Why I think Climate Change Denial is little more than pseudoscience.

[temujin]

I measured the air temp in two different offices in our building. They differed by 1.6 degrees F.


But we are supposed to believe that temperature from surface stations (densely distributed in the northern hemisphere, sparsely distributed elsewhere) and from a handful of satellites are collected, massaged by some FORTRAN code, resulting in a single global temperature that represents the temperature of the entire Earth to within one degree?

How interesting.
The temperature in Caracas is indeed different from the temperature in Antarctica, right now.

[RandomGuy]

Do we even have the ability to measure the GLOBAL temp to the nearest degree? I think the margin of measurement error is greater than the warming of the last century.

Your assertion, your burden of proof.

I measured the air temp in two different offices in our building.

"I measured the air temperature in two different offices in our building, so therefore the IPCC's global temperature measurements must be wrong."

Really?

That's what you are going with?

Seriously?

If ever there was a series of thoughts strung together the prove the main assertion of the OP, that would be it. Pure pseudoscience.

"I measured the air temp in two offices..." will get filed right next to "contrails look totally different today than they did when I was a kid".

Here is your new t-shirt so you can be more readily identified, now go sit in the corner with Parker.

[RandomGuy]

How interesting.
The temperature in Caracas is indeed different from the temperature in Antarctica, right now.

Glad I wasn't the only one who noticed the sheer craptacular stupidity of that post.

Sigworthy if ever there was one.

[DarrinS]

Wow. Three back-to-back dip s who can't understand a simple point.


I work in a small one-story building with only about a dozen offices. That's not that much geography to deal with. If I put one thermometer in each office, I already have WAAAAAAAAY more measurement resolution that what is available to the IPCC.


You guys can go on believing that data from surface stations and satellites then massaged with some dubious FORTRAN code, represents global temperature to within a degree --- wait, it must be even BETTER than that, because one degree is supposedely the grand total of global warming for the past 100 years.

[RandomGuy]

Wow. Three back-to-back dip s who can't understand a simple point.


I work in a small one-story building with only about a dozen offices. That's not that much geography to deal with. If I put one thermometer in each office, I already have WAAAAAAAAY more measurement resolution that what is available to the IPCC.


You guys can go on believing that data from surface stations and satellites then massaged with some dubious FORTRAN code, represents global temperature to within a degree --- wait, it must be even BETTER than that, because one degree is supposedely the grand total of global warming for the past 100 years.

You can go on believing that you have debunked reams of data and scientific studies by wandering around an office building with a thermometer.

[xrayzebra]

Damn RG, nothing like beating a dead hog.

Everything, I mean everything, is being blamed
on global warming.

I am sure the folks in the middle of the U.S. would
love to discuss global warming with you and all
the crap about weather and climate.

This old man is freezing his butt off and you want
to tell me the climate is warming.

Well okay, I guess you have forgotten about the
ice age. We had just a slight increase in Temps
after that period. Want to see some of the results of those periods. Go see the Great Lakes.

Go talk to Steve Brown on channel 12. You all
have a lot in common. And it isn't your sense.

[RandomGuy]

Damn RG, nothing like beating a dead hog.

Everything, I mean everything, is being blamed
on global warming.

I am sure the folks in the middle of the U.S. would
love to discuss global warming with you and all
the crap about weather and climate.

This old man is freezing his butt off and you want
to tell me the climate is warming.

Well okay, I guess you have forgotten about the
ice age. We had just a slight increase in Temps
after that period. Want to see some of the results of those periods. Go see the Great Lakes.

Go talk to Steve Brown on channel 12. You all
have a lot in common. And it isn't your sense.

It is entirely possible for some areas to get colder, and the globe still warm, on average, and we aren't talking about making it 60 degrees and balmy in January all month, we are talking about a bump of some 1-5 degrees fahrenheit, with some areas actually getting colder on average.

Such arguments, although widely-made and easily understandable, are based on flawed logic and a lack of understanding about the theory put forth by climate scientists.

[temujin]

Damn RG, nothing like beating a dead hog.

Everything, I mean everything, is being blamed
on global warming.

I am sure the folks in the middle of the U.S. would
love to discuss global warming with you and all
the crap about weather and climate.

This old man is freezing his butt off and you want
to tell me the climate is warming.

Well okay, I guess you have forgotten about the
ice age. We had just a slight increase in Temps
after that period. Want to see some of the results of those periods. Go see the Great Lakes.

Go talk to Steve Brown on channel 12. You all
have a lot in common. And it isn't your sense.

Can you REALLY believe the earth is turning around the sun?
C'mon!
I mean, REALLY?
Don't you just SEE the sun moving, if you pay enough attention?
I have NEVER seen the earth move, ever!

THEY are telling a lot of crap, and a lot of thes folks believe it!!!!

[temujin]

Wow. Three back-to-back dip s who can't understand a simple point.


I work in a small one-story building with only about a dozen offices. That's not that much geography to deal with. If I put one thermometer in each office, I already have WAAAAAAAAY more measurement resolution that what is available to the IPCC.


You guys can go on believing that data from surface stations and satellites then massaged with some dubious FORTRAN code, represents global temperature to within a degree --- wait, it must be even BETTER than that, because one degree is supposedely the grand total of global warming for the past 100 years.

I make you do an experiment.
A simple one, an extension to the one you have done that already.
Just turn on the heater max, then measure the temp in the different offices.
It might, just might eh, rise.
Possibly not to the same degree in the different offices.
In fact, that would be my prediction.

[temujin]

Glad I wasn't the only one who noticed the sheer craptacular stupidity of that post.

Sigworthy if ever there was one.

I am making an exception here.
My father used to tell me: "Son, never fight backward battles."

[MannyIsGod]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrum...al_temperature


Not even a measurement, but a calculation.

^^^^^^^^^

LOL Comedy for days. Imagine that, an average temp is a ing calculation.




If only we had an earth sized thermometer.

[DarrinS]

I make you do an experiment.
A simple one, an extension to the one you have done that already.
Just turn on the heater max, then measure the temp in the different offices.
It might, just might eh, rise.
Possibly not to the same degree in the different offices.
In fact, that would be my prediction.

Sure, I could easily conduct that experiment and I could have someone else repeat it and verify my results.


The difference between this experiment and what the IPCC uses for "global temperature", is that I can actually go measure each office in my building and calculate the average. The IPCC would measure one or two offices, run those numbers through some FORTRAN code and come up with a value that supposedly represents the average global temp to within 1 degree. I am skeptical. Especially when one considers the current state of surface stations.

http://www.surfacestations.org/

[ChumpDumper]

Didn't you just use the same method to try to disprove warming earlier in this thread?

[MannyIsGod]

Sure, I could easily conduct that experiment and I could have someone else repeat it and verify my results.


The difference between this experiment and what the IPCC uses for "global temperature", is that I can actually go measure each office in my building and calculate the average. The IPCC would measure one or two offices, run those numbers through some FORTRAN code and come up with a value that supposedly represents the average global temp to within 1 degree. I am skeptical. Especially when one considers the current state of surface stations.

http://www.surfacestations.org/

You shouldn't have to lie to make your case. Why do you lie?

[xrayzebra]

Well RG, I will not argue if the temps or rising or
falling here on earth. But I will argue that man is
not causing any such fluctuations.

I would bring this little article to your attention.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/glob...ng-on-mars.htm

I am sure you are also aware that much of the
information that was put out by all the so called
experts was found to the skewed in the favor of
their argument. It was all man made.

Earth is not fragile. Earth can and does just
about anything it so desires. It can pollute more
in five minutes than we can in a lifetime. It can
destroy cities in mere minutes, which we have
witnessed in recent times.

And still people who you have faith in tells you
that you
and I we are destroying "mother" earth and it's
fragile environment. Hog Wash. We may dirty
things up in some small area but Earth will
correct the problem over time.

I will refer you to the recent oil spill that was
destroying the Gulf of Mexico. They are having
trouble finding any evidence of the spill mere
months after it occurred. But our Prez and
Salazar are using the incident to further their
little farce about you can drill, but wont approve
any drilling permits. Studying the issue. More
BS

RG, common sense and thinking goes a long way
in explaining why these people insist on putting
out the same old BS. Money....money....money
and power to implement their dumb ideas.

And our wonderful news media. Saw an article in
this mornings mini NYT, The San Antonio Express-News. One sentence caught my eye.
About the new electric car (Obama's car).
It "seems" that San Antonio is wanting
these cars with bated breath. Paraphrased
of course, but the word that caught my eye in
the sentence: "seems".

[RandomGuy]

Well RG, I will not argue if the temps or rising or
falling here on earth. But I will argue that man is
not causing any such fluctuations.

I would bring this little article to your attention.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/glob...ng-on-mars.htm

I am sure you are also aware that much of the
information that was put out by all the so called
experts was found to the skewed in the favor of
their argument. It was all man made.

Earth is not fragile. Earth can and does just
about anything it so desires. It can pollute more
in five minutes than we can in a lifetime. It can
destroy cities in mere minutes, which we have
witnessed in recent times.

And still people who you have faith in tells you
that you
and I we are destroying "mother" earth and it's
fragile environment. Hog Wash. We may dirty
things up in some small area but Earth will
correct the problem over time.

I will refer you to the recent oil spill that was
destroying the Gulf of Mexico. They are having
trouble finding any evidence of the spill mere
months after it occurred. But our Prez and
Salazar are using the incident to further their
little farce about you can drill, but wont approve
any drilling permits. Studying the issue. More
BS

RG, common sense and thinking goes a long way
in explaining why these people insist on putting
out the same old BS. Money....money....money
and power to implement their dumb ideas.

And our wonderful news media. Saw an article in
this mornings mini NYT, The San Antonio Express-News. One sentence caught my eye.
About the new electric car (Obama's car).
It "seems" that San Antonio is wanting
these cars with bated breath. Paraphrased
of course, but the word that caught my eye in
the sentence: "seems".

By that logic there is a uva lot more money lined up against climate change science than for it.

The industries with the most to lose, oil and coal producers, measure their economic output in the trillions.

The market capitalization for the major oil and gas companies is more than US GDP, at 12.6Tn

http://biz.yahoo.com/ic/120.html

If climate change were true, and the science was good, these companies have more than enough firepower to play up any doubts, and fund all the competing "scientific" papers they wanted to, and there is some evidence that is exactly what they are doing, in almost the exact same manner as the tobacco companies did when they funded "studies" that showed how harmless tobacco consumptions was.

These companies have, I firmly believe, magnified any flaws in the science far out of proportion.

They do this, and it gives people who want to be su ious of environmentalists fodder for their own confirmation bias.

You will note the entire purpose of the thread was to show that global climate change denial is pseudoscience.

Read the first two posts or so. I think I have made a fair case for it.

[xrayzebra]

Making a case for "it" one way or the other by
you and I or anyone else is superfluous. Nature
will do what it does and has always done.

But I will point you to an article I saw this morning,
to show just how ridiculous this has become. And
the really sad part. It is going to happen.

Climate change: Dogs of law are off the leash

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp...17dc4d554e.471

I know what I am fixing to say is only my own
experience, but it is indicative of my own
personal experience. I lived in Canada in the
late 50's and one winter it got down to -48.
The weather that winter was much like they
are experiencing in parts of the U.S. right now.

But you have headlines, such as this one, that
say one thing:

Rising waters threaten the coast of North Carolina

But when you read on down, you find:

"While polls show growing public skepticism of global warming, the people paid to worry about the future - engineers, planners, insurance companies - are already bracing for a wetter world.

"Sea-level rise is happening now. This is not a projection of something that will happen in the future if climate continues to change," said geologist Rob Young of Western Carolina University, who studies developed shorelines.

Nobody knows how high or fast the sea will rise. Water isn't likely to submerge all the state's low coastland because landowners will fight back. But the coast we know, with its fringe of salt marshes, its fluffy beaches and old harbor towns, might look like a different place a few generations from now.

...

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/201...-nc-coast.html

A quick read of the whole article. One thing
stands out. "by centuries end". Reckon you
will be around to see it. I know for sure I wont.
So who among us will be around to witness this?

It seems this is always the case, the time frame
for all these dooms days scenarios is way down
the line.

Remember what you have always been taught
about "computer models" Garbage in, garbage
out.

I may very well be wrong, the old world might
be ready to burn up. Hehehehe, some of us
might start a little earlier than planned, burning,
that is.

But if it is, ready to burn up, it damn sure wont
be the making of mankind. I promise you that.
It will be the making of a higher authority.
Burning up Earth, as Obama said, is way above
our pay grade.

[RandomGuy]

Making a case for "it" one way or the other by
you and I or anyone else is superfluous. Nature
will do what it does and has always done.

But I will point you to an article I saw this morning,
to show just how ridiculous this has become. And
the really sad part. It is going to happen.

[here are some links I want you to read]

The issue is waaay more complicated, and you are simply repeating some previously debunked illogical ideas.

If I thought you might actually read links or watch things I posted, I might be inclined to read your articles.

Generally people on your side of the debate tend to not watch anything that they don't agree with, so I will simply assume that you won't do that either, and will not extend a courtesy that I will not be given.

Thanks, but no thanks.

[RandomGuy]

The ironic thing about the whole denier movement, is that they advocate doing nothing now, because that would harm the economy, in their opinion.

There are some indications that by doing nothing, and letting other countries get ahead of us in the renewable tech race, we will hurt the economy more in the long run, as Europe and China build up industries and companies. There is some evidence this is already happening.

The US will be an "also ran" in renewable energy, forced to pay the premiums for oil and coal as it depletes, while the countries that do just what I have said we should do, get the benefits.

I will get the cold comfort of saying "I told you so", but I would prefer we pull our heads out of Rush Limbaugh's ass and avoid this in the first place.

[DarrinS]

Damn, I hope Greenland doesn't melt.

[RandomGuy]

Damn, I hope Greenland doesn't melt.

[picture showing cold temperatures in lower 48 omitted]

This is yet another example of a logical fallacy.

It is either a strawman logical fallacy, or simply an ad hominem.

Personally, I think it is more of a former than the latter.

Why do you keep trying to make your case using flawed logic, Darrin?

Are you incapable of thinking logically, or just trying to single-handedly prove the OP?

[RandomGuy]

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democ...global_warming

Climate change and evolution

Jan 24th 2011, 14:31 by M.S.
Tweet
.OUR topics this morning are global warming, evolution and feathers. Let's start with the warming. Despite a frenzied last-minute drive involving snowstorms in Europe and the eastern United States, planet Earth failed to save itself from another last-place finish in 2010: once again, it was the least cold year on record. The World Meteorological Organization announced its finding last week that global mean temperatures for the year were 0.53°C above the 1961-1990 mean, 0.01°C warmer than 2005 and 0.02°C above 1998. With the comparison having a margin of uncertainty of 0.09°C, the three years are considered tied for the hottest year on record. That followed results the previous week from NOAA, which found 2010 and 2005 tied as the hottest years ever, and NASA, which found the same thing. (They both think 1998 was a bit colder.)

By itself, as we always say, one hot year doesn't prove anything. The fact that every one of the twelve hottest years on record has come since 1997 is a little harder to wave away. 2010 was also the wettest year ever, corresponding to the expectation that higher heat means more water vapour. More countries set national high-temperature records in 2010 than ever before, including the biggest one, Russia. Arctic sea ice in December was at its lowest level ever, temperatures across a broad swathe of northern Canada have been 20° C higher than normal for the past month, the record temperatures are coming despite the lowest levels of solar activity in a century and a La Nina effect that should be making Canada colder rather than warmer, and so on. It is of course possible that global warming plateaued this year; it's also possible that it plateaued this morning. One can always hope! For now, though, this is the basic shape of things:



The George Will "global warming has ended" moment shows up as that little dip towards the end, before it returns to trend. So, what effect will the new data have on that meme? Quite possibly none. People who tried to cast doubt on global warming in 2009 based on a few years one could isolate so that they didn't show a discernible trend will now no doubt respond that a couple of very hot years don't prove anything. Which underlines how often the conclusions one draws from data are determined by a combination of the hypotheses you're framing, and at what point you start looking.

This brings me to the feathers. In this month's National Geographic, Carl Zimmer sums up recent paleontological progress in figuring out when and how feathers evolved, and how they fit into the relationship between dinosaurs and birds. Apparently there have been tons of new feather-bearing fossils unearthed over the past 15 years, and scientists can now use microscopic analysis and knowledge of how modern feathers work to actually figure out what color some of the feathers on these dinosaurs were. It's pretty clear that the development of feathers came long before they had anything to do with flight, but it's still not so clear whether feathered dinosaurs evolved into birds or whether they (and feathered proto-crocodiles!) shared a common feathered ancestor. Anyway, towards the beginning of the article comes this:

The origin of this wonderful mechanism is one of evolution's most durable mysteries. In 1861, just two years after Darwin published Origin of Species, quarry workers in Germany unearthed spectacular fossils of a crow-size bird, dubbed Archaeopteryx, that lived about 150 million years ago. It had feathers and other traits of living birds but also vestiges of a reptilian past, such as teeth in its mouth, claws on its wings, and a long, bony tail. Like fossils of whales with legs, Archaeopteryx seemed to capture a moment in a critical evolutionary metamorphosis. "It is a grand case for me," Darwin confided to a friend.

Think about how that must have looked to contemporaries. Darwin publishes his theory that species develop through evolution from other species. Okay, many people think, wild idea, but can one species really change so deeply over time that it becomes a different species? Wolves into dogs, sure, but fish into lizards and so forth? Then, two years later, a fossil is discovered that suggests dinosaurs evolving into birds. To first have a theory presented that suggests these outlandish transformations, and then to have an example turn up that perfectly describes the theory's most improbable consequences, with no possibility of prior knowledge—this is an extremely convincing sequence of evidence.

But if you grew up, say, 150 years after "The Origin of Species" was published, you didn't experience that remarkable sequence of evidence. You get the theory of evolution and the fossil background presented at the same time. So if you want to be an evolution sceptic, the fossil record just becomes another set of data you can poke holes in, along with the theory. After all, nobody understands what function feathers served before they were used for flight. If they were for mating displays, why did they turn out to be perfect for aerodynamics? How come nothing has feathers anymore that doesn't fly, or isn't descended from something that did? Darwin's theory can't explain it! And so on.

Now, back to global warming. For me, or anyone older, the thesis that rising global temperature data were due to a greenhouse effect produced by industrial emissions of CO2 and other gases, and that this might lead to environmental disaster, was something we first encountered as a mind-bending idea being thrown around by scientists in the mid-1980s. The first time we heard a scientist authoritatively state that the evidence was in, and that global warming was real, was when James Hansen said it while presenting his research to Congress in 1988. That was a daring claim for Mr Hansen to make at that point. It was daring because it was very clearly falsifiable. If, after 1988, global temperatures had stopped rising, or had started to exhibit a lot of volatility—if there had been a decade-long cooling episode, such as the world saw in the late 1930s and 40s—then Mr Hansen would have been discredited. But that didn't happen. Instead, for a decade and a half after Mr Hansen made the call, global mean temperatures kept going up and up. They bounced around a bit in the mid-2000s, and have now resumed rising again.

For people my age or older who were paying attention over the past couple of decades, that really ought to be convincing. But for people who just joined the conversation when "An Inconvenient Truth" came out, things are different. For them, the evidence of global warming was presented at the same time as the theory. And so they're susceptible to people trying to poke holes in the data or the theory. The temperature rise from 1998-2008 isn't statistically significant, tree ring data is unreliable, and so forth. Give them another two decades, and they'll probably come around. Unfortunately, by that time an enormous amount of damage will already have been done.

As to why George Will buys this stuff, I have no explanation. Maybe, in the internet age, we're all effectively getting our memories wiped every week or two, and it's as if we don't remember the sequence of events; everything is presented simultaneously. Or maybe we selectively wipe our own memories of the sequence of events when they threaten to prove inconvenient to our interests or our ideological predispositions.

[RandomGuy]

I appear, once again, not to be the only one who draws parallels between the pseudoscience of creationism and that of climate change deniers.

Many professional skeptics and debunkers of various pseudosciences tend to lump climate change denial into the same category as "orgone ac ulators" "free energy" and "water cars".

One has to ask, if so many people have come independently to the same conclusion, doesn't that say something about the nature of the arguments being presented?

[DarrinS]

It's a matter of scale.


Less than one degree in over 100 years.


Scary.

[MannyIsGod]

Darrin, trolling away!