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.
Disastrous in the long-run. What China and India do will impact the world. Count on it.
So scared in fact that I just inadvertantly released a planet-killing methane cloud, and I may have unsustainably stained my earth friendly woven hemp shorts!!!
You seriously need to dial down on the drama, queen.
I'm certainly glad you claim to want discussion based on data.
Very encouraging.
Edit: I responded before I finished reading your post.
This paragraph specifically:
I am willing to accept that there may be problems with the (the?) research.
There may be problems with any research.
I prefer to side with the vast majority of scientists on global warming.
I assume you are specifically referring to Hansen (when you reference problems with the research) and I have not formed any opinions of Hansen. After reading what has been provided, maybe we'll have a discussion of his research.
The problems I am referring to are key to the process of proper research itself throughout the field Hansen is merely one topic of the larger issue. Yes, there are "problems" within any field, but the main problems in climate science at the moment is that it is largely political, not scientific. The IPCC has used their summaries to support a bias and you can see this through the documentation of responses between CA and the IPCC as well as various researchers and journals.
Due diligence is lacking in the process of study. There are numerous errors in the research used to provide conclusions within the field which is how Hansen's work was found flawed, Mann's work (hockey stick), and others as well. The key issues are with the research methods and conclusions, data archiving and access, publishing and peer review policy, and due diligence. These problems are all through the field and the lack of proper adherence to these issues has led to research being rushed out to the public.
Hansen's work points to issues at the data level (I provided the relevant information with the previous response). That is, the surface stations are in terrible shape, Hansen acknowledged this (reluctantly as it had to be shown before he stopped defending it), but claimed he "accounted" for it through various methodology. When his methodology was evaluated, it was found to be without merit and his responses to questions concerning his methods were met with at times rather unprofessional and hostile remarks and actions. He refused to release his data which forced McIntyre to reverse engineer his methods to obtain his process. Once McIntyre did this and the errors were found, Hansen did not respond with scientific rebuttal, but relied on fallacious means to object to the inquiry.
Also note that Anthony Watts has been doing a study of the surface stations in the US and is approximately 70% complete. In his research, he found that a large percentage of the stations are outside of acceptable calibration levels with many resulting in warming bias.
Mann's work is known for the hockey stick which also was evaluated by McIntyre and McKitrick and if you read through the events concerning it, it gets pretty nasty and in my humble opinion childish how Mann reacted to his work being reviewed by them. Like Hansen, he also refused to release data, argued in a fallacious means and disregarded the errors found. This eventually led to the Wegman report and the IPCC's admission of the failings of his work on this topic as well as placing doubt into the field of dendrochronology as it concerns climate modeling.
The IPCC also is not clean in this matter showing favoritism to a bias and using unprofessional methods to hold to key positions. The following is some of the issues with their actions. Note the reviewers comments issue and the IPCC's responses to various findings with the data and summary conclusions.
This problem is not just contained to the above as other organizations world wide also have poorly demonstrated proper scientific procedure in the process (GISS, NOAA, EPA, etc...).
I tend to use Climate Audit as a starting point mainly because he doesn't play political games and when an issue is discussed, steve focuses on the science and the data. His interest is in the Math and the procedures and you will find that this is what he for the most part focuses on.
There are many scientists who pop in and out of his site to discuss and update on their findings. Some who are AGW supporters, but they place scientific process above that of political position so they do not let assumptions drive their findings which is really the problem that this field is suffering from at the moment.
Personally, I am not of a position that is conclusive about the issue. I do know from the reading of the "detailed" interactions and topics of the issue that there is a lot of politics pushing the field and the result is some very sloppy science attempting to drive a particular position.
Execellent post Nomander. Sadly I think this has taken on a life of it's own and politics is winning out over science.
Science should never be "my way or the highway" when presenting views.
I've read enough articles, reports, opinions to form my own opinion of all these opinions.
The politics surrounding this though has deep pockets and will ultimately win out.
the politics will not win out if americans stand up to the politicians. the politicians need to know that there are consequences to ignoring the will of the people who voted for them. there is still a chance that this bill will die and it is not a done deal yet!
the politics will not win out if americans stand up to the politicians. the politicians need to know that there are consequences to ignoring the will of the people who voted for them. there is still a chance that this bill will die and it is not a done deal yet!
It may be a done deal. Algore tells us that the consensus he represents has settled all the discussion.
Seriously, I agree that we have to let our Senators know that 33 of them will have to stand for re-election next fall and their vote on the Crap and Tax bill will determine whether they get their cushy job back or not. I am sure that my Republican Senators will vote against any kind of Crap and Tax but only one of them is up next time and he is retiring. I know how his probable replacement will vote on it, at least he voted against the fool bill last time out and has promised me that he won't go wrong ever.
The rest of us have to do something about this crap or we will live to rue the day we sat on our hands.
"If we burn even half of Earth's remaining fossil fuels we will destroy the planet as humanity knows it. The added emissions of heat-trapping carbon dioxide will set our Earth irreversibly onto a course toward an ice-free state, a course that will initiate a chain reaction of irreversible and catastrophic climate changes."
The problems I am referring to are key to the process of proper research itself throughout the field Hansen is merely one topic of the larger issue. Yes, there are "problems" within any field, but the main problems in climate science at the moment is that it is largely political, not scientific. The IPCC has used their summaries to support a bias and you can see this through the documentation of responses between CA and the IPCC as well as various researchers and journals.
Due diligence is lacking in the process of study. There are numerous errors in the research used to provide conclusions within the field which is how Hansen's work was found flawed, Mann's work (hockey stick), and others as well. The key issues are with the research methods and conclusions, data archiving and access, publishing and peer review policy, and due diligence. These problems are all through the field and the lack of proper adherence to these issues has led to research being rushed out to the public.
Hansen's work points to issues at the data level (I provided the relevant information with the previous response). That is, the surface stations are in terrible shape, Hansen acknowledged this (reluctantly as it had to be shown before he stopped defending it), but claimed he "accounted" for it through various methodology. When his methodology was evaluated, it was found to be without merit and his responses to questions concerning his methods were met with at times rather unprofessional and hostile remarks and actions. He refused to release his data which forced McIntyre to reverse engineer his methods to obtain his process. Once McIntyre did this and the errors were found, Hansen did not respond with scientific rebuttal, but relied on fallacious means to object to the inquiry.
Also note that Anthony Watts has been doing a study of the surface stations in the US and is approximately 70% complete. In his research, he found that a large percentage of the stations are outside of acceptable calibration levels with many resulting in warming bias.
Mann's work is known for the hockey stick which also was evaluated by McIntyre and McKitrick and if you read through the events concerning it, it gets pretty nasty and in my humble opinion childish how Mann reacted to his work being reviewed by them. Like Hansen, he also refused to release data, argued in a fallacious means and disregarded the errors found. This eventually led to the Wegman report and the IPCC's admission of the failings of his work on this topic as well as placing doubt into the field of dendrochronology as it concerns climate modeling.
The IPCC also is not clean in this matter showing favoritism to a bias and using unprofessional methods to hold to key positions. The following is some of the issues with their actions. Note the reviewers comments issue and the IPCC's responses to various findings with the data and summary conclusions.
This problem is not just contained to the above as other organizations world wide also have poorly demonstrated proper scientific procedure in the process (GISS, NOAA, EPA, etc...).
I tend to use Climate Audit as a starting point mainly because he doesn't play political games and when an issue is discussed, steve focuses on the science and the data. His interest is in the Math and the procedures and you will find that this is what he for the most part focuses on.
There are many scientists who pop in and out of his site to discuss and update on their findings. Some who are AGW supporters, but they place scientific process above that of political position so they do not let assumptions drive their findings which is really the problem that this field is suffering from at the moment.
Personally, I am not of a position that is conclusive about the issue. I do know from the reading of the "detailed" interactions and topics of the issue that there is a lot of politics pushing the field and the result is some very sloppy science attempting to drive a particular position.
Well argued. Sophisticated use of language. Largely off-base, on several points.
"Climate Audit" is not a reliable source, given their anti-global warming agenda.
It's absurd to argue that most climate scientists are motivated by political rather than scientific impulses. There's absolutely no evidence of this.
Pointing to the shortcomings of IPCC is helpful, but hardly casts doubts on their overall findings.
Movingforward, you are on ignore, have been on ignore for quite a while because you are incapable of making an argument without resorting to fallacies. Nothing you have to say is important or relevant to the discussion.
Now, practice what you preach, for the sake of your captive audience.
Quote:
As I said before, the Petition Project is used very frequently on the internet by "climate change deniers". I would of course encourage you to have an open mind to everything you read, but please don't be taken in by this one. Its methodology is flawed, its motives are highly biased and its conclusions are misleading.
Debunking the Oregon Petition Project (http://ezinearticles.com/?Debunking-the-Oregon-Petition-Project&id=1675285 - broken link)
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.
