Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
After 2010 or 2011 increasing peculiar weather; heat waves, floods, fires, strange precipitation patterns & drought will begin to alarm more of the general pubic. When this becomes a disruption to everyday life on a regular basis, and agricultural patterns begin to change, coastal flooding, increasing year round forest fires, killer heat waves that are long lasting - strangely milder winters in the northern tier of the nation, shifting or disappearing flora/fauna , or rapid introduction into areas etc- only then the environment will become a major issue.
Qualified scientists? Stephen McIntyre? A little research will confirm that McIntyre has worked in mineral exploration his entire career. He's spent 30 years hunting oil and gas, and he's more qualified than the balance of climatologists?
You've condescended to every poster who disagrees with you without offering any hard data and poking holes in everyone else all while taking jabs at posters whose take on the data at hand differs from your own. I've shied away from being an armchair general in the war over climate change, and you rush to jab me in the eye for it. It's clear that neither of us knows one iota beyond what we can google, so this entire conversation in an exercise in futility.
Call it what you will. A wise man knows how truly little he knows.
If the entire body of climatology is composed of hacks, then McIntyre is a hack as well.
Let the disinformation continue.
I, for one, will continue to try to minimize my dependence on carbon as well as I can, just as you can continue to rationalize any wasteful behavior you'd like. Free country.
Logical fallacy.
Again, you attack the person and disregard the content. Typical position of someone who has no position.
I have brought up issues and they have been ignored. I have brought up researchers, yet nothing has even be mentioned concerning them.
Ok, explain how it is that conclusive analysis can be established with tree ring chronologies?
for instance, Mann's work is based on it to establish his famous hockey stick, but the problem is that this data is inconsistent and no certainty can be established by the noise to which these tree rings produce.
McIntyre has pointed out many flaws in Mann's work concerning the liberal use of interpetation to establish trends out of data which really just produces noise, not an identifiable link to climate change.
This has been a key point for a long time and "publicly" Mann, Briffa and several others have proclaimed a legitamcy of the claims, but recently in a white paper by Briffa, he points out that no conclusion can be established by this data.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3260
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve McIntyre on Briffa-Cook white paper
I like this one:
A fundamental problem is that tree-ring data from a site/region can produce very different chronologies according to specific sampling and processing – this is confusing for secondary users and other non-dendroclimatologists.
Here’s a point about Hansen and similar adjustments, originally raised in connection with the adjustments to the Dawson series used in tree ring calibration - which was actually a departure point for some of my interest in surface station records:
The way in which the climate data [i.e. station temperatures] have been pre-processed (i.e, homogenized) is also an issue that can profoundly affect interpretations of tree-ring data. This makes it doubly hard to identify and assess the signal(s) in the tree rings because it all may not be the tree rings fault!
Now for a real dagger:
There exists very large potential for over-calibration in multiple regressions and in spatial reconstructions, due to numerous chronology predictors (lag variables or networks of chronologies – even when using PC regression techniques). Frequently, the much vaunted ‘verification’ of tree-ring regression equations is of limited rigour, and tells us virtually nothing about the validity of long-timescale climate estimates or those that represent extrapolations beyond the range of calibrated variability.
Using smoothed data from multiple source regions, it is all too easy to calibrate large scale (NH) temperature trends, perhaps by chance alone.
And yet this is EXACTLY what Mann's MBH98 and PC1 regressions do. They establish a trend and make a conclusion based upon this data which "tells us virtually nothing about the validity of long-timescale climate estimates or those that represent extrapolations beyond the range of calibrated variability."
The very thing to which the IPCC AR4 places all its money on.
Then there is of course Hansen's work concerning the "warmest year" to which McIntyre found the errors, so the date of 2005 and 1998 had to be changed from the claim of the "warmest years" which places us back to 1934 as the warmest, while you can still go to NASA's site and they concede they changed the data according to the error, yet turn around and with clever wording hold to their original claims even though the data no longer truly supports their position. That is, 2005 and 1998 are not the warmest, they fall just behind that of 1934. Yet there are some really funky changes being made to the data with no reasonable expalanation to the historical observed records.
In the following you can find a long list of the issues with Hansen's work and the oddities of the GISS.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?cat=40 (broken link)
Also as I mentioned previously the surface records are in complete disarray. That is, they show warming biases due to the improper placement. A large percentage of the stations are off, but this data that is improperly showing trends is being used to proclaim conclusions by scientists. The NOAA has even recognized the problem with the stations as well. Yet, these stations are still being used as the backing for alarmist claims.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?cat=50 (broken link)
I will come down hard on people who keep playing the logical fallacy trump card of source attacking while disregarding the content of the argument. Its a sham of a position, one used by people who either have no clue about what they speak of or they do not wish to have to answer to the discrepancies of the issues. They merely want to keep proclaiming their religious devotion to a cause, not that of science.
Though it is not surprising the sheep would take this same defensive approach as even many of the scientists who have had their data evaluated and questioned also act in such a manner. The IPCC, NASA, EPA, and the scientists who are clinging to their proclaimed research are all acting in manners that are contrary to scientific practice, policy, and protocol, yet you still worship them as right even in the face of these discrepancies.
An example of these stonewall techniques can more recently be shown with David Stockwell's attempt to gain data from the CSIRO concerning a Australian drought report and you can see the ridiculous defensive approach they take to it. Not only that, but they do not want to release the data, yet think it important to make public conclusive statements about it and when it comes down to finding information about the issue, the CSIRO begins blaming the news for blowing things out of proportion, but it doesn't appear to be that way as the CSIRO's claims don't add up.
So I have provided actual evidence to what I am talking about, yet you keep source attacking and never once speak in any details as to even deal with the claims you make.
As I said, all of the data that McIntyre and other scientist on the site have found issue with is in the open. It is not hidden behind close doors while accusations are being made. You can look at their claims and you can easily prove them wrong if you so choose, but that is not what people do. Remember, the discussion is over? They don't need to answer to it, there is a consensus! Absolute garbage and nothing more than an evasive tactic to hide cherry picking and political bias.
Wow, looks like this thread ran away without me. I'll try to catch up on all of the post. I did read Lord Balfor's essay - very well written.
What's baffling is that there IS a wide consensus that global warming is happening and the majority of it IS human-related, but there is a disinformation campaign that has been running counter to logic and reason for decades.
What is has caused is the illusion that global warming is some kind of theory that some scientists are arguing, when that is simply not the case. It is revealing when Americans are polled on global warming, and substantial amount seem unsure or confused about it. Attribute that one to the deliberate spread of doubt about the matter, when little exists in the scientific community, outside of a few variables.
That is incorrect, actually within the realms of scientist the issue isn't cut and dry. Most of those who proclaim "consensus" are the administrations of the research, not the scientist themselves. As I have shown, there is much contest within climate research and the "consensus" is more political than a scientific agreement among peers.
The confusion is the media, politically motivated organizations, and the scientists letting bias drive their work. Only that which supports the political cause is accepted and all deviations and conflicts with the research are thrown out claiming "it wouldn't change anything anyway".
In truth, there is more devious approach by the alarmist crowd than the skeptics. Many skeptics believe we don't have enough information, that we don't understand enough to make any conclusions and they are showing exactly why this is true with the data.
The sites I have provided, do not "hide" their data, it is open for all to see. It would be easy for scientists to point out the flaws in it, but as you can see that is not what is done. Attacking the person, ignoring the content, and sweeping under the table deviations is a common practice.
People are confused because people believe that a scientific organization should be above petty politics. It is hard to swallow that these organizations would be so irresponsible in the stances they take. Many who support these organizations public policies do so out of a simple fallacy of "appeal to authority", a naive belief that "they wouldn't stretch or misrepresent the truth" when in fact many of the public positions these organizations hold are that very thing. They are more politically driven than they are scientifically so.
After 2010 or 2011 increasing peculiar weather; heat waves, floods, fires, strange precipitation patterns & drought will begin to alarm more of the general pubic. When this becomes a disruption to everyday life on a regular basis, and agricultural patterns begin to change, coastal flooding, increasing year round forest fires, killer heat waves that are long lasting - strangely milder winters in the northern tier of the nation, shifting or disappearing flora/fauna , or rapid introduction into areas etc- only then the environment will become a major issue.
So they can predict the weather 3-4 years from now and yet they have a hard time predicting even a day ahead? Here in Texas we have one of the most advanced tracking systems and also a wide range of experts and yet they can not even get half their predictions right even within 24 hours of an occurrence, but apparently we can establish what will happen years from now?
You also do realize that the alarmist community is having a bit of a problem with their current predictions do you not? They predicted a steady warming, yet the observed data isn't turning out as they had hoped so they are now adjusting their data to fit more in line with their predictions. Excuses to hold to their hypothesis and they keep rearranging and working everything to stay on that course. Not science, politics.
I am still waiting for someone to tell me what is the ideal temperature of earth, and how are we going to act as a thermostat to get it to that temperature. no one can tell me, so in the meantime, I just do what I think is right.
They won't do that, but if you put up a name of someone, I am sure they would be willing to spend hours finding some link to oil so they can disregard it. If they put a 1/4 of the effort they put into logical fallacies, they might just inform themselves a bit more on the issue.
They won't do that, but if you put up a name of someone, I am sure they would be willing to spend hours finding some link to oil so they can disregard it. If they put a 1/4 of the effort they put into logical fallacies, they might just inform themselves a bit more on the issue.
It doesn't take hours. It's obvious. Two seconds of research into Steve McIntyre is all it took.
There is, I believe, a conflict of interest there that is compelling, to say the least.
As they say, "if you torture the data long enough, they'll confess".
Even so, I am willing to concede that there are probably many examples of junk science floating around out there.
Still, to assert that, based on the work of a few researchers, that the IPCC, NOAA, AMS, AAAS, American Geophysical Union, Joint Scientists of the G8, WMO, NRC, ACS, and the majority of their constituent scientists are dead wrong on global warming, and to do so with such fervor and condescension, assured that any who disagree with you are sheep and fools is something I can't get on board with.
And to what end? Does any of it change the fact that we'd be better off without a sick dependence on carbon? Does it change the fact that mountaintop removal and foreign oil and all the rest are bad for our country? It's endless doubt-seeding without any real aim, and I don't see the point of any of it.
It doesn't take hours. It's obvious. Two seconds of research into Steve McIntyre is all it took.
There is, I believe, a conflict of interest there that is compelling, to say the least.
As they say, "if you torture the data long enough, they'll confess".
Even so, I am willing to concede that there are probably many examples of junk science floating around out there.
Still, to assert that, based on the work of a few researchers, that the IPCC, NOAA, AMS, AAAS, American Geophysical Union, Joint Scientists of the G8, WMO, NRC, ACS, and the majority of their constituent scientists are dead wrong on global warming, and to do so with such fervor and condescension, assured that any who disagree with you are sheep and fools is something I can't get on board with.
And to what end? Does any of it change the fact that we'd be better off without a sick dependence on carbon? Does it change the fact that mountaintop removal and foreign oil and all the rest are bad for our country? It's endless doubt-seeding without any real aim, and I don't see the point of any of it.
Logical fallacy. Please, are you going to discuss the content or make up convenient excuses to why you can ignore it? Seriously, you haven't provided a valid argument yet.
Logical fallacy. Please, are you going to discuss the content or make up convenient excuses to why you can ignore it? Seriously, you haven't provided a valid argument yet.
What argument are you looking for? What information can I provide that the hundreds and hundreds of scientists that represent hundreds of workgroups worldwide haven't presented already? I've read your posts and checked out your links and still don't really see anything so compelling about your position, which is... what? That it's all part of nature? That we have nothing to do with global warming?
What argument are you looking for? What information can I provide that the hundreds and hundreds of scientists that represent hundreds of workgroups worldwide haven't presented already? I've read your posts and checked out your links and still don't really see anything so compelling about your position, which is... what? That it's all part of nature? That we have nothing to do with global warming?
You can start by answering to the topics I posted previously with the links supporting it.
edit:
Maybe you can explain in more detail what it is that you do not find compelling about the links and information I provided? Do you know what tree ring data is and what it is used for? Do you know anything about the surface records? Do you know anything about the scientific method and its procedures? Do you not see a problem with refusing to make data public, yet proclaiming conclusions from that data TO the public? If you see no problems with that or the relevance of why these conflicts are important, then you have no clue about why you believe what you do and you play the part of a sheep and alarmist who is impressed by titles and names.
You can start by answering to the topics I posted previously with the links supporting it.
But you do, just to clarify, find the IRCC AR4 to be an unacceptable source, right?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
