CLIMATEGATE!!!!!!!!!!!!! - Page 4
Old 11-25-2009, 12:39 PM   #61 (permalink)
hibernating

Retired Administrator
 
Benzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,289
Representing:
Default

ArmChair I am going to get to some of your other stuff as soon as I have the time it deserves....

In one of those emails there is a reference to a "trick" that Mann used one the hockey stick graph that has been touted by gore et al so much.



Quote:
From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxx.xxx
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@xxx.xx.xx,t.osborn@xxxx.xxx
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Timís got a diagram here weíll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
Iíve just completed Mikeís Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keithís to hide the decline. Mikeís series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) xxxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
Here is what the graph looks like without the "trick"



Look I am not debating what we should or should not do about the environment, simply that the science (yes even the one that have appeared in peer reviewed papers) has been intentionally fudged. If this was a right wing scandel it would be front page everywhere.
Benzo is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2009, 12:56 PM   #62 (permalink)
is pounding the rock!

Senior Member
 
Superjudge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 17,592
Representing:
Default

Well jesus Benzo.

The real graph is just as bad. It's more about steep change than anything.

Anyhow, warming is an issue I think is too much in the forefront. I know its a big deal to many, but to be honest, the depletion of O2 sources, to me, is a bigger deal.

And THAT can be fixed. And that, isn't a statistical anomaly. Global warming, hell, maybe it is, I don't know, but the other shit we do directly to our planet, that shit is easily measurable.

I don't believe Mankind has it in it to change.

Lord of the Flies baby.
Superjudge is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2009, 01:23 PM   #63 (permalink)
hibernating

Retired Administrator
 
Benzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,289
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Superjudge View Post
Well jesus Benzo.

The real graph is just as bad. It's more about steep change than anything.

Anyhow, warming is an issue I think is too much in the forefront. I know its a big deal to many, but to be honest, the depletion of O2 sources, to me, is a bigger deal.

And THAT can be fixed. And that, isn't a statistical anomaly. Global warming, hell, maybe it is, I don't know, but the other shit we do directly to our planet, that shit is easily measurable.

I don't believe Mankind has it in it to change.

Lord of the Flies baby.
The black line in the second graph just shows where Mann's original line is. The Blue and Red lines show the numbers that the CRC came up with (they are the liars), The Green line is the only independant study.
Benzo is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2009, 01:51 PM   #64 (permalink)
the gat'll killya quicker, when I'm drunk off the liquor

The Mara sisters are hot!
 
Bill Haverchuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,243
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benzo View Post
The black line in the second graph just shows where Mann's original line is. The Blue and Red lines show the numbers that the CRC came up with (they are the liars), The Green line is the only independant study.
Okay, I want to limit the amount of douchebaggery I fill my posts with, so before I start responding to your graphs (which I will do), I want to know how well you actually understand them. I don't want to make any assumptions about your views.

So, Benzo, do you know what the green line is supposed to represent in the graphs? What is the green line indicating?

I am going to address that green line, because it actually touches on some things I've said in previous posts. I could be wrong, but I'm not entirely sure you realize what the green line is about.
Bill Haverchuck is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2009, 01:59 PM   #65 (permalink)
hibernating

Retired Administrator
 
Benzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,289
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArmChairGM View Post
Okay, I want to limit the amount of douchebaggery I fill my posts with, so before I start responding to your graphs (which I will do), I want to know how well you actually understand them. I don't want to make any assumptions about your views.

So, Benzo, do you know what the green line is supposed to represent in the graphs? What is the green line indicating?

I am going to address that green line, because it actually touches on some things I've said in previous posts. I could be wrong, but I'm not entirely sure you realize what the green line is about.
It is my understanding that it is Keith Briffa's numbers that he comes up with based on tree ring data.

Mann et al, uses instrumental data, because proxy data (ice cores and tree rings) is unavailable for the last couple of years.

All the data leading up to the dramatic increase is based on proxy data, the increase is not because the information is actually unavailable.

In fairness, I am new to all this and still trying to wrap my head around it all.
Benzo is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2009, 03:10 PM   #66 (permalink)
the gat'll killya quicker, when I'm drunk off the liquor

The Mara sisters are hot!
 
Bill Haverchuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,243
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benzo View Post
It is my understanding that it is Keith Briffa's numbers that he comes up with based on tree ring data.

Mann et al, uses instrumental data, because proxy data (ice cores and tree rings) is unavailable for the last couple of years.

All the data leading up to the dramatic increase is based on proxy data, the increase is not because the information is actually unavailable.

In fairness, I am new to all this and still trying to wrap my head around it all.
Okay, good, so we've established that the green line is about tree ring data. See, my concern was that you were trying to argue that the green line is the actual temperature of the earth declining. In an earlier post here, you tried to tell me that the temperature had not gone up since 1960.

You said this:

Quote:
...There is evidence that shows the earth is no longer warming at all, and hasn't since 1960, I will get a reference to it as soon as I get home.

As I stated, my concern was that you were trying to use the green line to indicate this. That would have been foolish, since the green line is about tree ring data, and that data is seperate from the instrumental data that has been accurately measuring the temperature since the 1960s. So, I am still waiting for your evidence that the earth has not been warming since the 1960s.

This can be a confusing topic, given that there is so much disinformation being thrown at people by so many players in this game.

In an earlier post you said that the green line represents "the only independent study", while the other lines represented the CRC's fudgy data. Yet, when I asked you specifically, you admitted that the green line was just tree ring data.

All that green line shows is that using tree ring data is problematic. For hundreds of years there seems to be a correlation between the tree ring data and other methods of measuring temp, but in recent years it diverges. So, it proves that using tree ring data may be problematic because its relationship to the actual temperature may not be consistent, but it does NOT show that the actual temperature measured by instruments is dropping.

Now, as for these comments from an earlier post:

Quote:
Look I am not debating what we should or should not do about the environment, simply that the science (yes even the one that have appeared in peer reviewed papers) has been intentionally fudged. If this was a right wing scandel it would be front page everywhere.
Saying that it has been intentionally fudged is a very strong acusation. The word choice in those emails is poor, but it does not indicate that data was intentionally fudged. Are you taking the term "trick" literally? You have to place words in context in order to grasp their meaning. Some people think that when Larry Silverstein said "pull it" he meant pull down the towers in a controlled demolition. That, of course, is nonsense. When placed in the context of the interview, Larry clearly was refering to pulling the team of firefighters. The "it" is the team, and the "pull" is the evacuation. You need to place "trick" in its context, too.

Again, I don't want to assume what you think, so I need to ask if you're taking the term "trick" literally. They don't literally mean they are trying to trick people, they are refering to employing a methodological tool. I mean, when you're taught math in school, the teacher will sometimes talk about employing a "trick" or methodological tool in order to solve the equation, even though you're not actually changing the answer to the equation, you're just processing the information in a different way (methodology) to reach the answer. This is what they probably meant by "trick." This is how people talk in some contexts when they are being less formal. Email between two colleagues can be less formal. And rather than "hide" the decline, they should have said "account for" the divergence. They are trying to resolve the problem of consistency within the models of temperature over long periods of time.

Is the tree ring data problematic? I am not a climatologist but it would appear that said data represents some methodological obstacles for creating %100 accurate models. Does this disprove global warming? Absolutely not. This is one aspect of a much broader field of study that is looking at a range of things related to climate and the history of global warming.

The warming in the past 30 years is not consistent with solar cycles. So the argument that it is solar activity is just as poor as the inconsistent tree ring data. But there is all kinds of other evidence that suggests the rapid warming is due to the greenhouse effect.

Last edited by Bill Haverchuck; 11-25-2009 at 03:15 PM.
Bill Haverchuck is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2009, 03:22 PM   #67 (permalink)
hibernating

Retired Administrator
 
Benzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,289
Representing:
Default

Ok so we are getting to some general consensus. Finally getting back to the original topic of this post.

Do I think the climatologists have intentionally provided misinformation, delete data to try and hide from a freedom of information act and activley to to prevent studies that accually take them to task on their numbers. Absolutely. We can do this dance all day and the only thing we can prove is that there is NO hard data to support the "doomsayers" claims.

Regarding the 1960's statement I made, I did misread something, I was going to point towards the fact that only 3% of the polar icecap is warming while the other 97% has in fact been cooling.

I am just very tired of people in power...our mayor included, telling me the "science is settled" when clearly it is not.

If those scientist used tree ring data for the most part of their study and then decided it didn't "fit" what they wanted and switched to instrumental data...yes I have a huge problem with that. Who is too say which is correct.

The word "trick" seriously troubles me and your comparison to semantics is not well founded as there have been many other emails uncovered that proved the CRC was not operating above board. The even talked about intenionally not releasing their studies so they could not be "vetted" by their peers.

I was kind of hoping that this would not degrade into a "is the world warming" "to what extent is man involved" debate. More a debate on "is the science settled". Which clearly it is not.
Benzo is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2009, 04:02 PM   #68 (permalink)
the gat'll killya quicker, when I'm drunk off the liquor

The Mara sisters are hot!
 
Bill Haverchuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,243
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benzo View Post

[1]Ok so we are getting to some general consensus. Finally getting back to the original topic of this post.

[2]Do I think the climatologists have intentionally provided misinformation, delete data to try and hide from a freedom of information act and activley to to prevent studies that accually take them to task on their numbers. Absolutely. We can do this dance all day and the only thing we can prove is that there is NO hard data to support the "doomsayers" claims.

[3]Regarding the 1960's statement I made, I did misread something, I was going to point towards the fact that only 3% of the polar icecap is warming while the other 97% has in fact been cooling.

[4]I am just very tired of people in power...our mayor included, telling me the "science is settled" when clearly it is not.

[5]If those scientist used tree ring data for the most part of their study and then decided it didn't "fit" what they wanted and switched to instrumental data...yes I have a huge problem with that. Who is too say which is correct.

[6]The word "trick" seriously troubles me and your comparison to semantics is not well founded as there have been many other emails uncovered that proved the CRC was not operating above board. The even talked about intenionally not releasing their studies so they could not be "vetted" by their peers.

[7]I was kind of hoping that this would not degrade into a "is the world warming" "to what extent is man involved" debate. More a debate on "is the science settled". Which clearly it is not.
1 - I'm guessing you meant consensus in terms of understanding where each other was coming from, rather than a consensus in terms of sharing the same opinions. Our views are clearly very different.

2 - Again, I am no climatologist, so I can't say conclusively how accurate the predictions are when you get into the "doomsday" realm. However, a lot of this stuff is pretty straight forward enough, for me atleast, to accept that the current system of energy use and consumption will lead to problems in some form. How drastic those problems will be, and how quickly they will manifest, is the only thing that's unknown, in my opinion. There is a lot of evidence supporting the correlation between increased greenhouse gas emissions and the RATE of global warming. Heat distribution in the lower levels of the atmosphere, warming distribution at the poles..etc..etc.. it's not consistent with other natural cycles. Some screwy tree ring data just means that methodology is problematic, but it has no consequences for the other mountains of evidence supporting global warming.

3 - curious where you heard that.

4 - Ugh. The faulty tree ring data does not negate the other evidence related to troposhpere warming, disproportionate warming in areas other than the equator....etc....that are NOT consistent with warming from natural cycles. This stuff is consistent with the greenhose effect, though. Again, one faulty model does not negate all the other evidence. Like I said in the H1N1 thread, you can find doctors who are crazy enough to deny evolution. Does that disprove evolution? No. It just means you can find contrarian, incompetent people who deny facts for various reasons. The same can be said about some scientists views on man made global warming. Some things are open for debate, like extent of affect and timline of consequences, but the FACT that "man" is contributing to the greenhouse effect, and the "man made" GE is making the planet warmer than it would otherwise be without it, is established. Thousans upon thousands of scientists accept the FACT of global warming. You're being misled into believing that there is a bigger debate than there really is. Seriously, faulty tree ring data? That's the best the opposition can come up with? Where is there argument for everything else? Think about it. Why is the troposphere heating up but not the upper atmosphere? They can't debunk that.

5 - I already said the methodology appears problematic. So, I'm not going to argue with you on that. But, again, I will say that those tree ring models are seperate from mountains of other evidence.

6 - Well, there may be other emails that are more problematic. Given that I have not seen all of the potential excerpts out there, I can't really speculate. But I do not take their use of "trick" literally in this context, since I know for a fact that people use "trick" as a synonym for "method" in some contexts dealing with computations.

7 - Well, I am sorry if I contributed to this thread going in a direction you did not want. However, it seems strange to want to talk about whether the science is settled without addressing whether the planet is warming due to man, given that that is what the science is about. How can you discuss whether the science is settled without addressing the arguments of said science? It sounds like you were more interested in just bashing the scientists than actually discussing whether the science is really settled.
Bill Haverchuck is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2009, 04:25 PM   #69 (permalink)
hibernating

Retired Administrator
 
Benzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,289
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArmChairGM View Post
1 - I'm guessing you meant consensus in terms of understanding where each other was coming from, rather than a consensus in terms of sharing the same opinions. Our views are clearly very different.

2 - Again, I am no climatologist, so I can't say conclusively how accurate the predictions are when you get into the "doomsday" realm. However, a lot of this stuff is pretty straight forward enough, for me atleast, to accept that the current system of energy use and consumption will lead to problems in some form. How drastic those problems will be, and how quickly they will manifest, is the only thing that's unknown, in my opinion. There is a lot of evidence supporting the correlation between increased greenhouse gas emissions and the RATE of global warming. Heat distribution in the lower levels of the atmosphere, warming distribution at the poles..etc..etc.. it's not consistent with other natural cycles. Some screwy tree ring data just means that methodology is problematic, but it has no consequences for the other mountains of evidence supporting global warming.

3 - curious where you heard that.

4 - Ugh. The faulty tree ring data does not negate the other evidence related to troposhpere warming, disproportionate warming in areas other than the equator....etc....that are NOT consistent with warming from natural cycles. This stuff is consistent with the greenhose effect, though. Again, one faulty model does not negate all the other evidence. Like I said in the H1N1 thread, you can find doctors who are crazy enough to deny evolution. Does that disprove evolution? No. It just means you can find contrarian, incompetent people who deny facts for various reasons. The same can be said about some scientists views on man made global warming. Some things are open for debate, like extent of affect and timline of consequences, but the FACT that "man" is contributing to the greenhouse effect, and the "man made" GE is making the planet warmer than it would otherwise be without it, is established. Thousans upon thousands of scientists accept the FACT of global warming. You're being misled into believing that there is a bigger debate than there really is. Seriously, faulty tree ring data? That's the best the opposition can come up with? Where is there argument for everything else? Think about it. Why is the troposphere heating up but not the upper atmosphere? They can't debunk that.

5 - I already said the methodology appears problematic. So, I'm not going to argue with you on that. But, again, I will say that those tree ring models are seperate from mountains of other evidence.

6 - Well, there may be other emails that are more problematic. Given that I have not seen all of the potential excerpts out there, I can't really speculate. But I do not take their use of "trick" literally in this context, since I know for a fact that people use "trick" as a synonym for "method" in some contexts dealing with computations.

7 - Well, I am sorry if I contributed to this thread going in a direction you did not want. However, it seems strange to want to talk about whether the science is settled without addressing whether the planet is warming due to man, given that that is what the science is about. How can you discuss whether the science is settled without addressing the arguments of said science? It sounds like you were more interested in just bashing the scientists than actually discussing whether the science is really settled.
My turn

1- You are correct

2-You use alot of misleaders in this one. In one hand saying you are no expert, and then suggesting you can accurately read the data. Which brings me to the "data" itself. 80% of it comes from the CRC, who's integrity is now in question. When it comes to greenhouse gases...sure but there is no evidence to support that the increase in temp would have happened anyway. History tells us that the temperature of the earth can change drastically without mans interference. I do not agree that earth has not seen this kind of climate change before when in FACT it most certainly has. Tree ring data aside, if there is a problem with the methodology on how the numbers are achieved, then I have a problem with the results. I would suggest that the current period of climate change is consistent with historical records.

3- I'll find it.

4-Not sure what you mean here. The science community is split on global warming not on evolution, your comparison is nor fair and I think you know it. Why not use the tree ring data? it was good enough before, I am not questioning the methodology but the motivation.

5-Then why use the tree ring data in the first place and not the "mountains" of other evidence?

6- The other emails are easy enough to find, have a look. I would post a source but I would just be accused of going to a biased source.

7-I'm not sure we can separate them...I suppose we can't but I do believe the are separate issues.
Benzo is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2009, 04:33 PM   #70 (permalink)
Bmats7
is pounding the rock! (Edit)

Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Representing:
Default

I agree with you Benzo.
  Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2009, 04:34 PM   #71 (permalink)
hibernating

Retired Administrator
 
Benzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,289
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bmats7 View Post
I agree with you Benzo.
That can't be a good thing.
Benzo is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2009, 04:35 PM   #72 (permalink)
is pounding the rock!

Senior Member
 
Superjudge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 17,592
Representing:
Default

but he does.

Superjudge is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2009, 04:43 PM   #73 (permalink)
Bmats7
is pounding the rock! (Edit)

Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benzo View Post
That can't be a good thing.
haha. Well I do agree with the earlier guys, I mean the pollution is pretty crazy. If you go down to Michigan and see their landfills, it's ridiculous. And in the long term, that stuff seeps into the soil/ground water and it won't be a good thing for sure.

But in terms of global warming, it has been blown way out of proportion.

As SJ mentioned in a earlier post about thinks dissappearing, I see that not as a consequence of global warming, but as a consequence of pollution directly. Scientists will try to infer pollution causes global warming which causes... blah blah blah... but if we cut out that inference, alot of this can be stopped by not polluting.
  Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2009, 05:02 PM   #74 (permalink)
LX
synapse jelly

In the Paint


 
LX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 28,726
Representing:
Default

I remember when the trees dying from acid rain was just bee poop. What it comes down to for me is not to require exact evidence, because climate by definition alludes that possibility. I think we have to look at some pretty obvious effects of human activity on this planet. Oceans dying, bees dying in the billions, frogs dying, biodiversity decreasing in general. It doesn't matter to me if there is a direct hard line connection to carbon being spilled into the air. In fact it seems quite likely that the effect in many areas could be indirect. It still bites us in the ass hard if we just choose to blame bee poop, or Al Gore or whatever.

I open my eyes a little bit and I see many instances of the kind of nature I knew as kid becoming degraded. I saw all kinds of bees dying in the grass this summer. I've seen invasive species thriving at the expense of others. We are part of nature and it doesn't happen on the internets. That doesn't mean that we need to fall in love with penguins and polar bears and turn to environmentalism as a new religion. All it means is thinking about what price we are asking the people of the future to pay for how we operate. That really hasn't happened at the proper levels yet.

Getting the right lightbulbs and using green products can be just as much about turning a blind eye as anything else. We really need to look to the people in power to consider much bigger impacts than we are ever going to make as individuals. We can all buy a prius, but filling it up with tar sands fuel will offset the good intentions and create a carbon footprint equivalent to driving an SUV on regular fuel.
LX is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2009, 05:28 PM   #75 (permalink)
the gat'll killya quicker, when I'm drunk off the liquor

The Mara sisters are hot!
 
Bill Haverchuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,243
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benzo View Post
My turn

1- You are correct

2-You use alot of misleaders in this one. In one hand saying you are no expert, and then suggesting you can accurately read the data. Which brings me to the "data" itself. 80% of it comes from the CRC, who's integrity is now in question. When it comes to greenhouse gases...sure but there is no evidence to support that the increase in temp would have happened anyway. History tells us that the temperature of the earth can change drastically without mans interference. I do not agree that earth has not seen this kind of climate change before when in FACT it most certainly has. Tree ring data aside, if there is a problem with the methodology on how the numbers are achieved, then I have a problem with the results. I would suggest that the current period of climate change is consistent with historical records.

3- I'll find it.

4-Not sure what you mean here. The science community is split on global warming not on evolution, your comparison is nor fair and I think you know it. Why not use the tree ring data? it was good enough before, I am not questioning the methodology but the motivation.

5-Then why use the tree ring data in the first place and not the "mountains" of other evidence?

6- The other emails are easy enough to find, have a look. I would post a source but I would just be accused of going to a biased source.

7-I'm not sure we can separate them...I suppose we can't but I do believe the are separate issues.
1 - settled.

2 - My lack of credentials as an expert means that I can't properly assess everything that is published on this issue. Some of the "doomsday" stuff deals with predictive models, some of which I am unfamiliar with. I am just being honest and saying I don't know everything about the predictive models, because some require an expertise I don't have. However, that does not mean that I don't, and can't, understand a good chunk of the basis upon which scientists have determined there is a correlation amongst man's activities, an enhanced greenhouse effect, and global warming. Those are two seperate things. As I mentioned before, this is a broad topic that intersects with a number of disciplines, so obviously different aspects of the issue will require different types of knowledge. Some of the basics are easier to grasp than the more theoretical stuff that predicts the future (doomsday stuff). See what I am saying now? I have some basic knowledge that enables me to understand the basics of how scientists have concluded global warming is real, but I don't understand all of the speculative science behind future predictions. Two different things.

You said:

Quote:
When it comes to greenhouse gases...sure but there is no evidence to support that the increase in temp would have happened anyway. History tells us that the temperature of the earth can change drastically without mans interference. I do not agree that earth has not seen this kind of climate change before when in FACT it most certainly has. Tree ring data aside, if there is a problem with the methodology on how the numbers are achieved, then I have a problem with the results. I would suggest that the current period of climate change is consistent with historical records.
2 (con't) - You're totally missing the point. Past natural phenomena don't explain the way in which the increased temperature is manifesting itself. And that's why the overwhelming majority of moderate scientists are even on board with man made global warming. No, Benzo, the current climate change is NOT consistent with historical records. The RATE of warming exceeds that of the past. That's the difference. Yes, thousands and hundreds of years ago there were fluctuations in temperature due to natural phenomena, such as solar activity and, if you go back far enough, axal tilt. However, those are not variables that can account for the current situation. Solar activity is down since 1980 yet the temp keeps going up, and the axal tilt is not in a position to account for this rate of change. How come you trust historical records of temp when you don't trust climatoligists? How do you decide which ones are trustworthy? I'm curious to know, since you so confidently asserted it was a FACT that the earth has seen this type of climate change before. Why do you trust those particular records? Again, I don't dispute that temps fluctuated in the past, what I am disputing is the rate at which those fluctuations occured when solar activity and axal tilt were unable to be responsible for it. Those other factors are not occuring right now yet the temp keeps going up. That's the point.

3 - okay.

4 - No, Benzo. The scientific community is not "split" on global warming. There is a debate about the details and finer points of it, but it's not even close to split. Split would suggest %50 or half. The number of scientists who question man made global warming is nowhere near that. Oh, and the comparison was made because there are people who would call themselves doctors and scientists who deny evolution, even though it's an established fact. Man made global warming is established. Again, the debate is about the details, and people try to blow the debates over details into something bigger so that they can mislead people who don't understand the basics of this stuff. For example, some people don't understand that if solar activity or axal tilt was responsible for the current global warming there would be more uniform increases in temperature across the atmosphere. We don't see that, though. The heating is evident in the lower part of the atmosphere which is consistent with the green house effect. If the public doesn't understand this shit, it's easy for the right wing media to dupe them by saying, changes occured in the past. Lots of people simply don't have the basic knowlege to navigate through the shitstorm.

5 - Ugh. They do use the mountains of other evidence. The tree ring data is used for a particular aspect of understanding global warming and its relationship to the past. In other scientific theories, the details have shifted over time. The broad theory remains, but particular finer points have changed and that's due to methodologies being improved or abandoned for other more accurate ones. That the same would be occuring in climate science does not mean that the whole theory crumbles. An aspect needs to be revised or altered, but that inadequate aspect does not bring down the whole theory. And I mean theory in the scientific sense, not the generic sense which has less respect.

6 - I'll look for some more.

7 - They are not seperate issues.
Bill Haverchuck is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2009, 05:34 PM   #76 (permalink)
hibernating

Retired Administrator
 
Benzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,289
Representing:
Default

Dinosaurs became extinct without human interference.

Polar Bear population has increased 4%
Benzo is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2009, 05:37 PM   #77 (permalink)
the gat'll killya quicker, when I'm drunk off the liquor

The Mara sisters are hot!
 
Bill Haverchuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,243
Representing:
Default

One last thing I forgot to say is, just because I accept global warming, that does not mean I accept all of the more theoretical claims about the future. That is, I appreciate that the predictive stuff is far more speculative and does not have the same empirical basis. Having said that, though, I would still rather take SOME action to change our behaviours, rather than roll the dice.
Bill Haverchuck is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2009, 06:22 PM   #78 (permalink)
a baller

Senior Member
 
bjjs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,724
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benzo View Post
Yay for Canada....


UofT representing....
And UofG.

McKitrick was my Environmental Economics Prof.

McKitrick was a good guy, he really didn't care if you believed him or not and he wasn't out their to raise hell and make a name for himself, he knew what he knew at the time, which was that the climate change data that instigated Kyoto was bullshit.
bjjs is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2009, 06:33 PM   #79 (permalink)
a baller

Senior Member
 
bjjs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,724
Representing:
Default

He spent one lecture explaining his work, auditing the hockey stick research.

You're pretty much on target benzo,

The tree data was all smudged, some of it completely manufactured, and a lot of it based on a small sample of trees from one area in the US. It was never properly audited.
bjjs is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2009, 07:41 PM   #80 (permalink)
LX
synapse jelly

In the Paint


 
LX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 28,726
Representing:
Default

I agree about the point about political leaders referencing a scientific consensus. It's a cop-out attempt at gaining cover for what should be a clear need for decisions in order to not roll the dice as ACGM says. The need for that cover, or the use of a so-called non-consensus has been what has led to decades of doing nothing.

I could care less about the polar bear population in the big scheme of things. I do know that the Inuit, and their lifestyle have come up against many problems. I don't think they're making that shit up.

Many species have gone extinct without human interference. But mass extinctions do generally result from systems going out of whack, and it seems pretty obvious to me that we are making things go out of whack.

Humans made acid rain, and they made the hole in the ozone. They made Chernobyl and the Exxon Valdez and Bhopal. They made DDT and toxic breast milk and an entirely different "nature" that is not untouched by our synthetic products. I said we are part of nature, but nature has in fact become part of us - a very different story than when dinosaurs went extinct. More of the stuff of life that I found extremely valuable and anchoring throughout my youth just isn't the same.
LX is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright RaptorsForum.com 2005-2011

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24