, economical, and career) to consider when dealing with soft data which is subject to so much speculation.
Sal
taishon
07-13-2008, 01:49 PM
I just want to publicly acknowledge that I have no knowledge, associations or interests in fashion.
I haven't encouraged him nor communicated with him or anybody that might know how to communicate with fashion.
Huh ?!?! Can someone explain this to my ignorant self ?!!
Sal
lynn
07-13-2008, 02:02 PM
taishon...I don't think it wasteful to try to keep the public debate alive. I think the emphasis on carbon emissions (which is pretty 'fuzzy' at best) is taking resources away from many more serious issues which are more likely, based on my understanding and research of the science, to cause catastrophic and dire consequences.
Keep the public debate alive!!...Please!!...That's one thing education is suppose to be about!!...
And I agree...So much energy and time is being wasted on 'climate change fananticism'...
Have you heard how ridiculous things are getting?...
https://www.physorg.com/news135003243.html
https://www.palestiniannews.net/story/365189
============
Braggi...since global warming isn't even an issue worth discussing. Every bottom line of the global warming folks should be followed for other reasons anyway, but you brushed aside those comments because you wanted to argue.
..."Not an issue worth discussing"?..."Every bottom line...should be followed"?...
We all might as well be brain dead...
lynn
07-13-2008, 02:09 PM
taishon...Huh ?!?! Can someone explain this to my ignorant self ?!!
Sal
------
Nope...Haven't a clue...?....
:hmmm:
Braggi
07-13-2008, 02:33 PM
...
There are many climate scientists who disagree with the AGW Scare view. There have been threats (career and physical wise) to dissenters. ...
This is, of course, bashing the victims. The ones who have lost their jobs and careers are the scientists attempting to show their global warming data that were fired by the Bush misadministration. I have little doubt there have been firing and threats from the "other side."
This is all about the politics of keeping the status quo (fossil fuel) in business.
My point all along has been there is so little to debate here because there is no good reason to focus on fossil fuel as our only method of keeping the lights on. Doesn't that make some kind of sense or are you suggesting the only path for humanity is to drown in coal dust and it's partially oxidized remains including all the mercury and lead in our water that goes out the smokestacks and eventually comes back down to haunt us?
And how about the acidification of the oceans? Can we agree we should do something about that? Perhaps a huge box of baking soda ...
-Jeff
Braggi
07-13-2008, 02:41 PM
...
..."Not an issue worth discussing"?..."Every bottom line...should be followed"?...
We all might as well be brain dead...
Sounds like some already are. It's not worth arguing with a true believer on either side. It's rarely worth arguing with a true believer on any topic because by definition they don't want to learn.
Shouldn't we be converting over to a solar powered society? Is there any other path that makes sense?
Please elaborate.
I don't think global warming is an issue worth arguing about. The fact that we're poisoning our Earth, aside from global warming, with the burning of fossil fuels is reason enough to move to clean(er) solar power as quickly as we reasonably can. The financial and political arguments all support the notion as well.
Who is for solar power? Raise your mouse and be counted! Against?
-Jeff
Zeno Swijtink
07-13-2008, 03:14 PM
But I do and am able to distinguish. I think [Gore's] conclusions are invalid based on the content of his argument not on his social, political, economic status.
Sal
In logic and critical thinking we do not apply the distinction valid/invalid to conclusions:
arguments can be valid or invalid, statements, incl. conclusions can called true or false.
An invalid argument can have a true conclusion, and by showing that an argument is invalid you have not yet shown that the conclusion is false.
An argument can be invalid and the conclusion still be warranted on the basis of information not used in the argument, that is, there can be a better, valid, argument that uses other information.
That is why you need to base your point - that at present there is no evidence that shows that global warming trends are caused by human emissions of greenhouse gasses - on a study of the latest scientific literature, not on a old video of a popularizer.
Or you could directly try to give a valid argument that from presently available information argues that global warming trends are caused by other causes.
The skeptics have not yet given a convincing explanation of present warming trends. They have only trying to critique the arguments based on climate modeling.
I think the argument based on climate modeling you critique is some form of Inference to the Best Explanation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inference_to_the_best_explanation).
MsTerry
07-13-2008, 05:03 PM
.
Who is for solar power? Raise your mouse and be counted! Against?
-Jeff
Solar Power is in the beginning to middle stages.
It is still expensive to produce and has a limited lifecycle.
I am more excited by the compressed air or hydrogen possibility's
taishon
07-13-2008, 06:02 PM
In logic and critical thinking we do not apply the distinction valid/invalid to conclusions:
Whelp..in Science they do...I think thats a semantical or philisophical argument, not a Scientific one.
arguments can be valid or invalid, statements, incl. conclusions can called true or false.
An invalid argument can have a true conclusion, and by showing that an argument is invalid you have not yet shown that the conclusion is false.
True, but ethically, morally, socially, politically, personally, I still think it important to reach a conclusion through a truthful and non self-dellisionary pathway.
An argument can be invalid and the conclusion still be warranted on the basis of information not used in the argument, that is, there can be a better, valid, argument that uses other information.
That is why you need to base your point - that at present there is no evidence that shows that global warming trends are caused by human emissions of greenhouse gasses - on a study of the latest scientific literature, not on a old video of a popularizer.
Actually..I don't. I just have to show that there are many possible explanations and the currently popular one is no more rational, logical, conclusive than some others..I really don't even have to have another possible explanation..I just need to show that there is enough doubt in the currently popular explanation. I don't need to show what is at the center of the universe to show that it is unlikely that Earth is the center. And I haven't just based my argument on an Inconvenient Truth (re read my previous posts).
Or you could directly try to give a valid argument that from presently available information argues that global warming trends are caused by other causes.
The skeptics have not yet given a convincing explanation of present warming trends. They have only trying to critique the arguments based on climate modeling.
What the skeptics have mainly done (and the most credible ones have been completly honest about this) is they have shown that 'we don't know' and shouldn't act as if we have a high degree in confidence of the current explanation. Its sort of like saying that we have several suspects for a murder and the most likely one (even though we have nothing but very circumstantial evidence on all of them) should be the one that we assume did the crime and we will, therefore, devote all our major energies towards punishing him/her. The skeptics have shown, in my judgement, that we have enough doubt, and the possible consequences (to our understanding of the true nature of the Earth and to the environment, social, politics etc) are strong enough to merit not convicting (and completly acting on that conviction) without stronger evidence.
The criticism is still very valid..I have nothing against speculation and speculative conclusions that don't have a hard basis..I just object when they claim the conclusion is a hard fact when it is based on very soft data and subjective data/graph fitting. Again, why do I need to provide a better explanation than the current one ? Why is it not enough to show that we don't know enough or have enough hard data to accept the current explanation ?
I think the argument based on climate modeling you critique is some form of Inference to the Best Explanation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inference_to_the_best_explanation).
Semantical academics aside, I think I mostly agree with you. The problem I have is that their "Inference to the best Explanation" is not nearly as strong as they claim and there are several other "Inferences" that may be just as strong.
Sal
thewholetruth
07-13-2008, 06:05 PM
Shouldn't we be converting over to a solar powered society? Is there any other path that makes sense?
Please elaborate.
I don't think global warming is an issue worth arguing about. The fact that we're poisoning our Earth, aside from global warming, with the burning of fossil fuels is reason enough to move to clean(er) solar power as quickly as we reasonably can. The financial and political arguments all support the notion as well.
Who is for solar power? Raise your mouse and be counted! Against?
-Jeff
FOR! :thumbsup: :2cents:
taishon
07-13-2008, 06:05 PM
I just want to publicly acknowledge that I have no knowledge, associations or interests in fashion.
I haven't encouraged him nor communicated with him or anybody that might know how to communicate with fashion.
Oh..I think I get it now..you, intentionally or unintentionally, have referred to me as 'fashion' instead of Taishon and you are trying to distance yourself from me in a childish way ? Wow..how immature and petty...I guess I am like the kid who doesn't fit in and the other popular kids don't want to be associated with me...how silly and amusing :0)
Sal
thewholetruth
07-13-2008, 06:20 PM
Oh..I think I get it now..you, intentionally or unintentionally, have referred to me as 'fashion' instead of Taishon and you are trying to distance yourself from me in a childish way ? Wow..how immature and petty...I guess I am like the kid who doesn't fit in and the other popular kids don't want to be associated with me...how silly and amusing :0)
Sal
Welllll, except for the "popular" part. She's just acting LIKE we popular people, Sal. And I, for one, have always made sure to associate with everyone, particularly the unpopular or the scoffed-at-by-the-popular. I hope you don't let the likes of Ms. Terry discourage you here. Here: here's a grain of salt. Use it next time she says something to you. I do. :thumbsup:
taishon
07-13-2008, 06:33 PM
In logic and critical thinking we do not apply the distinction valid/invalid to conclusions:
arguments can be valid or invalid, statements, incl. conclusions can called true or false.
An invalid argument can have a true conclusion, and by showing that an argument is invalid you have not yet shown that the conclusion is false.
An argument can be invalid and the conclusion still be warranted on the basis of information not used in the argument, that is, there can be a better, valid, argument that uses other information.
That is why you need to base your point - that at present there is no evidence that shows that global warming trends are caused by human emissions of greenhouse gasses - on a study of the latest scientific literature, not on a old video of a popularizer.
Or you could directly try to give a valid argument that from presently available information argues that global warming trends are caused by other causes.
The skeptics have not yet given a convincing explanation of present warming trends. They have only trying to critique the arguments based on climate modeling.
I think the argument based on climate modeling you critique is some form of Inference to the Best Explanation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inference_to_the_best_explanation).
One other quick argument..Science does do the "best guess" based on the most current reliable data but 'best guesses' in Science are not supposed to be allowed when there is a significant amount of counterevidence or unreliable evidence. I really think we are seeing a political and social phenomena with GW rather than anything that can be considered hard science.
Sal
Braggi
07-13-2008, 06:45 PM
Solar Power is in the beginning to middle stages.
It is still expensive to produce and has a limited lifecycle.
I am more excited by the compressed air or hydrogen possibility's
Huh? MsTerry, what the Hel are you talking about?
You need solar power to have compressed air and hydrogen.
What is this about "limited lifecycle?" PV panels that are now 50 years old are producing power at near new levels. New panels are guaranteed to produce at rated power for 25 years.
Solar power is now, is financially viable and is working all over the world, including here.
-Jeff
taishon
07-13-2008, 07:01 PM
Huh? MsTerry, what the Hel are you talking about?
You need solar power to have compressed air and hydrogen.
What is this about "limited lifecycle?" PV panels that are now 50 years old are producing power at near new levels. New panels are guaranteed to produce at rated power for 25 years.
Do you have some references for these numbers ? My understanding is that Solar Panels have about 1/4% per year degradation rate..not much but not insignificant. Correct me (with references) if I am wrong.
Solar power is now, is financially viable and is working all over the world, including here.
I have seen some data (though it eludes me now) about the true cost of mining the silicon and manufacturing the solar panels..still makes them viable but not as environmentally efficient as one would think. Do you have any references about the 'true' cost of mining the silicon and manufacturing the panels. Also, because I don't have time right now..does anyone have the references for oil companies buying up silicon (presumably to drive up solar panel costs).
-Jeff
Sal
Braggi
07-13-2008, 07:35 PM
Sal
Sal, you really should figure out the quoting thing. It's easier than changing colors and it makes quoting you easier.
New solar panels from top manufacturers are guaranteed to produce within 2% of rated power for 25 years. That's pretty good.
Solar panels do take a hit on the environment to produce. That hit is getting smaller as the technologies mature. For instance, there are now a few solar powered assembly plants. The fact that they ever pay for themselves proves they are worth more than their price in oil, which is gone immediately once it's burned.
As far as oil companies buying silicon, well, there's "Beyond Petroleum," right? I don't think it's about driving prices up. It's about getting into a profitable business. That's capitalism. The fact is, the oil's going to run out. The sun won't. Well ... not for a very long time.
-Jeff
Zeno Swijtink
07-13-2008, 08:27 PM
shouldn't act as if we have a high degree in confidence of the current explanation.
The decision theoretic argument, a risk analysis argument, that we better do something about it soon does not depend on high degree in confidence of the current explanation. As I mentioned before I think Greg Craven has articulated that argument well.
See <https://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/67503>https://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/67503 and search for his videos on YouTube.
The key issue is the residency time of CO2 in the atmosphere.
See https://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_Residence_Time_png
That means that independent of whether you or I are right about how well established the conclusion of human caused (fossil fuel burning) global heating is, acting as if it were correct is advised if you accept the analysis of this residency time of CO2 in the atmosphere.
It will be too late to turn the boat - barren new technologies to remove CO2 quickly from the atmosphere - by the time we have satisfied your level of confidence.
Since there are a number of other reasons to stop increasing CO2 concentrations of the atmosphere (such as acidification of oceans; such as Peak Oil and move long term investments in fossil fuel sources to more sustainable sources) the course of action advocated by the "Al Gores" in the world is the reasonable one.