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

[MannyIsGod]

I hate to break it to you, all heat comes from the sun. Don't get mad at me because you're too stupid to know extremely basic science. I might give you credit for misspeaking (because I found it hard to believe even you were that dumb) but then you repeated it 2 posts later.

So no, it became obvious that yes, you are that dumb.

[MannyIsGod]

The difference between energy entering the system and leaving it determines if we are warming or cooling.

Yep... Typical M.O.

Anything that you can claim CO2 is warming. I know, and you admitted it. You don't care what's true, you only care for a way to say you are correct.

No it isn't. All it proves is that the CO2 in the upper most atmosphere is cooling.

:lol

Thats funny.

[Wild Cobra]

I hate to break it to you, all heat comes from the sun. Don't get mad at me because you're too stupid to know extremely basic science. I might give you credit for misspeaking (because I found it hard to believe even you were that dumb) but then you repeated it 2 posts later.

So no, it became obvious that yes, you are that dumb.
My God.

Why cannot you follow what I'm saying? Yes, I have also stated that almost all comes from the sun. There is still a small amount of the earths internal heat (magma) and tidal forces that add in miniscule percentage.

No heat is created.

Again...

If I put $100 a week in the bank, and don't take $100 a week out until four weeks later, then I have $400 sitting in the bank.

This is how the atmosphere effectively (not create) heats up more than what we would directly have.

Nothing is created.

[MannyIsGod]

Yes - I get that you understand how stupid what you said was and have since corrected it. That doesn't change that you're now saying something COMPLETELY different from what you SAID BEFORE.

Congrats, you display an ability to learn. The fact that you're being taught should tell you something, however.

[Wild Cobra]

Yes - I get that you understand how stupid what you said was and have since corrected it. That doesn't change that you're now saying something COMPLETELY different from what you SAID BEFORE.

Congrats, you display an ability to learn. The fact that you're being taught should tell you something, however.
I would appreciate it if you stopped accusing me of stupidity when I already, several days ago, elaborated, and you lack the comprehension to understand.

I know what you are doing. You are sidestepping the issue because you cannot win against me on the merit of facts, and you know it.

[Wild Cobra]

:lol

Thats funny.
Let me get this strait. You are saying that satellites show a surface warming because of less spectra CO2 produces. Right? What nonsense.

How can a satellite clearly see the tropospheric CO2 spectra through the stratospheric mesospheric, thermospheric, and and exospheric CO2? This higher altitude CO2 would emit high enough CO2 influenced noise to see any tropospheric CO2 spectra activity. It is probably similar to trying to see stars from the city in daylight hours.


So yes, in fact, seeing that there has been a drop off in outgoing LW radiation in the part of the spectrum CO2 covers is proof that CO2 is indeed preventing energy from leaving the earth's system. Those study's don't attempt to say what is happening before then.
What studies?

Again, this is probably because it proves nothing, except that the upper CO2 has less heat to radiate. The reasons can be several.


It doesn't matter how much is emitted and remitted because all that matters is how much net energy leaves the system. All that matters in the end is to prove that CO2 is responsible for less net energy leaving the system.
This is where the energy budget comes in, and lag times. Consider this from Global Warming 101 (http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/):


Global warming theory says that the lower atmosphere must then respond to this energy imbalance (less IR radiation being lost than solar energy being absorbed) by causing an increase in temperature (which causes an increase in the IR escaping to space) until the emitted IR radiation once again equals the amount of absorbed sunlight. That is, the Earth must increase its temperature until global energy balance is once again restored. This is the basic explanation of global warming theory. (The same energy balance concept applies to a pot of water on a stove set on “low”. The water warms until the rate of energy loss through evaporation, convective air currents, and infrared radiation equals the rate of energy gain from the stove, at which point the water remains at a constant temperature. If you turn the heat up a tiny bit more, the temperature of the water will rise again until the extra amount of energy lost by the pot once again equals the energy gained from the stove, at which point a new, warmer equilibrium temperature is reached.)

PS...

One more thing your heroes apparently get wrong. Satellite surface temperature is measured in the microwave region, and they look at the spectra emitted by oxygen for it.

[RandomGuy]

Let me get this strait. You are saying that satellites show a surface warming because of less spectra CO2 produces. Right? What nonsense.

Um, what? That didn't make sense. Check the grammar.

[MannyIsGod]

Let me get this strait. You are saying that satellites show a surface warming because of less spectra CO2 produces. Right? What nonsense.


Thats not what I'm saying at all. Apparently you don't understand what outgoing longwave radiation is. For as smart as you think yourself you're having a very hard time with a very simple subject that anyone who has played a Call of Duty video game could understand.

http://www.imaging1.com/thermal/_derived/monocular14.html_txt_raptor_FLIR_IR_Thermal_infrar ed_handl-held.gif



How can a satellite clearly see the tropospheric CO2 spectra through the stratospheric mesospheric, thermospheric, and and exospheric CO2? This higher altitude CO2 would emit high enough CO2 influenced noise to see any tropospheric CO2 spectra activity. It is probably similar to trying to see stars from the city in daylight hours.


Its hard to have this discussion with someone uneducated in simple physics and chemistry because this is the nonsense they spew when you say outgoing longwave radation spectroscopy.




What studies?


You're not familiar with them? You always say you've devoted so much time to researching the subject yet you're not familiar with some of the most important work in the field? Surprising. No really. Surprising.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html

http://spiedigitallibrary.org/proceedings/resource/2/psisdg/5543/1/164_1?isAuthorized=no

You can also search for a study by Chenn in 2007 that is the same basic thing but I don't have a link off hand to.

Oh, and since you love saying how this can't be measured for the lower troposphere through satellites (even though I never claimed such a thing), have some studies that measure the spectroscopy of DOWNWARD longwave radiation. Can't wait for you to tell me how this is invalid too.

http://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JD011800.shtml




Again, this is probably because it proves nothing, except that the upper CO2 has less heat to radiate. The reasons can be several.


This is where the energy budget comes in, and lag times. Consider this from Global Warming 101 (http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/):



PS...

One more thing your heroes apparently get wrong. Satellite surface temperature is measured in the microwave region, and they look at the spectra emitted by oxygen for it.

I've no idea what the hell you're talking about on the last part, and your link to the summary of Global Warming "101" does not help your case at all. It does the opposite.

Your ego is amazing for the multitude of holes in your knowledge.

[MannyIsGod]

Cliffsnotes: In 1970 there was more energy leaving the earth as a percentage in the spectrum associated with CO2 emission. Why the drop off? Because CO2 has gone up in concentration and is trapping more heat.

[boutons_deux]

I'm sure this will have great impact on climate change deniers. :lol

Two seminal Nature papers join growing body of evidence that human emissions fuel extreme weather, flooding that harm humans and the environment


http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/02/16/207545/two-nature-paper-join-growing-body-of-evidence-that-human-emissions-fuel-extreme-weather-flooding-that-harm-humans-and-the-environment/

[Agloco]

I'm sure this will have great impact on climate change deniers. :lol

Two seminal Nature papers join growing body of evidence that human emissions fuel extreme weather, flooding that harm humans and the environment


http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/02/16/207545/two-nature-paper-join-growing-body-of-evidence-that-human-emissions-fuel-extreme-weather-flooding-that-harm-humans-and-the-environment/

It's just going to inspire them to post more junk tbh.

[Wild Cobra]

Cliffsnotes: In 1970 there was more energy leaving the earth as a percentage in the spectrum associated with CO2 emission. Why the drop off? Because CO2 has gone up in concentration and is trapping more heat.
I give up. You fail to understand my points. Believe it or not, I understand. You don't. I challenged you when you claim surface temperature is seen by satellites seeing CO2 spectra changes. I point out that is impossible, you simply fail to understand how ignorant you are.

Buy a clue. The radiance of the CO2 in the uppermost atmosphere would blind the satellite to the same spectra it is attempting to see at the surface. Now you are changing what you mean by those stated studies, but will not admit it.

[Wild Cobra]

I'm sure this will have great impact on climate change deniers. :lol

Two seminal Nature papers join growing body of evidence that human emissions fuel extreme weather, flooding that harm humans and the environment


http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/02/16/207545/two-nature-paper-join-growing-body-of-evidence-that-human-emissions-fuel-extreme-weather-flooding-that-harm-humans-and-the-environment/
Wow...

Extreme weather changes for the first time in internet history... Must be the end of the world, ain't that right, Chicken Little?

[MannyIsGod]

:lmao

I specifically said outgoing LW radiation in each post and somehow you still didn't get it but you understand EVERYTHING sooooooooooooooooo well. You're amazing.

[RandomGuy]

Again, this is probably because it proves nothing, except that the upper CO2 has less heat to radiate. The reasons can be several.

Cooling in the upper atmosphere, while the lower atmosphere warms would be consistant with GH action in the lower atmosphere absorbing more heat.

Your statement reminds me of our local moon hoaxer when presented with something he finds inconvenient, pulling something out of his ass and saying "this stinky thing is plausible to me, so I can discard your line of reasoning/fact out of hand".

"the reasons can be several". Then outline them, in order of probability.

[Yonivore]

The Amazing Decline in Deaths from Extreme Weather in an Era of Global Warming, 1900–2010 (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/25/the-amazing-decline-in-deaths-from-extreme-weather-in-an-era-of-global-warming-19002010/)


http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/extreme_wx_deaths_thumb.png?w=508&h=435

I think we're coping quite well, thank you.

[RandomGuy]

One more thing your heroes apparently get wrong. Satellite surface temperature is measured in the microwave region, and they look at the spectra emitted by oxygen for it.

Factually incorrect.

Some satellites use this specifically, but not all, from what I read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements

Since 1979, microwave sounding units (MSUs) on NOAA polar orbiting satellites have measured the intensity of upwelling microwave radiation from atmospheric oxygen.

Microwave Sensing Units are not the only types of sensors used by satellites.

Manny has been saying longwave radiation, because infrared sensors are also a method of surface temperature measurement. These infrared sensors are, I presume, why the wikipedia entry specifies " various wavelength bands".

Hope this helps.

[MannyIsGod]

The Amazing Decline in Deaths from Extreme Weather in an Era of Global Warming, 1900–2010 (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/25/the-amazing-decline-in-deaths-from-extreme-weather-in-an-era-of-global-warming-19002010/)


http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/extreme_wx_deaths_thumb.png?w=508&h=435

I think we're coping quite well, thank you.

Thats a hilarious image. The best part of this debate is watching you guys scramble for information whose context in the debate you really don't understand. You merely see a near sighted opportunity to use it to make a point and do not think on how its entire scope and context actually advances the debate.

Here, Yoni posts a graph showing that in the past 50 years weather related fatalities have come way down. Now anyone with a half a brain can make the connection here with that data's time frame and technological advances and government intervention. Namely:

-the advent of weather radar and satellite imaging. Its amazing how people die less when they are able to detect life threatening severe weather with a lead time and are able to react accordingly. An event like the Joplin tornado this year shows what happens when you don't have that warning time.

-National Weather Service actions. In addition to the raw data we're able to acquire now from remote sensing we've also got a government agency that is responsible for analyzing and distributing that information. In the 1930s the warning you got that a tornado was on its way was not broadcast over an EBS crawl on the screen of your TV but rather the roar of said tornado as it completely demolished your home.

Now, these are clear logical reasons for Yonivore's graphs and but what I find especially delicious is the fact that these very programs and technology were put into place and developed by the very same people who Yonivore loves to ridicule on the subject of climate change. So out of one side of his mouth Yonivore wants to use the data to present a skewed view of whether or not climate change is an actual event that will have a large effect while discounting those responsible for that very data out of the other side.

Furthermore, if those Yonivores support would get their way, you would absolutely see a reversal in those numbers. NOAA is facing cuts that are quite drastic and, IMO, the NWS is an agency that absolutely is vital to the interests of the United States and is not a governmental agency you play with lightly. The GOP would love to see them cut down even further. Of course I'm biased, but I think its hard to argue that the mission of the NWS affects nearly everyone in this country to a great degree and is directly responsible for saving lives and saving money.

Keep posting graphs, Yoni. This is fun.

[MannyIsGod]

BTW, Why doesn't Yoni post an image in the same vein but showing economic damage? Maybe because buildings aren't able to be evacuated?

[Yonivore]

Thats a hilarious image. The best part of this debate is watching you guys scramble for information whose context in the debate you really don't understand. You merely see a near sighted opportunity to use it to make a point and do not think on how its entire scope and context actually advances the debate.

Here, Yoni posts a graph showing that in the past 50 years weather related fatalities have come way down. Now anyone with a half a brain can make the connection here with that data's time frame and technological advances and government intervention. Namely:

-the advent of weather radar and satellite imaging. Its amazing how people die less when they are able to detect life threatening severe weather with a lead time and are able to react accordingly. An event like the Joplin tornado this year shows what happens when you don't have that warning time.

-National Weather Service actions. In addition to the raw data we're able to acquire now from remote sensing we've also got a government agency that is responsible for analyzing and distributing that information. In the 1930s the warning you got that a tornado was on its way was not broadcast over an EBS crawl on the screen of your TV but rather the roar of said tornado as it completely demolished your home.

Now, these are clear logical reasons for Yonivore's graphs and but what I find especially delicious is the fact that these very programs and technology were put into place and developed by the very same people who Yonivore loves to ridicule on the subject of climate change. So out of one side of his mouth Yonivore wants to use the data to present a skewed view of whether or not climate change is an actual event that will have a large effect while discounting those responsible for that very data out of the other side.

Furthermore, if those Yonivores support would get their way, you would absolutely see a reversal in those numbers. NOAA is facing cuts that are quite drastic and, IMO, the NWS is an agency that absolutely is vital to the interests of the United States and is not a governmental agency you play with lightly. The GOP would love to see them cut down even further. Of course I'm biased, but I think its hard to argue that the mission of the NWS affects nearly everyone in this country to a great degree and is directly responsible for saving lives and saving money.

Keep posting graphs, Yoni. This is fun.
Calm down; I merely used the graph to suggest, whatever changes are occurring, we're coping pretty well. But, nice rant.

[RandomGuy]

The Amazing Decline in Deaths from Extreme Weather in an Era of Global Warming, 1900–2010 (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/25/the-amazing-decline-in-deaths-from-extreme-weather-in-an-era-of-global-warming-19002010/)


http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/extreme_wx_deaths_thumb.png?w=508&h=435

I think we're coping quite well, thank you.

The irony there, is that the deaths have declined due to the ability to predict weather as we have gathered more data about our planets atmophere.

The same ability to understand our atmosphere leads us to believe we are changing our climate through GH emissions.

Again, you remind me of the conspiracy theorists, who sit around on websites and think of sciency-sounding things to say that you believe supports your thesis, but actually point out how weak your case is, or, in this case actually points out how good the case of the people you are attempting to discredit is.

[Yonivore]

The irony there, is that the deaths have declined due to the ability to predict weather as we have gathered more data about our planets atmophere.

The same ability to understand our atmosphere leads us to believe we are changing our climate through GH emissions.

Again, you remind me of the conspiracy theorists, who sit around on websites and think of sciency-sounding things to say that you believe supports your thesis, but actually point out how weak your case is, or, in this case actually points out how good the case of the people you are attempting to discredit is.
I didn't suggest it supported anything except that we're coping pretty well with extreme weather events, these days.

[RandomGuy]

Calm down; I merely used the graph to suggest, whatever changes are occurring, we're coping pretty well. But, nice rant.

In terms of deaths from extreme weather phenomena, yes.

The economic impacts of another dustbowl in the US central plains, or say, half of Florida underwater, would be something else entirely.

[Yonivore]

In terms of deaths from extreme weather phenomena, yes.

The economic impacts of another dustbowl in the US central plains, or say, half of Florida underwater, would be something else entirely.
I bet mortality would still be lower than the last dustbowl.

[RandomGuy]

I didn't suggest it supported anything except that we're coping pretty well with extreme weather events, these days.

The implication was fairly obvious. "Since we are doing so well coping, we should do nothing to mitigate our GH emissions."

I would ask you not to be disingenuous, but that is like asking a fish to quit swimming.

[RandomGuy]

I bet mortality would still be lower than the last dustbowl.

:lol Last word is yours.

(bows dramatically)

[Yonivore]

In terms of deaths from extreme weather phenomena, yes.

The economic impacts of another dustbowl in the US central plains, or say, half of Florida underwater, would be something else entirely.
That's only because our stuff is more plentiful and more expensive than it was 100 years ago.

We're more prosperous and, God willing Obama isn't reelected, better able to recover.

[Yonivore]

The implication was fairly obvious. "Since we are doing so well coping, we should do nothing to mitigate our GH emissions."

I would ask you not to be disingenuous, but that is like asking a fish to quit swimming.

Also, there's no proof AGCC is causing the weather to be any more severe than it has at various times in the past.

[MannyIsGod]

That's only because our stuff is more plentiful and more expensive than it was 100 years ago.

We're more prosperous and, God willing Obama isn't reelected, better able to recover.

Except thats a lynchpin in AGW arguments. Seriously, you guys should try to understand the arguments sometime. Speaking out of ignorance is not flattering.

[Yonivore]

Except thats a lynchpin in AGW arguments. Seriously, you guys should try to understand the arguments sometime. Speaking out of ignorance is not flattering.
Hurricane Katrina wasn't worse because of anthropogenic global climate change; it was worse because humans chose to build, grow, and prosper on a piece of below-sea level plot of land and then, protect it with inferior, poorly maintained human engineered levees.

The 1900 Storm was more devastating than Katrina, both, in terms of human loss and in terms of damage caused directly by the storm.

The weather isn't getting any more severe than it's ever been. We're just more vulnerable; for several reasons. There's more of us (even though we've managed to figure out how to protect our populations against severe weather events much, much better.), We have more stuff that is costlier while, at the same time being more disposable and less durable, (which -- combined with government flood insurance -- explains why there are idiots that continue to build on geography prone to storm damage and flooding). Of course, I would ask who's the idiot for continuing to give them tax dollars to rebuild.

AGCC is a hoax. Global cooling was the hoax of the 70's. Overpopulation was the hoax of the 80's. AGCC (formerly Global Warming) is hanging on a little longer but, that's only because so many powerful people have so much invested in it.

[MannyIsGod]

Hurricane Katrina wasn't worse because of anthropogenic global climate change; it was worse because humans chose to build, grow, and prosper on a piece of below-sea level plot of land and then, protect it with inferior, poorly maintained human engineered levees.

The 1900 Storm was more devastating than Katrina, both, in terms of human loss and in terms of damage caused directly by the storm.

The weather isn't getting any more severe than it's ever been. We're just more vulnerable; for several reasons. There's more of us (even though we've managed to figure out how to protect our populations against severe weather events much, much better.), We have more stuff that is costlier while, at the same time being more disposable and less durable, (which -- combined with government flood insurance -- explains why there are idiots that continue to build on geography prone to storm damage and flooding). Of course, I would ask who's the idiot for continuing to give them tax dollars to rebuild.

AGCC is a hoax. Global cooling was the hoax of the 70's. Overpopulation was the hoax of the 80's. AGCC (formerly Global Warming) is hanging on a little longer but, that's only because so many powerful people have so much invested in it.

I never said Katrina was worse. Katrina was a catagory 3 storm at landfall so there have been a large number of storms that have been stronger. Your assertion that the 1900 storm is somehow a worse storm is meaningless. A properly placed weak storm can cause far more damage than a strong storm that comes in where there is no semblance of civilization.

You really are severely unfamiliar with AGW theory and instead rely on bad talking points. The global cooling thing is proof of that. Scientists in the 70s - just as they have in every decade since - predicted warming. Its not even close.

I don't know much about over population and I see no reason to bring it into the debate here at all. Strawman and red herring all abound.

Whether or not the weather is getting more severe is debatable but you once again show your ignorance with the theory here as well. AGW predictions regarding the severity of weather aren't concerned with what happens in this decade. In any event, your opinion is fairly meaningless regarding the amount of severe weather and whether or not an increase that may or may not exist can be attributed to AGW. I prefer the opinions of those who actually understand the subject material and whose research into these questions does not involve visiting right wing websites to get the latest talking points.

Like I said, its fun watching you flail. Once again, if you actually cared you'd educated yourself and remove the ignorance.

[Yonivore]

I never said Katrina was worse. Katrina was a catagory 3 storm at landfall so there have been a large number of storms that have been stronger. Your assertion that the 1900 storm is somehow a worse storm is meaningless. A properly placed weak storm can cause far more damage than a strong storm that comes in where there is no semblance of civilization.

You really are severely unfamiliar with AGW theory and instead rely on bad talking points. The global cooling thing is proof of that. Scientists in the 70s - just as they have in every decade since - predicted warming. Its not even close.

I don't know much about over population and I see no reason to bring it into the debate here at all. Strawman and red herring all abound.

Whether or not the weather is getting more severe is debatable but you once again show your ignorance with the theory here as well. AGW predictions regarding the severity of weather aren't concerned with what happens in this decade. In any event, your opinion is fairly meaningless regarding the amount of severe weather and whether or not an increase that may or may not exist can be attributed to AGW. I prefer the opinions of those who actually understand the subject material and whose research into these questions does not involve visiting right wing websites to get the latest talking points.

Like I said, its fun watching you flail. Once again, if you actually cared you'd educated yourself and remove the ignorance.
So educate me. What's the end game.

If we successfully stopped all man-induced effects to the climate would it stop changing? I think you and I both agree the answer to that is no. The geologic record definitively demonstrates this planet will become both much warmer and much cooler than it currently is -- despite anything we do.

All the "flailing about" by the AGCC community is doing is getting a bunch of governments to burden already struggling economies with measures that are absolutely meaningless in the face of a natural course of events that will obliterate any affects humans could ever have on something as astronomical as global climate.

If you want to control the earths climate, you're going to have to learn to control the sun's behavior and the orbits of both our planet and the moon; your also going to have to learn to control plate tectonics and the Earth's volcanoes and ocean currents. Those are the principle determinants in global climate.

What man contributes to our atmosphere, and then, what those contributions do to affect global climate, are minuscule when compared to the effects of our place in the universe at large, our place in the solar system, and the planets natural geologic and atmospheric composition.

And, I do believe THAT is settled science.

[DarrinS]

P8tfuBIutLI

[MannyIsGod]

So educate me. What's the end game.

If we successfully stopped all man-induced effects to the climate would it stop changing? I think you and I both agree the answer to that is no. The geologic record definitively demonstrates this planet will become both much warmer and much cooler than it currently is -- despite anything we do.


Educated yourself, Yoni. The IPCC reports are readily available. There are numerous books that are accessible by anyone with a modest understanding of science. I doubt you're even going to take the time to read them, but if you'd like some recommendations I'd start off with some of David Archers books. He's written two fantastic easily accessible books on climate change. The Long Thaw and this one:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0521732557/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=1405140399&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=1KASSH0CFFAA4H14AFXT

Now, as for your question, its poorly thought out. We as humans, all have limited lifespans and eventually will die. However, do you use that as an excuse to pollute your body with toxins? Do you roll around in asbestos because, well you're going to die anyway?




All the "flailing about" by the AGCC community is doing is getting a bunch of governments to burden already struggling economies with measures that are absolutely meaningless in the face of a natural course of events that will obliterate any affects humans could ever have on something as astronomical as global climate.


Completely ignores that AGW will have costs in the future that will outweigh costs to mitigate now. You are obviously not qualified to make distinctions in what or what is not meaningless but you chose to continue to make those judgments out of ignorance even when those who ARE qualified to make those calls tell you otherwise. Its your choice to keep your head burried in the sand and you are more than welcome to continue.



If you want to control the earths climate, you're going to have to learn to control the sun's behavior and the orbits of both our planet and the moon; your also going to have to learn to control plate tectonics and the Earth's volcanoes and ocean currents. Those are the principle determinants in global climate.



No one has said anything about controlling the climate. Do you notice how nearly even other sentence you type out on the subject is one rife with ignorance?



What man contributes to our atmosphere, and then, what those contributions do to affect global climate, are minuscule when compared to the effects of our place in the universe at large, our place in the solar system, and the planets natural geologic and atmospheric composition.

And, I do believe THAT is settled science.

Miniscule? Absolutely not. For example, the ozone hole. Had the world not undertaken measures in curbing CFC emissions what part of the system would somehow change the fact that we were all going to be exposed to a lot more UV?

I'm not sure why you think that humans are incapable of changing things on a global scale. From extinctions (how many passenger pigeons have you seen lately? A bird that used to turn day into night is now gone), to the CFCs I just mentioned, to deforestation (do you think the North American continent looks much like it did when humans first got here?), to CO2 that argument simply holds no merrit.

It absolutely is settled science that we can alter our globe in dramatic fashion. One need only look at humanities history.

In any event, as I've said before, I don't really care much for the arguments that center over the political ramifications of climate change. I don't think by any means humans are in danger of extinction. I simply think its going to be expensive as hell and its going to seriously alter climate patterns around the Earth. You don't increase the energy in a system by that much and expect small things.

[DarrinS]

It absolutely is settled science that we can alter our globe in dramatic fashion. One need only look at humanities history.



1 degree in 100 years = dramatic?

If you say so.

[DarrinS]

I wonder what the measurement error bars are on the 100 year global temperature anomaly?

[Yonivore]

Now, as for your question, its poorly thought out. We as humans, all have limited lifespans and eventually will die. However, do you use that as an excuse to pollute your body with toxins? Do you roll around in asbestos because, well you're going to die anyway?
You're conflating pollution with climate change. They are not necessarily related. CO2 is not a pollutant (except according to the EPA) and, yet, it is the chief target of global climate change alarmists.

I'm firmly in favor of pollution control. What I think is folly, is the suggestion we can have any appreciable, long-term affect on global climate.


Completely ignores that AGW will have costs in the future that will outweigh costs to mitigate now. You are obviously not qualified to make distinctions in what or what is not meaningless but you chose to continue to make those judgments out of ignorance even when those who ARE qualified to make those calls tell you otherwise. Its your choice to keep your head burried in the sand and you are more than welcome to continue.
I think that's debatable and, is the chief point of contention between all the people, on both sides of the argument.

So far, the AGCC alarmists' models have failed to adequately predict the amount of climate change, just over the past 10 years. Why should anyone believe their century-out prediction?

Secondly, if you continue to retard economic expansion, in the name of climate control, you will ultimately destroy an economy that will force society to revert to less costly and more damaging forms of energy. I would suggest the harm done by economy-crushing regulations do more short-term harm than any crystal ball predictions made by the IPCC or Algore.


No one has said anything about controlling the climate. Do you notice how nearly even other sentence you type out on the subject is one rife with ignorance?
Is not the attempt to effect climate by regulating the CO2 out of humanity? I call that climate control.


Miniscule? Absolutely not. For example, the ozone hole. Had the world not undertaken measures in curbing CFC emissions what part of the system would somehow change the fact that we were all going to be exposed to a lot more UV?
Ozone holes come and go. Now we're going to deprive asthmatics their inhalers to have a negligible affect on that. Sad.


I'm not sure why you think that humans are incapable of changing things on a global scale. From extinctions (how many passenger pigeons have you seen lately? A bird that used to turn day into night is now gone), to the CFCs I just mentioned, to deforestation (do you think the North American continent looks much like it did when humans first got here?), to CO2 that argument simply holds no merrit.
And, yet the climate is not appreciably different than it has been in years, decades, centuries, eons before. It's been both colder and warmer and it will continue to cycle through those extremes despite anything we do.


It absolutely is settled science that we can alter our globe in dramatic fashion. One need only look at humanities history.
Let's stick with global climate, shall we? I don't disagree man can cause global changes.


In any event, as I've said before, I don't really care much for the arguments that center over the political ramifications of climate change. I don't think by any means humans are in danger of extinction. I simply think its going to be expensive as hell and its going to seriously alter climate patterns around the Earth. You don't increase the energy in a system by that much and expect small things.
Isn't the sun eventually going to start expanding, before it dies? Won't that have more affect on our planet than whether or not my car has a catalytic converter?

But, about those political ramifications. What about the countries that are ignoring your AGCC alarmism? China? India? The third world where eating and living pretty much take precedence.

[Yonivore]

I wonder what the measurement error bars are on the 100 year global temperature anomaly?
Darrin raises a good point and a way for you to demonstrate, in simple terms, the nature of the problem as you see it.

Three questions.

1) If we do nothing, what do AGCC models predict the average global temperature would be in 2100?

2) If we implemented every measure recommended by AGCC proponents, what do their models predict the average global temperature would be in 2100?

3) What is the margin of error on the AGCC predictions. Both of them.

I'm sure these figures exist in your vast compendium of AGCC literature.

[RandomGuy]

Also, there's no proof AGCC is causing the weather to be any more severe than it has at various times in the past.

Storms? Maybe.

Droughts, floods, and changes in participation patterns, it would seem so.

Either way, the fact that fewer people have died due to extreme weather events hardly supports your statement. If you think it does, you are, again, being less than honest or cognizant of the implications of that data.

[RandomGuy]

Hurricane Katrina wasn't worse because of anthropogenic global climate change; it was worse because humans chose to build, grow, and prosper on a piece of below-sea level plot of land and then, protect it with inferior, poorly maintained human engineered levees.

The 1900 Storm was more devastating than Katrina, both, in terms of human loss and in terms of damage caused directly by the storm.

The weather isn't getting any more severe than it's ever been. We're just more vulnerable; for several reasons. There's more of us (even though we've managed to figure out how to protect our populations against severe weather events much, much better.), We have more stuff that is costlier while, at the same time being more disposable and less durable, (which -- combined with government flood insurance -- explains why there are idiots that continue to build on geography prone to storm damage and flooding). Of course, I would ask who's the idiot for continuing to give them tax dollars to rebuild.

AGCC is a hoax. Global cooling was the hoax of the 70's. Overpopulation was the hoax of the 80's. AGCC (formerly Global Warming) is hanging on a little longer but, that's only because so many powerful people have so much invested in it.

"AGCC is a hoax."

You yourself posted evidence that our understanding of weather and climate systems has improved, and that understanding has led the majority of scientists studying the topic to believe that we are markedly affecting our climate.

The fact that the people who believe it is a hoax can't produce peer-reviewed science proving otherwise, and that people like you can't put together a logical or honest thought to save their lives says volumes about that claim.

If your case is so strong, why do you have to resort to bad logic, and shaky data?

[MannyIsGod]

Darrin raises a good point and a way for you to demonstrate, in simple terms, the nature of the problem as you see it.

Three questions.

1) If we do nothing, what do AGCC models predict the average global temperature would be in 2100?

2) If we implemented every measure recommended by AGCC proponents, what do their models predict the average global temperature would be in 2100?

3) What is the margin of error on the AGCC predictions. Both of them.

I'm sure these figures exist in your vast compendium of AGCC literature.

Of course they do. Very easy to find too. When are you planning to post them? Darrin keeps posing the question of what the margin of error is on the temps and I'm sure he's capable of finding out.

You guys have questions and the ability to use the internet. Answer them.

[MannyIsGod]

I'll fully admit, if we're looking at a time scale of 5 billion years then we definitely should be more worried about the death of the Sun as opposed to AGW.

[RandomGuy]

Secondly, if you continue to retard economic expansion, in the name of climate control, you will ultimately destroy an economy that will force society to revert to less costly and more damaging forms of energy. I would suggest the harm done by economy-crushing regulations do more short-term harm than any crystal ball predictions made by the IPCC or Algore.


You can suggest that.

You can also suggest that magic unicorns will fart pixie dust to make everybody vote Republican.

Whether or not you can prove that is another matter.

I reject the assertion that instituting CO2 controls will harm the economy.

Further, I can, and have, made the case it will help the economy.

Regardless of whether AGCC exists, the mitigation of the risk will end up helping the very economy you want to grow.

That makes the scientific debate moot.

[MannyIsGod]

How noisy is the temp record? I don't know, what does it mean when multiple independent analysis and all current tracking methods show the same thing?

[DarrinS]

http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/uploads/media/Frank_Uncertainties_Temperature.pdf

[Yonivore]

Of course they do. Very easy to find too. When are you planning to post them? Darrin keeps posing the question of what the margin of error is on the temps and I'm sure he's capable of finding out.

You guys have questions and the ability to use the internet. Answer them.
Why don't you just say you don't know?

If the values to those three questions supported your position that AGCC was something we should worry about, to the point of implementing economically ruinous policies, you'd post them.

Once again, I will start believing Anthropogenic Global Climate Change is a crisis when those who say Anthropogenic Global Climate Change start acting like it is a crisis.

[MannyIsGod]

because I do know. I don't care enough if you believe to link every answer to some who is obviously lazy. Darrin himself has linked the IPCC reports. All you have to do is read.

[Yonivore]

because I do know. I don't care enough if you believe to link every answer to some who is obviously lazy. Darrin himself has linked the IPCC reports. All you have to do is read.
But, I'm not trying to support your believe it is imperative that we engage in draconian controls to change our affect on the climate. You are.

Those are three simple values that would tend to support or refute your view. If the two first values are within the margin of error, the third value, you've got no case.

And, your case only grows stronger with every degree outside and above the margin of error value #1 is, over value #2.

I don't care to hunt for them. A few years ago, we were implored to adopt the Kyoto Protocol when the proponents openly admitted the benefit was minimal, somewhere in the neighborhood of .5 degrees centigrade, over the next 50 or 100 years.

Maybe you can't find the answer in all of your jumble of IPCC model adjustments, University of East Anglia e-mails, and Algore Powerpoint slides.

They're simple questions.

[MannyIsGod]

Well, I never said anything about draconian measures. Thats your thing. Those issues have all been discussed and they certainly do not disprove anything by any stretch of the imagination but you wouldn't know because you've never actually bothered to research it.

And that ultimately, Yoni, is my point. My point is that your opinion on the matter is one born out of ignorance and you've proven that many times in this thread. Many of the answers are provided in this very thread but you and others on here would prefer to simply post talking point after talking point after talking point that have all been refuted for years if not decades in an effort to keep your position as opposed to actually reading on the subject.

When someone like you displays such outright laziness and conformation bias there is absolutely no need for me to go digging for the exact places in these studies and documents where your answer lies because the moment I do you'll simply move on to something else and never bother to give the actual data its due attention. I've done the dance with Wild Cobra and Darrin and now you and at some point I just refuse to care enough to continue to look for data that simply gets ignored. I'm much more concerned with the beliefs and views of my peers as opposed to people on the internet who have made up their minds without ever actually taking an honest view on the science involved.

I view your intellectual laziness with a large amount of pity but I also realize its not my responsibility to dig your head out of the sand for you. Not when the information is so easily and readily accessible.

If someone who I know honestly cares ever asks for information in this thread who has differing views - say El Nono or Winehole - I would be MORE than happy to provide them with data and have a reasonable conversation as to why things are what they are. I know with people like that even if they do not come to my conclusions they will give the data an honest view.

[MannyIsGod]

And "hunt" for them is laughable. Google is hard to use. You don't care to hunt for them yet making that post took far more keystrokes than finding the IPCC reports would have.

I realize asking you to read in order to make an informed opinion is asking a lot, though. That type of mindset really says a whole hell of a lot about a person, IMO.

[Borat Sagyidev]

This really has no business in a political forum. Wild Cobra and Yonivore are fucking idiots and they have no place in life other than to suck down shitty corporate products.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/The_green_house_effect.svg
Greenhouse gas


A greenhouse gas (sometimes abbreviated GHG) is a gas in an atmosphere that absorbs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absorption_%28electromagnetic_radiation%29) and emits (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_%28electromagnetic_radiation%29) radiation within the thermal infrared (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_infrared) range. This process is the fundamental cause of the greenhouse effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#cite_note-IPCC_AR4-SYR-0) The primary greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_atmosphere) are water vapor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_vapor), carbon dioxide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide), methane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane), nitrous oxide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrous_oxide), and ozone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone). In the Solar System, the atmospheres of Venus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus), Mars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_mars), and Titan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan%27s_atmosphere) also contain gases that cause greenhouse effects. Greenhouse gases greatly affect the temperature of the Earth; without them, Earth's surface would be on average about 33 °C (59 °F)[note 1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#cite_note-1) colder than at present.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#cite_note-2)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#cite_note-3)[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#cite_note-h2o-4)
Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution), the burning of fossil fuels has contributed to the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from 280ppm to 390ppm, despite the uptake of a large portion of the emissions through various natural "sinks" involved in the carbon cycle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle).[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#cite_note-cdiac-5)[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#cite_note-6) Carbon dioxide emissions come from combustion of carbonaceous fuels such as coal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal), oil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil), and natural gas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas). CO2 is a product of ideal, stoichiometric (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoichiometry) combustion of carbon, although few combustion processes are ideal, and burning coal for example, also produces carbon monoxide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_monoxide).[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#cite_note-7) Since 2000 fossil fuel related carbon emissions have equaled or exceeded the IPCC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC)'s "A2 scenario (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Report_on_Emissions_Scenarios)", except for small dips during two global recessions.

[DarrinS]

This really has no business in a political forum. Wild Cobra and Yonivore are fucking idiots and they have no place in life other than to suck down shitty corporate products.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas




Uh, no one denies that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Thanks for playing.

[Yonivore]

And "hunt" for them is laughable. Google is hard to use. You don't care to hunt for them yet making that post took far more keystrokes than finding the IPCC reports would have.

I realize asking you to read in order to make an informed opinion is asking a lot, though. That type of mindset really says a whole hell of a lot about a person, IMO.
Actually, this forum does not work well when one stops for days to research the answer to a question to which another poster claims to know the answer.

Usually, to keep the conversation moving, the facts are presented and discussed.

If you can't do that, fine. There's no shame.

I'm not interested enough in refuting your claim to spend an inordinate amount of time trying to support your claim and then, come back, after my research to find the thread and pick the conversation back up. Indeed, this forum moves along topics fairly quickly.

Your biggest liability are people like Algore and Barack Obama who keep claiming every weather event and global malady is due to global warming except when it contradicts that claim and, then, it's just weather.

Just the other day, the President blamed Rick Perry's skepticism of global warming for the fires in Texas. How fucking ignorant is that?

It also doesn't help that many of your principle "scientists" in the GPCC world have been caught falsifying, fabricating, or hiding relevant facts. So, you'll excuse me for not diving into a pile of "scientific papers" that may not even be accurate or good science.

Again, what do AGCC proponents predict the 2100 temperature will be with and without control measures and what are the margins of error for both?

Seems like a pretty straightforward question.

[MannyIsGod]

Its a very straightforward question. The answer is a range of temperatures given in the IPCCs reports. You should give that report a look over.

I'm not sure what Obama has said so I can't comment on that.

But I would like to discuss something else. I like how you say that MY biggest liability is the speeches of others. What do I have to gain out of you believing AGW? Obviously I believe there to be wide societal gains if people were actually to acknowledge what scientists are saying but outside of that I don't really care. And outside of that, to be quite frank, I stand to gain a lot out of an environment where forecasting and metorlogical and climatalogical risk analysis are more important and widely sought after commodities. In a world with more extreme weather and climate phenomenon the skillset that I am building will be more valuable.

I have no stake in anyone on this forum believing me, Yoni. I don't really have stake in most of the world believing me. The places I will seek employment in the private industry very much believing the data regarding climate change. Risk analysis in the private sector is very much taking notice. Ask any meteorolgist/climatoligist employed in the insurance industry. Ask those employed by the military.

You're right that this forum doesn't function well for you when no one answers your questions. I don't really care much about how well it works for you, however. When you add to the discussions the way others do, then I might. You know that you're not a very good poster and you're little epiphany thread proves as much.

[DarrinS]

I don't know why people keep pointing to the IPCC as if it is the gatekeeper of scientific knowledge.

There are plenty of good scientists out there, in both advocate and skeptic camps, but the IPCC should be disbanded. They and Al Gore are becoming an embarrassment to their cause and aren't really helping to get any new "converts".

[Yonivore]

Its a very straightforward question. The answer is a range of temperatures given in the IPCCs reports. You should give that report a look over.
So, what are the ranges? C'mon make a stand with your scientists.


I'm not sure what Obama has said so I can't comment on that.
It was only mentioned in the context of other AGCC proponents being idiots and doing your cause no service.


But I would like to discuss something else. I like how you say that MY biggest liability is the speeches of others. What do I have to gain out of you believing AGW? Obviously I believe there to be wide societal gains if people were actually to acknowledge what scientists are saying but outside of that I don't really care. And outside of that, to be quite frank, I stand to gain a lot out of an environment where forecasting and metorlogical and climatalogical risk analysis are more important and widely sought after commodities. In a world with more extreme weather and climate phenomenon the skillset that I am building will be more valuable.

I have no stake in anyone on this forum believing me, Yoni. I don't really have stake in most of the world believing me. The places I will seek employment in the private industry very much believing the data regarding climate change. Risk analysis in the private sector is very much taking notice. Ask any meteorolgist/climatoligist employed in the insurance industry. Ask those employed by the military.
But, do you have a stake in the rest of the world believing in AGCC? That seems to be the argument; not whether or not MannyIsGod is able to make a compelling argument but, whether or not the rest the the AGCC proponents have so thoroughly shot themselves in the foot with all the hyperventilating, wrong assumptions, faulty modeling, disingenuous assertions, obfuscations, lies, and Flim Flamming (That's for Algore).

So, you may not have a stake but, you're lumped in with the rest of the kooks pushing a theory that is looking less and less credible by the day.

Makes you look stupid by association.


You're right that this forum doesn't function well for you when no one answers your questions. I don't really care much about how well it works for you, however. When you add to the discussions the way others do, then I might. You know that you're not a very good poster and you're little epiphany thread proves as much.
So, why even engage me in a thread?

[ElNono]

I don't know why people keep pointing to the IPCC as if it is the gatekeeper of scientific knowledge.

There are plenty of good scientists out there, in both advocate and skeptic camps, but the IPCC should be disbanded. They and Al Gore are becoming an embarrassment to their cause and aren't really helping to get any new "converts".

Why should they be disbanded? That's like saying the CATO institute should be disbanded for publishing reports.

Then you would be crying censorship!

[MannyIsGod]

So, what are the ranges? C'mon make a stand with your scientists.



:lol Make a stand? Look up the report. Its not hard. You can repeat this a million times but I'm not going to pull it for you



It was only mentioned in the context of other AGCC proponents being idiots and doing your cause no service.


You miss the point. Again.




But, do you have a stake in the rest of the world believing in AGCC? That seems to be the argument; not whether or not MannyIsGod is able to make a compelling argument but, whether or not the rest the the AGCC proponents have so thoroughly shot themselves in the foot with all the hyperventilating, wrong assumptions, faulty modeling, disingenuous assertions, obfuscations, lies, and Flim Flamming (That's for Algore).

So, you may not have a stake but, you're lumped in with the rest of the kooks pushing a theory that is looking less and less credible by the day.


You do a really job listening/reading. I just told you how they're not losing credibility and you come back with this. Its amazing how you extract things that are the opposite of what I just said.



Makes you look stupid by association.

So, why even engage me in a thread?

Entertainment value, Yoni. I mean I literally LOLed when you said I'm the one who looks stupid by association here.

[MannyIsGod]

I don't know why people keep pointing to the IPCC as if it is the gatekeeper of scientific knowledge.

There are plenty of good scientists out there, in both advocate and skeptic camps, but the IPCC should be disbanded. They and Al Gore are becoming an embarrassment to their cause and aren't really helping to get any new "converts".

:lol

Do you know what the IPCC reports are? They're pretty much just collections of the relevant studies.

SMH.

[Yonivore]

:lol Make a stand? Look up the report. Its not hard. You can repeat this a million times but I'm not going to pull it for you
Okay; you're full of shit then.


You miss the point. Again.
You're missing the point in the egocentric mind of yours.


You do a really job listening/reading. I just told you how they're not losing credibility and you come back with this. Its amazing how you extract things that are the opposite of what I just said.
They lose credibility (and you along with them) every time an assumption turns out to be wrong. Especially when we keep getting told the science is settled.

The only reason I jumped back in this thread was because, apparently (and, I can't claim to have been following the AGCC religion for the past decade), average global temperatures aren't where we were told, by the AGCC nuts, they would be ten years ago. So, presto zingo, they come up with the excuse that the oceans are hiding all that extra heat.

It's just too hokey. You can wave website, IPCC panels, white papers, etc... all day long but, they continue to miss the mark on even short-term assumptions, who the hell is going to believe them on the long-range predictions?

We're told polar bears are being killed off by global warming -- a polar bear sitting on a floating piece of ice has become the international symbol for the AGCC religion -- only to learn polar bear population is up, dramatically!

Kilimanjaro snow cap. Oops. Not global warming...


Entertainment value, Yoni. I mean I literally LOLed when you said I'm the one who looks stupid by association here.
Glad to entertain but, you do look stupid, by association, by agreeing with Al Carbon-Footprint Gore.

[DarrinS]

:lol

Do you know what the IPCC reports are? They're pretty much just collections of the relevant studies.

SMH.

:lol

[MannyIsGod]

Okay; you're full of shit then.


You're missing the point in the egocentric mind of yours.


They lose credibility (and you along with them) every time an assumption turns out to be wrong. Especially when we keep getting told the science is settled.

The only reason I jumped back in this thread was because, apparently (and, I can't claim to have been following the AGCC religion for the past decade), average global temperatures aren't where we were told, by the AGCC nuts, they would be ten years ago. So, presto zingo, they come up with the excuse that the oceans are hiding all that extra heat.

It's just too hokey. You can wave website, IPCC panels, white papers, etc... all day long but, they continue to miss the mark on even short-term assumptions, who the hell is going to believe them on the long-range predictions?

We're told polar bears are being killed off by global warming -- a polar bear sitting on a floating piece of ice has become the international symbol for the AGCC religion -- only to learn polar bear population is up, dramatically!

Kilimanjaro snow cap. Oops. Not global warming...


Glad to entertain but, you do look stupid, by association, by agreeing with Al Carbon-Footprint Gore.

You have an extremely poor understanding of AGW. Every post you make just proves this even more.

[MannyIsGod]

:lol

:lmao

[Yonivore]

You have an extremely poor understanding of AGW. Every post you make just proves this even more.
No, I think you have a poor understanding of politics and are just another dupe, sucked in by the religion.

I understand AGW just fine.

EPA’s Absurd Defense of Its Greenhouse Gas Regulations (http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/40640)


The Environmental Protection Agency, EPA's own court documents as evidence of just how burdensome and unrealistic the EPA's stated objectives are

The court document.

http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/tailoring-rule-case.pdf


EPA studied and considered the breadth and depth of the projected administrative burdens in the Tailoring Rule. There, EPA explained that immediately applying the literal PSD statutory threshold of 100/250 tpy to greenhouse gas emissions, when coupled with the “any increase” trigger for modifications…would result in annual PSD permit applications submitted to State and local permitting agencies to increase nationwide from 280 to over 81,000 per year, a 300-fold increase…Following a comprehensive analysis, EPA estimated that these additional PSD permit applications would require State permitting authorities to add 10,000 full-time employees and incur additional costs of $1.5 billion per year just to process these applications, a 130-fold increase in the costs to States of administering the PSD program…Sources needing operating permits would jump from 14,700 to 6.1 million as a result of application of Title V to greenhouse gases, a 400-fold increase….Hiring the 230,000 full-time employees necessary to produce the 1.4 billion work hours required to address the actual increase in permitting functions would result in an increase in Title V administration costs of $21 billion per year.
Power plants will have to upgrade or close. This throw thousands into unemployment and make us more dependent on foreign sources of energy because, face it, all this "green" energy isn't quite panning out, is it?

We simply cannot afford it.

Without conclusively demonstrating this planet will be on fire in a hundred years, without intervention, proponents of burdensome regulations are saddling the Americans of today with costs that aren't justified.

[Wild Cobra]

:lmao

I specifically said outgoing LW radiation in each post and somehow you still didn't get it but you understand EVERYTHING sooooooooooooooooo well. You're amazing.
I was specifically referring to this asshole:

So yes, in fact, seeing that there has been a drop off in outgoing LW radiation in the part of the spectrum CO2 covers is proof that CO2 is indeed preventing energy from leaving the earth's system. Those study's don't attempt to say what is happening before then.
Don't take any pissy thing you think you can to discredit me. Reversing your words are making you look foolish.

Again...

I was referring to your statement that specified the CO2 part of the LW spectra.

Stop arguing against things I didn't say. It clearly makes you look the fool, and you will only convinced another fool that you are right.

[Wild Cobra]

Cooling in the upper atmosphere, while the lower atmosphere warms would be consistant with GH action in the lower atmosphere absorbing more heat.

It can, but I am not making an argument either way. Several factors play into the upper atmosphere, just as the lower atmosphere. It will be consistent in most cases, but not all.


Your statement reminds me of our local moon hoaxer when presented with something he finds inconvenient, pulling something out of his ass and saying "this stinky thing is plausible to me, so I can discard your line of reasoning/fact out of hand".

Then you also didn't understand what I was saying.

Why can't you or Manny ask for me to elaborate what I mean rather than dismiss your lack of comprehension as my lack of comprehension?


"the reasons can be several". Then outline them, in order of probability.
Why? How about proof the one concept Manny stated is the only one. I already indicated why the CO2 part of the spectra cannot reliable determine surface temperature by satellite. I only need one example to show Manny's explanation is not accurate,.

[Wild Cobra]

Factually incorrect.

Some satellites use this specifically, but not all, from what I read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements


Microwave Sensing Units are not the only types of sensors used by satellites.

Manny has been saying longwave radiation, because infrared sensors are also a method of surface temperature measurement. These infrared sensors are, I presume, why the wikipedia entry specifies " various wavelength bands".

Hope this helps.
The infared sensors are only good looking at the surface for water. That is because they have a vibrational spectra that is nearly 100% water to see. Other LW methods to determine surface temperatures simple do not have the necessary accurate from the distance a satellite is at. To accomplish it at the oxygen vibrational frequencies, a stereoscopic method is used with high resolution imagery, but this is still less accurate than we need for any accurate analysis.

Back to Manny's statement of using the CO2 part of the LW spectra to determine surface temperature rising. He is correct in that the earths energy increases if the outgoing longwave decreases. But that is assuming in incoming longwave remains the same. If the earth warms or cools is not determined by if the outgoing longwave decreases or increases, but if it increases or decreases relative to the incoming solar energy.

Then back to his statement. He specified the CO2 part of the spectra. The entire spectra has to be used. The atmosphere even emits shortwave spectra. Even though that is minimal, it exists and must be part of the equation.

Consider this. Did he make a Freudian slip...

It doesn't matter how much is emitted and remitted because all that matters is how much net energy leaves the system. All that matters in the end is to prove that CO2 is responsible for less net energy leaving the system.
This is how modern AGW people think. The truth doesn't matter. Only framing CO2 as the culprit matters.

You simply cannot prove CO2 is the culprit. Even with looking at the CO2 part of the LW spectra with satellites. The only CO2 you will accurately see if that in the uppermost atmosphere. It will radiate at its spectra based on what ever the temperature of the Nitrogen, Oxygen, and Argon influencing it sets it's temperature to. It is foolish to think that is an indication of the CO2 influence to the atmospheric window.

[Wild Cobra]

Your assertion that the 1900 storm is somehow a worse storm is meaningless.
Consider this. In 1900, we had almost no warning of storms. We see storms now with satellites that we would have never known existed 100+ years ago.

[RandomGuy]

No, I think you have a poor understanding of politics and are just another dupe, sucked in by the religion.

I understand AGW just fine.

EPA’s Absurd Defense of Its Greenhouse Gas Regulations (http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/40640)

The court document.

http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/tailoring-rule-case.pdf

Power plants will have to upgrade or close. This throw thousands into unemployment and make us more dependent on foreign sources of energy because, face it, all this "green" energy isn't quite panning out, is it?

We simply cannot afford it.

Without conclusively demonstrating this planet will be on fire in a hundred years, without intervention, proponents of burdensome regulations are saddling the Americans of today with costs that aren't justified.

Pfft. You wouldn't know what good science was if it came up and dick-slapped you.

Intellectual dishonesty, poor critical thinking, and a total willingness to believe anything that seems to support your preconcieved notions. This is how I normally describe people like Cosmored, who suck up every bit on some conspiracy theory website as dogma.

The only "religion" here is your dogmatic adherence to skepticism. There is a vast gulf between legitimate, honest debate about science, and what you do here and elsewhere.

The only dupe is the one who somehow thinks that the people with the most to lose, the energy companies, are the ones giving you the unvarnished truth.

The fact that skeptics of AGW have as one of their main proponents, a guy who swore up and down that cigarrettes don't cause cancer while on the payroll of tobacco companies, says you don't understand the politics as well as you think you do.

[RandomGuy]

The American 'allergy' to global warming: Why?


..NEW YORK (AP) — Tucked between treatises on algae and prehistoric turquoise beads, the study on page 460 of a long-ago issue of the U.S. journal Science drew little attention.

"I don't think there were any newspaper articles about it or anything like that," the author recalls.

But the headline on the 1975 report was bold: "Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?" And this article that coined the term may have marked the last time a mention of "global warming" didn't set off an instant outcry of angry denial.

___

EDITOR'S NOTE: Climate change has already provoked debate in a U.S. presidential campaign barely begun. An Associated Press journalist draws on decades of climate reporting to offer a retrospective and analysis on global warming and the undying urge to deny.

___

In the paper, Columbia University geoscientist Wally Broecker calculated how much carbon dioxide would accumulate in the atmosphere in the coming 35 years, and how temperatures consequently would rise. His numbers have proven almost dead-on correct. Meanwhile, other powerful evidence poured in over those decades, showing the "greenhouse effect" is real and is happening. And yet resistance to the idea among many in the U.S. appears to have hardened.

What's going on?

"The desire to disbelieve deepens as the scale of the threat grows," concludes economist-ethicist Clive Hamilton.

He and others who track what they call "denialism" find that its nature is changing in America, last redoubt of climate naysayers. It has taken on a more partisan, ideological tone. Polls find a widening Republican-Democratic gap on climate. Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry even accuses climate scientists of lying for money. Global warming looms as a debatable question in yet another U.S. election campaign.

From his big-windowed office overlooking the wooded campus of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y., Broecker has observed this deepening of the desire to disbelieve.

"The opposition by the Republicans has gotten stronger and stronger," the 79-year-old "grandfather of climate science" said in an interview. "But, of course, the push by the Democrats has become stronger and stronger, and as it has become a more important issue, it has become more polarized."

The solution: "Eventually it'll become damned clear that the Earth is warming and the warming is beyond anything we have experienced in millions of years, and people will have to admit..." He stopped and laughed.

"Well, I suppose they could say God is burning us up."

The basic physics of anthropogenic — manmade — global warming has been clear for more than a century, since researchers proved that carbon dioxide traps heat. Others later showed CO2 was building up in the atmosphere from the burning of coal, oil and other fossil fuels. Weather stations then filled in the rest: Temperatures were rising.

"As a physicist, putting CO2 into the air is good enough for me. It's the physics that convinces me," said veteran Cambridge University researcher Liz Morris. But she said work must go on to refine climate data and computer climate models, "to convince the deeply reluctant organizers of this world."

The reluctance to rein in carbon emissions revealed itself early on.

In the 1980s, as scientists studied Greenland's buried ice for clues to past climate, upgraded their computer models peering into the future, and improved global temperature analyses, the fossil-fuel industries were mobilizing for a campaign to question the science.

By 1988, NASA climatologist James Hansen could appear before a U.S. Senate committee and warn that global warming had begun, a dramatic announcement later confirmed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a new, U.N.-sponsored network of hundreds of international scientists.

But when Hansen was called back to testify in 1989, the White House of President George H.W. Bush edited this government scientist's remarks to water down his conclusions, and Hansen declined to appear.

That was the year U.S. oil and coal interests formed the Global Climate Coalition to combat efforts to shift economies away from their products. Britain's Royal Society and other researchers later determined that oil giant Exxon disbursed millions of dollars annually to think tanks and a handful of supposed experts to sow doubt about the facts.

In 1997, two years after the IPCC declared the "balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate," the world's nations gathered in Kyoto, Japan, to try to do something about it. The naysayers were there as well.

"The statement that we'll have continued warming with an increase in CO2 is opinion, not fact," oil executive William F. O'Keefe of the Global Climate Coalition insisted to reporters in Kyoto.

The late Bert Bolin, then IPCC chief, despaired.

"I'm not really surprised at the political reaction," the Swedish climatologist told The Associated Press. "I am surprised at the way some of the scientific findings have been rejected in an unscientific manner."

In fact, a document emerged years later showing that the industry coalition's own scientific team had quietly advised it that the basic science of global warming was indisputable.

Kyoto's final agreement called for limited rollbacks in greenhouse emissions. The United States didn't even join in that. And by 2000, the CO2 built up in the atmosphere to 369 parts per million — just 4 ppm less than Broecker predicted — compared with 280 ppm before the industrial revolution.

Global temperatures rose as well, by 0.6 degrees C (1.1 degrees F) in the 20th century. And the mercury just kept rising. The decade 2000-2009 was the warmest on record, and 2010 and 2005 were the warmest years on record.

Satellite and other monitoring, meanwhile, found nights were warming faster than days, and winters more than summers, and the upper atmosphere was cooling while the lower atmosphere warmed — all clear signals greenhouse warming was at work, not some other factor.

The impact has been widespread.

An authoritative study this August reported that hundreds of species are retreating toward the poles, egrets showing up in southern England, American robins in Eskimo villages. Some, such as polar bears, have nowhere to go. Eventual large-scale extinctions are feared.

The heat is cutting into wheat yields, nurturing beetles that are destroying northern forests, attracting malarial mosquitoes to higher altitudes.

From the Rockies to the Himalayas, glaciers are shrinking, sending ever more water into the world's seas. Because of accelerated melt in Greenland and elsewhere, the eight-nation Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program projects ocean levels will rise 90 to 160 centimeters (35 to 63 inches) by 2100, threatening coastlines everywhere.

"We are scared, really and truly," diplomat Laurence Edwards, from the Pacific's Marshall Islands, told the AP before the 1997 Kyoto meeting.

Today in his low-lying home islands, rising seas have washed away shoreline graveyards, saltwater has invaded wells, and islanders desperately seek aid to build a seawall to shield their capital.

The oceans are turning more acidic, too, from absorbing excess carbon dioxide. Acidifying seas will harm plankton, shellfish and other marine life up the food chain. Biologists fear the world's coral reefs, home to much ocean life and already damaged from warmer waters, will largely disappear in this century.

The greatest fears may focus on "feedbacks" in the Arctic, warming twice as fast as the rest of the world.

The Arctic Ocean's summer ice cap has shrunk by half and is expected to essentially vanish by 2030 or 2040, the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center reported Sept. 15. Ashore, meanwhile, the Arctic tundra's permafrost is thawing and releasing methane, a powerful greenhouse gas.

These changes will feed on themselves: Released methane leads to warmer skies, which will release more methane. Ice-free Arctic waters absorb more of the sun's heat than do reflective ice and snow, and so melt will beget melt. The frozen Arctic is a controller of Northern Hemisphere climate; an unfrozen one could upend age-old weather patterns across continents.

In the face of years of scientific findings and growing impacts, the doubters persist. They ignore long-term trends and seize on insignificant year-to-year blips in data to claim all is well. They focus on minor mistakes in thousands of pages of peer-reviewed studies to claim all is wrong. And they carom from one explanation to another for today's warming Earth: jet contrails, sunspots, cosmic rays, natural cycles.

"Ninety-eight percent of the world's climate scientists say it's for real, and yet you still have deniers," observed former U.S. Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, a New York Republican who chaired the House's science committee.

Christiana Figueres, Costa Rican head of the U.N.'s post-Kyoto climate negotiations, finds it "very, very perplexing, this apparent allergy that there is in the United States. Why?"

The Australian scholar Hamilton sought to explain why in his 2010 book, "Requiem for a Species: Why We Resist the Truth About Climate Change."

In an interview, he said he found a "transformation" from the 1990s and its industry-financed campaign, to an America where climate denial "has now become a marker of cultural identity in the 'angry' parts of the United States."

"Climate denial has been incorporated in the broader movement of right-wing populism," he said, a movement that has "a visceral loathing of environmentalism."

An in-depth study of a decade of Gallup polling finds statistical backing for that analysis.

On the question of whether they believed the effects of global warming were already happening, the percentage of self-identified Republicans or conservatives answering "yes" plummeted from almost 50 percent in 2007-2008 to 30 percent or less in 2010, while liberals and Democrats remained at 70 percent or more, according to the study in this spring's Sociological Quarterly.

A Pew Research Center poll last October found a similar left-right gap.

The drop-off coincided with the election of Democrat Barack Obama as president and the Democratic effort in Congress, ultimately futile, to impose government caps on industrial greenhouse emissions.

Boehlert, the veteran Republican congressman, noted that "high-profile people with an 'R' after their name, like Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann, are saying it's all fiction. Pooh-poohing the science of climate change feeds into their basic narrative that all government is bad."

The quarterly study's authors, Aaron M. McCright of Michigan State University and Riley E. Dunlap of Oklahoma State, suggested climate had joined abortion and other explosive, intractable issues as a mainstay of America's hardening left-right gap.

"The culture wars have thus taken on a new dimension," they wrote.

Al Gore, for one, remains upbeat. The former vice president and Nobel Prize-winning climate campaigner says "ferocity" in defense of false beliefs often increases "as the evidence proving them false builds."

In an AP interview, he pointed to tipping points in recent history — the collapse of the Berlin Wall, the dismantling of U.S. racial segregation — when the potential for change built slowly in the background, until a critical mass was reached.

"This is building toward a point where the falsehoods of climate denial will be unacceptable as a basis for policy much longer," Gore said. "As Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said, 'How long? Not long.'"

Even Wally Broecker's jest — that deniers could blame God — may not be an option for long.

Last May the Vatican's Pontifical Academy of Sciences, arm of an institution that once persecuted Galileo for his scientific findings, pronounced on manmade global warming: It's happening.

Said the pope's scientific advisers, "We must protect the habitat that sustains us."

EDITOR'S NOTE: Climate change has already provoked debate in a U.S. presidential campaign barely begun. An Associated Press journalist draws on decades of climate reporting to offer a retrospective and analysis on global warming and the undying urge to deny...

[Wild Cobra]

Random...

Do you know who said this:

If my prediction were based on something that turned out to be correct, I would be proud of it; instead I am embarrassed

[Yonivore]

Manny, this is the kind of revelation that undermines all your reams and reams of so-called scientific evidence of the existence of AGCC.

It’s the Thermometer, Stupid (http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=8401&linkbox=true&position=1)


Climate scientists had long believed infrared thermometers measured thermal radiation from the atmosphere and assumed it was ‘proof’ of the greenhouse gas effect (GHE). Their assumption was that infrared thermometers (IRT’s) were measuring ‘back radiated’ heat from greenhouse gases (including water vapor and carbon dioxide). But damning new evidence proves IRT’s do no such thing.

Now a world-leading manufacturer of these high-tech instruments, Mikron Instrument Company Inc., has confirmed that IRT’s are deliberately set to AVOID registering any feedback from greenhouse gases. Thus climate scientists were measuring everything but the energy emitted by carbon dioxide and water vapor.

One of the researchers involved, Alan Siddons, has analyzed the GHE for over six years. He has long condemned the practice of using IRT’s as a means of substantiating the increasingly discredited hypothesis.

[Wild Cobra]

Wow...

Just wow...

I should have realized this:

Observations on “Backradiation” during Nighttime and Daytime (http://principia-scientific.org/publications/New_Concise_Experiment_on_Backradiation.pdf)

I should have know the AGW Energy Budget model was wrong from the start. This clearly explains why it is.

[Wild Cobra]

How many times have I complained about the AGW alarmists maintaining a closed peer review system, so that real science cannot show their fraud? I love this:

Federal Law Defeats Academic Freedom in Global Warming Lawsuit (http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=8374&linkbox=true&position=6); first few paragraphs:

Professor Michael Mann, a prominent climatology expert, made a last-minute plea to a Virginia court to bend the rules and help him keep his research data under lock and key. Suspicion grows that the latest concealment attempt is further proof of a conspiracy to hide the misuse of taxpayer grants.

However, as shown below, the astute application of federal statutes on privacy and exposure of the legal fallacy of ‘academic freedom,’ condemn Professor Mann to certain defeat.

If Mann’s hidden data, once exposed, is shown to be flawed it will not only discredit a cornerstone of global warming ‘science’ but will expose Mann to possible criminal charges for fraud over his hyped up man-made global warming claims.

Taxpayer Rights Under VFOIA Upheld by Court Order

American Tradition Institute v. University of Virginia (Dr. Michael Mann) (http://www.atinstitute.org/american-tradition-institute-v-university-of-virginia-dr-michael-mann/)

[RandomGuy]

Suspicion grows that the latest concealment attempt is further proof of a conspiracy to hide the misuse of taxpayer grants.


:rolleyes

http://skepticalteacher.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/its_a_conspiracy1.jpg

Uh-huh.

[RandomGuy]

I love this:


will expose [climate scientist] to possible criminal charges for fraud over his ...global warming claims

... proof of a conspiracy ...

...stubborn secrecy ...

[climate scientist's] legal arguments are weak ...

... This makes farcical his doomsaying pleas...


... This makes farcical his doomsaying pleas...

GMAFB. Subject this article to a modicum of critical thinking, and the rather pointed interpretation of the facts is evident.

This smacks of a politically motivated witch-hunt.

DOn't like the science? Take them to court. No wonder you love it. I am sure Yoni is jumping up and down clapping too.


American Tradition Institute’s Environmental Law Center is a public interest law firm dedicated to originating and supporting actions to protect against government overreach, restore a healthy relationship between responsibility to the environment and the free market essential to its protection, and to secure the Constitutional and other fundamental rights of citizens.

All that is missing are calls for burning Dr. Mann at the stake.

It is rather obvious who is politicizing the science, and it isn't Dr. Mann.

[RandomGuy]

Manny, this is the kind of revelation that undermines all your reams and reams of so-called scientific evidence of the existence of AGCC.

It’s the Thermometer, Stupid (http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=8401&linkbox=true&position=1)


destroys 20 years’ of thinking among government climatologists.

damning new evidence

[skeptic chemist] ably demonstrates [climate scientist was wrong]

The Fatal False Assumption of Greenhouse Gas Effect Believers

After wading through the sewers of 9-11 conspiracy theory websites, the tone of the Climate Realists website is clearly parallel.

The "official government" explanation is clearly wrong.
The "official government" scientists are all clearly motivated by greed, and lying to us.
The "official government" theory has so many "fatal flaws" that only brainwashed morons would believe it.


I am sure they mildly hew to facts presented, but the obvious, stilted interpretation of those facts, and the very clear narrative being pushed should lead any logical person who subjects it to simple critical thinking to be deeply skeptical of their interpretations of events and how much credence to place on their claims about evidence.

Once again, fodder for the OP.

[Wild Cobra]

All that is missing are calls for burning Dr. Mann at the stake.

Your interpretation.

The problem is, nobody can recreate his results without lying in the data.

[RandomGuy]

This trial smacks of a witch-hunt

Your interpretation.

The problem is, nobody can recreate his results without lying in the data.

It is indeed my intepretation.

If the science and data were that bad, then there are forums and journals in which to publish something that might refute it, as has been attempted by critics. That seems to be a long story.

The fact that a well funded group with a rather clear political agenda is suing a scientist that the group disagrees with in court is a fact.

What would you call it, if it is not a witch-hunt?

[Yonivore]

Hey, RG; were they using the thermometer readings wrong or not?

[Wild Cobra]

Hey, RG; were they using the thermometer readings wrong or not?
Notice Manny never has anything relevant to actual facts to say either.

[Wild Cobra]

The fact that a well funded group with a rather clear political agenda is suing a scientist that the group disagrees with in court is a fact.
Getting to the truth is a political aganda?

What would you call it, if it is not a witch-hunt?
I call it trying to settle the facts of science.

Why doesn't Mann want to release important information associated with the peer review process?

[ElNono]

Notice Manny never has anything relevant to actual facts to say either.

Maybe he's not giving you details to make you think

:lmao

[ElNono]

Getting to the truth is a political aganda?

You don't need to sue to get to the truth. You need to do research.

[Wild Cobra]

You don't need to sue to get to the truth. You need to do research.
That's the problem. The research was done, and cannot duplicate Mann's findings without giving one proxy 300 times the weighting of the others.

Are you now against FOIA requests?

[boutons_deux]

Canadian Arctic nearly loses entire ice shelf

Two ice shelves that existed before Canada was settled by Europeans diminished significantly this summer, one nearly disappearing altogether, Canadian scientists say in newly published research.

The loss is important as a marker of global warming, returning the Canadian Arctic to conditions that date back thousands of years, scientists say. Floating icebergs that have broken free as a result pose a risk to offshore oil facilities and potentially to shipping lanes. The breaking apart of the ice shelves also reduces the environment that supports microbial life and changes the look of Canada's coastline.

"Recent (ice shelf) loss has been very rapid, and goes hand-in-hand with the rapid sea ice decline we have seen in this decade and the increasing warmth and extensive melt in the Arctic regions,"

Canada has the most extensive ice shelves in the Arctic along the northern coast of Ellesmere Island. These floating ice masses are typically 131 feet (40 meters) thick (equivalent to a 10-story building), but can be as much as 328 feet (100 meters) thick. They thickened over time via snow and sea ice accumulation, along with glacier inflow in certain places.

The northern coast of Ellesmere Island contains the last remaining ice shelves in Canada, with an estimated area of 402 square miles (1,043 square kilometers), said Mueller.

Between 1906 and 1982, there has been a 90 percent reduction in the areal extent of ice shelves along the entire coastline,

http://mobile.sfgate.com/sfchron/db_41687/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=NOLWqd5X&full=true#display

[Wild Cobra]

Boutons...

So what?

It's climate change. Climate has been changing for millions of years before mankind ever learned how to make fire. It will continue to change long after we are gone.

[Yonivore]

You don't need to sue to get to the truth. You need to do research.
Unless those who have been doing the research are hiding the truth and have the protection of the IPCC and liberals.

Then you have to sue.

Well, looky here, that international body created a climate-related program that is a complete farce...

Clean-energy credits tarnished (http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110928/full/477517a.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20110929)

Key grafs:


[The CDM] allows rich countries to offset some of their carbon emissions by investing in climate-friendly projects, such as hydroelectric power and wind farms, in developing countries. Verified projects earn certified emission reductions (CERs) — carbon credits that can be bought and sold, and count towards meeting rich nations’ carbon-reduction targets.

But a diplomatic cable published last month by the WikiLeaks website reveals that most of the CDM projects in India should not have been certified because they did not reduce emissions beyond those that would have been achieved without foreign investment. Indian officials have apparently known about the problem for at least two years.

“What has leaked just confirms our view that in its present form the CDM is basically a farce,” says Eva Filzmoser, programme director of CDM Watch, a Brussels-based watchdog organization. The revelations imply that millions of tonnes of claimed reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions are mere phantoms, she says, and potentially cast doubt over the principle of carbon trading. “In the face of these comments it is no wonder that the United States has backed away from emission trading,” Filzmoser says.
I love it! Wikileaks...wasn't he on y'all's side?

[RandomGuy]

Hey, RG; were they using the thermometer readings wrong or not?

It's your conspiracy theory, your burden of proof, Yoni, not mine.

He who asserts must prove.

You have asserted the basis for these temperature readings are completely unusable due to some fatal flaw, despite that the scientists who use the sensors seem to think otherwise.

As a basis for this, you have pointed to a website with an obvious narrative to promote that seems highly likely to have left out important objective information that a reasonable, objective person might think relevant to reach a decision as to the veracity of the claim.

Not being intellectually honest yourself, this doesn't bother/occur to you. You appear to have assumed that you have gotten the entire story from this website whose narrative you obviously agree with, and that you have proved your assertion to a reasonable degree, when you have not.

In this, you are no different than the 9-11 nutters who find some article on a conspiracy website that claims to have found some "fatal flaw" in the "official story", and point to it as proof positive.

Unless you can find some objective substantiation/corroberation, you have, just like the 9-11 nutters, little more than an intellectual circle-jerk to back this up.

Get cracking.

[boutons_deux]

Boutons...

So what?

It's climate change. Climate has been changing for millions of years before mankind ever learned how to make fire. It will continue to change long after we are gone.

Some of us aren't expecting, accepting civilization to be "gone", esp not gone due to anthropogenic climate disasters.

Pre-scientific, pre-industrial, pre-electrified Europe struggled horribly during the mini-ice age in the Middle Ages, only a few 100 years ago, and with only a few 10s of millions Europeans. The same environmental stresses in the other direction (fireball earth, not snowball earth) would be a disaster for 300M+ Euros.

[ElNono]

That's the problem. The research was done, and cannot duplicate Mann's findings without giving one proxy 300 times the weighting of the others.

Are you now against FOIA requests?

A FOIA request isn't suing. If they're suing, it's definitely not a FOIA request. So which is it?

[ElNono]

Unless those who have been doing the research are hiding the truth and have the protection of the IPCC and liberals.

Then you have to sue.

Baloney. They can do their own research and publish their findings, so they're peer reviewed, just like anything else in science.

Nobody has a monopoly on climate research.

[Yonivore]

Baloney. They can do their own research and publish their findings, so they're peer reviewed, just like anything else in science.
Those that support the liberal, UN, IPCC position have been subsidized by billions of our tax dollars to tow the line.


Nobody has a monopoly on climate research.
No, but they have a monopoly on government and the bully pulpit from which to advance some positions while denigrating others.

That's why you hear all that carping about it being "settled science" whenever there's an opposing point of view.

I think the scientific community has been so corrupted by the Algore's of the world, they wouldn't know good climate science if it bit them in the ass.

[Yonivore]

A FOIA request isn't suing. If they're suing, it's definitely not a FOIA request. So which is it?
People have been know to have to force compliance with an FOIA request.

[ElNono]

Those that support the liberal, UN, IPCC position have been subsidized by billions of our tax dollars to tow the line.

:violin

Nothing prevents those that don't want to tow the line from doing the appropriate research.


No, but they have a monopoly on government and the bully pulpit from which to advance some positions while denigrating others.

Nonsense. Opposing views have had as much press to express their views.

Again, there's nothing preventing opposing views from doing their research and publishing their papers.

[ElNono]

People have been know to have to force compliance with an FOIA request.

More like opted to. So the FOIA was denied or didn't include the information sought.

[Wild Cobra]

Baloney. They can do their own research and publish their findings, so they're peer reviewed, just like anything else in science.

Nobody has a monopoly on climate research.
Yet if you aren't peer reviewed by one of the gatekeepers, nobody believes your research.

[Wild Cobra]

ElNono...

Did you read the linked material?

The data Mann used was asked to be seen. the university wanted money for their troubles. The money was paid. The data was not delivered, and now they are saying no. We effectively have a breech of contract situation. Now there is also A FOIA suit, but it had another letter in front of it. I forget what, without going back and reading it again.

[ElNono]

Yet if you aren't peer reviewed by one of the gatekeepers, nobody believes your research.

:lol Not true. If your research is accurate and brings something new to the table, peers will review it and it will normally find it's way through mainstream publications. There's also plenty of people that self-publish.

If your research is garbage, then people will very likely skip right over it.

Who are these gatekeepers you keep talking about?

[ElNono]

ElNono...

Did you read the linked material?

The data Mann used was asked to be seen. the university wanted money for their troubles. The money was paid. The data was not delivered, and now they are saying no. We effectively have a breech of contract situation. Now there is also A FOIA suit, but it had another letter in front of it. I forget what, without going back and reading it again.

So it's a lawsuit to obtain his dataset. Why not use that money to try to replicate his findings and publish the results, whatever those might be? That's how science works.

[Wild Cobra]

So it's a lawsuit to obtain his dataset. Why not use that money to try to replicate his findings and publish the results, whatever those might be? That's how science works.
I see it goes in one ear and out the other with you...

Post 1588:

That's the problem. The research was done, and cannot duplicate Mann's findings without giving one proxy 300 times the weighting of the others.

Are you now against FOIA requests?

[Wild Cobra]

The university had already demanded money up front for the data release and was duly paid $4,000 but still did not provide any documents. Under Virginia’s Freedom of Information Act (VFOIA) the Uva are legally bound to allow the public access to Mann's records.

[Wild Cobra]

ElNono...

The problem with Climate Sciences and AGW is that there are a few small groups who do internal peer reviewing. There is no open peer review process. People are accepting them as "gatekeepers" and they do not allow skeptic in.

Isn't science suppose to be open, especially the peer review process?

[boutons_deux]

But there's no problem (for WC) with "scientists" who whore as deniers for Kock Bros and the carbon-extractors/refiners/burners.

[Wild Cobra]

But there's no problem (for WC) with "scientists" who whore as deniers for Kock Bros and the carbon-extractors/refiners/burners.
Do you realize how politicized the IPCCC is? It is a political organization. Furthermore, to shitcan skeptisism bby calling it paid for by the opposition is a real ignorant take. There is a valid point to being skeptical, and it really doesn't matter who funds them, but why they are funded. The AGW crowd only gets funding to show CO2 is a culprit. The skeptics get funding because the energy companies need someone in their corner to fight scientific fraud.

[ElNono]

I see it goes in one ear and out the other with you...

Post 1588:

Was that research peer reviewed?

[ElNono]

ElNono...

The problem with Climate Sciences and AGW is that there are a few small groups who do internal peer reviewing. There is no open peer review process. People are accepting them as "gatekeepers" and they do not allow skeptic in.

Isn't science suppose to be open, especially the peer review process?

What's closed about it? You can publish any paper you want and tell the world about it. If it's something new and advances the sciences (notice that advancing sometimes means refuting also, see the constant publication of papers invalidating theories or tests).

Again, who are these gatekeepers?

[Wild Cobra]

What's closed about it? You can publish any paper you want and tell the world about it. If it's something new and advances the sciences (notice that advancing sometimes means refuting also, see the constant publication of papers invalidating theories or tests).

Again, who are these gatekeepers?
You would know if you didn't ignore writings by the growing crowd of skeptics.

[ElNono]

You would know if you didn't ignore writings by the growing crowd of skeptics.

The fact that you know those writings, and that you're well aware of them actually backs up my contention that the process is entirely open.

One more time, because you keep dodging the question, who are these gatekeepers you continue to reference?

[Wild Cobra]

The fact that you know those writings, and that you're well aware of them actually backs up my contention that the process is entirely open.

One more time, because you keep dodging the question, who are these gatekeepers you continue to reference?
Why does it matter to you? These claims of peer review are closed. If they weren't then such litigation would not be necessary.

It would be like Al Capone having Timothy Geithner verify his tax filing.

It's real troubling to me that you trust without verifying.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No, but they have a monopoly on government and the bully pulpit from which to advance some positions while denigrating others.

I love how American 'conservatives' who have AM radio and Fox News, and a house in Congress, cry about lack of or unfairness of venue to express their views.

Yeah the industrialists who are by and far the major financial backers of the opposing view have no outlet for their views.

:rolleyes

[ElNono]

Why does it matter to you? These claims of peer review are closed. If they weren't then such litigation would not be necessary.

Actually, according to you, the litigation is about the data set, not the review process.


It would be like Al Capone having Timothy Geithner verify his tax filing.

It's real troubling to me that you trust without verifying.

Aren't you doing the same? Didn't you just said that research was conducted and didn't match the finding? Who reviewed that research you choose to trust?

The beauty of science is that given the time, effort and means, anybody out there can try to verify any claim made, and tell the world what they find out.

It's funny too that you bring trusting without verifying since on this specific topic, I'm actually on the skeptical side, since I think the model is way too complex to be analyzed with any kind of reliability. But I already made my point in this thread a while ago. I don't say they're right or wrong, I simply think we can't reliably know just yet. I actually don't think it's prudent to make policy decisions based on this yet. And ofcourse, I could be wrong.

[Wild Cobra]

Actually, according to you, the litigation is about the data set, not the review process.

The litigation wouldn't be necessary if it was an open peer review process rather than closed.


Aren't you doing the same? Didn't you just said that research was conducted and didn't match the finding? Who reviewed that research you choose to trust?

Of all the temperature proxies known, the only way to match the hockey stick is to give one proxy 300 times the weighting factor of any other. McIntre has shown the Hockeystick to be false, yet it continually is used over and over. People are distrusting the real scientists and supporting those who work towards political agendas.


The beauty of science is that given the time, effort and means, anybody out there can try to verify any claim made, and tell the world what they find out.

With all the lies and deception out there, and those trying to ruin other scientists reputations, the truth is being sought out. In court if necessary.


It's funny too that you bring trusting without verifying since on this specific topic, I'm actually on the skeptical side, since I think the model is way too complex to be analyzed with any kind of reliability. But I already made my point in this thread a while ago. I don't say they're right or wrong, I simply think we can't reliably know just yet. I actually don't think it's prudent to make policy decisions based on this yet. And ofcourse, I could be wrong.
And I am one that continually points out it is too complex for the science to be settled, but those advocating the political agenda keep telling us it is settled, and use unscientific words like "consensus."

It is easy to prove some thoughts wrong, but next to impossible to offer an alternate solution. I have shown the accepted simplified GHG model to be wrong in relationship to what the AGW crowd says changed between 1750 and modern day in the IPCCC AR4.

The recent link I posted in post #1576 is another piece of scientific evidence against the AGW crowd. Did you read it?

[ElNono]

The litigation wouldn't be necessary if it was an open peer review process rather than closed.

From the moment the paper was published, the review process is open, and the claim can be researched and verified (or not). Again, is the lawsuit about the dataset or the review process.


Of all the temperature proxies known, :blah:blah:blah:blah

That's not what I asked. Let me ask again:

Aren't you doing the same? Didn't you just said that research was conducted and didn't match the finding? Who reviewed that research you choose to trust?


With all the lies and deception out there, and those trying to ruin other scientists reputations, the truth is being sought out. In court if necessary.

What lies and deceptions? You still haven't told me who these creepy 'gatekeepers' are. Who are they?


And I am one that continually points out it is too complex for the science to be settled

See, this is where we disagree completely. I think it's too complex for science to settle now, just like sequencing DNA was too complex for science in the 1700's. I don't particularly think anything is too complex for science to settle given time.

The thing is, obtaining whatever dataset that person used in court won't advance science. Science will advance when a new paper with it's own serious, independently verified data proves the previous wrong, or builds on it.

There's also something to be said about "consensus" and science. The fact that the general theory of relativity is widely used has everything to do with consensus. Consensus isn't a bad word or unrelated to science.

[Yonivore]

The New Hockey Stick? (http://www.nature.com/news/2011/111005/full/478026a.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20111006)


http://www.nature.com/news/2011/111005/images/478026a-i3.0.jpg


[B]ehind at least half of them lies some shocking tale of scientific misconduct — plagiarism, altered images or faked data — and the other half are admissions of embarrassing mistakes. But retraction notices are increasing rapidly. In the early 2000s, only about 30 retraction notices appeared annually. This year, the Web of Science is on track to index more than 400 — even though the total number of papers published has risen by only 44% over the past decade.
What isn't addressed is how many of the retractions deal with climate science. However, it does suggest there is less scrutiny being employed in the modern peer review process than used to be.

Elsewhere in the same Nature issues:

The voice of science: let's agree to disagree (http://www.nature.com/news/2011/111005/full/478007a.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20111006)


Consensus reports are the bedrock of science-based policy-making. But disagreement and arguments are more useful, says Daniel Sarewitz.

[Agloco]

What isn't addressed is how many of the retractions deal with climate science. However, it does suggest there is less scrutiny being employed in the modern peer review process than used to be.

The main factor I see is that research is much more multidisciplinary than it used to be. The borders of various disciplines are blurring more and more with each new discovery. This makes review a necessarily tricky venture in many cases.

Take radiologic sciences for instance. Papers have all manner of science in them from biochemistry, immunohistochemistry, molecular cell biology, organic polymer chemistry, nuclear physics, particle physics, etc, etc. No one person, no 5 people for that matter can cover all of those areas. Even when they are, it can be difficult to tell how cogently those areas fit together.

[MannyIsGod]

The main factor I see is that research is much more multidisciplinary than it used to be. The borders of various disciplines are blurring more and more with each new discovery. This makes review a necessarily tricky venture in many cases.



This holds especially true in the AGW realm. You have input from meteorologists, climatologists, chemists, environmental scientists, hydrologists, geographers, physicists, etc etc. A lot of the time the people reviewing the material don't have expertise in the subject matter as well as they should in order to review that particular study.

This was clearly shown to be the case with the recent Roy Spencer paper but in the end the science WILL figure things out. The retractions prove that.

The scientific community does a great job self correcting itself. Posting retractions as a point to something otherwise is rather ironic.

[Wild Cobra]

What isn't addressed is how many of the retractions deal with climate science. However, it does suggest there is less scrutiny being employed in the modern peer review process than used to be.

Yes, and why I have railed against the closed peer review process used by the AGW crowd in climatology.

[Wild Cobra]

Manny, the Roy Spenser paper isn't settled. There has been ongoing discussion, the those who supposedly proved him wrong, are now being shown wrong. I did a quick search for the information I say a week or so ago, but didn't find it. It is out there though. I'm awaiting more results, but then... there is a slim chance I am thinking of a different author and paper. Think it's this one though.

[Yonivore]

Hey, Manny! WTF?

BRITAIN FACES A MINI 'ICE AGE' (http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/276516)


BRITAIN is set to suffer a mini ice age that could last for decades and bring with it a series of bitterly cold winters.

And it could all begin within weeks as experts said last night that the mercury may soon plunge below the record -20C endured last year.

Scientists say the anticipated cold blast will be due to the return of a disruptive weather pattern called La Nina. Latest evidence shows La Nina, linked to extreme winter weather in America and with a knock-on effect on Britain, is in force and will gradually strengthen as the year ends.
Can we release the Kracken, or some CO2 at least, and warm this puppy up?

[Wild Cobra]

Hey, Manny! WTF?

BRITAIN FACES A MINI 'ICE AGE' (http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/276516)


Can we release the Kracken, or some CO2 at least, and warm this puppy up?
Problem is, CO2 is not the culprit to warming. The AGW crowd forgets their basic chemistry of gas solubility in liquids vs. temperature. The oceans contain (if I remember right) about 93% of the carbon, in the carbon cycle, it doesn't take much warming of the ocean to release (rather change equilibrium percentage) CO2. On top of they, it takes an average of 800 years for a complete cycle of the ocean, so the absorption or release of gasses is slow to respond to changes.

[Yonivore]

BREAKING: An IPCC backchannel ‘cloud’ was apparently established to hide IPCC deliberations from FOIA. (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/17/breaking-an-ipcc-backchannel-cloud-was-apparently-established-to-hide-ipcc-deliberations-from-foia/)
:corn:

[RandomGuy]

ad hominem bla, look at bla the conspiracy bla! bla

here is a bla bla link to the bla bla skeptic bla article of the day bla.... (http://www.logicalfallacybla.bla/bla/bla)



:sleep

Scoreboared Reference post. Links to follow over the course of the dialogue.


Yonivore:

First logical fallacy (ad hominem):
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4677328&postcount=405
Questions asked of Yonivore, Yoni ignored:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4668282&postcount=7

Questions asked of Obstructed View:

First batch of 3.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4668313&postcount=13
#4:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4668327&postcount=17
#5:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4668389&postcount=32




Lack of responses:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4668374&postcount=27
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4668384&postcount=29

Fair answers:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4668380&postcount=28
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4668389&postcount=32


DarrinS:

First illogical statement (illogical because it assumes the premise):
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4668799&postcount=58
Second illogical statement (ad hominem)
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4670471&postcount=237
Third illogical statement (ad hominem)
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4671143&postcount=275
Fourth illogical statement (strawman)
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4671237&postcount=278
Fifth illogical statement (appeal to popularity)
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4672034&postcount=286
Sixth illogical statement (strawman)
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4672682&postcount=323
Seventh illogical statement (slippery slope)
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4672707&postcount=332
Eighth illogical statement (ad hominem):
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4673385&postcount=389
Ninth illogical statement (ad hominem)
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4672868&postcount=364
Tenth illogical statement (strawman)
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4810380&postcount=563
Eleventh illogical statement (strawman)
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4820172&postcount=643
Twelfth illogical statement (strawman)
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4822005&postcount=713

Fair question concerning DarrinS' assertion asked:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4672758&postcount=338
Question ignored:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4672772&postcount=342
Question restated:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4672790&postcount=347
Question ignored
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4672822&postcount=357
One failed question, discarding DarrinS false assertion, final post in series:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4672831&postcount=361

Second fair question regarding an assertion:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4679228&postcount=412

Cherry-picking data:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4810375&postcount=560


Wild Cobra:

One logical fallacy, 4 unproven assertions:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4784642&postcount=454
Second logical fallacy, strawman argument:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4789303&postcount=524
Third logical fallacy, appeal to belief:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4819971&postcount=622
Fourth logical fallacy, ad hominem:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4820716&postcount=677
Fifth logical fallacy, strawman argument.
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5354367&postcount=1202

Failure to answer a direct question about a concrete asserted hypothesis:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4956955&postcount=1018
Confirmation bias: (dismissing scientific work without reading it, because he just *knows* its wrong, sight unseen)
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4962417&postcount=1059
(also see where this confirmation bias leads him to an erroneous conclusion based on a provably wrong starting assumption:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4968018&postcount=1120
More confirmation bias (Experts with PhDs and decades worth of research and studies can't possibly have considered enough factors to make reasonable claims in their fields of study, even when these factors are readily recognizable by someone with no credentials in that field because he disagrees with the ultimate conclusion):
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4964720&postcount=1075
DING DING DING!! First direct comparison of climate scientists who think that human are affecting climate to Nazis in the thread.
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5405129&postcount=1335




Tyson Chandler:



Strawman logical fallacy:
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5393669&postcount=1231

[RandomGuy]

BREAKING: An IPCC backchannel ‘cloud’ was apparently established to hide IPCC deliberations from FOIA. (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/17/breaking-an-ipcc-backchannel-cloud-was-apparently-established-to-hide-ipcc-deliberations-from-foia/)
:corn:

Honestly, at this point, I give up on your dumb ass. I have argued for years with 9-11 tards, moon hoaxers, Ufologists, and all sorts of idiots, but you take the cake.

I don't even think you believe half the stupid shit you post. You do it because somehow lying to others seems to amuse you.

I have no idea why a normal human being would do that. I have honestly come to conclude you are at least mildly pyschopathic.


Factor 1: Personality "Aggressive narcissism"

Glibness/superficial charm (check)
Grandiose sense of self-worth mmm sort of? prolly wouldn't be hard to find self-aggrandizing statements
Pathological lying check
Cunning/manipulative check
Lack of remorse or guilt check
Shallow affect (genuine emotion is short-lived and egocentric) checkCallousness; lack of empathy check
Failure to accept responsibility for own actions check


(edit)

I dunno, maybe I am guilty of my own confirmation bias, but I just dont' see much in your personality that is really redeeming as a human being. You just lie too much, and make cases for things that are simply morally repugnant.

[Yonivore]

And I'm psychopathic.

:lmao

:sleep

Scoreboared Reference post. Links to follow over the course of the dialogue.


Yonivore:

First logical fallacy (ad hominem):
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4677328&postcount=405
Questions asked of Yonivore, Yoni ignored:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4668282&postcount=7

Questions asked of Obstructed View:

First batch of 3.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4668313&postcount=13
#4:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4668327&postcount=17
#5:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4668389&postcount=32




Lack of responses:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4668374&postcount=27
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4668384&postcount=29

Fair answers:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4668380&postcount=28
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4668389&postcount=32


DarrinS:

First illogical statement (illogical because it assumes the premise):
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4668799&postcount=58
Second illogical statement (ad hominem)
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4670471&postcount=237
Third illogical statement (ad hominem)
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4671143&postcount=275
Fourth illogical statement (strawman)
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4671237&postcount=278
Fifth illogical statement (appeal to popularity)
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4672034&postcount=286
Sixth illogical statement (strawman)
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4672682&postcount=323
Seventh illogical statement (slippery slope)
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4672707&postcount=332
Eighth illogical statement (ad hominem):
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4673385&postcount=389
Ninth illogical statement (ad hominem)
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4672868&postcount=364
Tenth illogical statement (strawman)
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4810380&postcount=563
Eleventh illogical statement (strawman)
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4820172&postcount=643
Twelfth illogical statement (strawman)
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4822005&postcount=713

Fair question concerning DarrinS' assertion asked:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4672758&postcount=338
Question ignored:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4672772&postcount=342
Question restated:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4672790&postcount=347
Question ignored
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4672822&postcount=357
One failed question, discarding DarrinS false assertion, final post in series:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4672831&postcount=361

Second fair question regarding an assertion:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4679228&postcount=412

Cherry-picking data:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4810375&postcount=560


Wild Cobra:

One logical fallacy, 4 unproven assertions:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4784642&postcount=454
Second logical fallacy, strawman argument:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4789303&postcount=524
Third logical fallacy, appeal to belief:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4819971&postcount=622
Fourth logical fallacy, ad hominem:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4820716&postcount=677
Fifth logical fallacy, strawman argument.
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5354367&postcount=1202

Failure to answer a direct question about a concrete asserted hypothesis:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4956955&postcount=1018
Confirmation bias: (dismissing scientific work without reading it, because he just *knows* its wrong, sight unseen)
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4962417&postcount=1059
(also see where this confirmation bias leads him to an erroneous conclusion based on a provably wrong starting assumption:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4968018&postcount=1120
More confirmation bias (Experts with PhDs and decades worth of research and studies can't possibly have considered enough factors to make reasonable claims in their fields of study, even when these factors are readily recognizable by someone with no credentials in that field because he disagrees with the ultimate conclusion):
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4964720&postcount=1075
DING DING DING!! First direct comparison of climate scientists who think that human are affecting climate to Nazis in the thread.
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5405129&postcount=1335




Tyson Chandler:



Strawman logical fallacy:
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5393669&postcount=1231

[Wild Cobra]

BREAKING: An IPCC backchannel ‘cloud’ was apparently established to hide IPCC deliberations from FOIA. (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/17/breaking-an-ipcc-backchannel-cloud-was-apparently-established-to-hide-ipcc-deliberations-from-foia/)
:corn:
Goes hand in hand with AGW research studies being a closed peer review process. Only those who already agree are allowed to peer review their research.

[Wild Cobra]

:sleep

Scoreboared Reference post. Links to follow over the course of the dialogue.

Please...

What good is a scoreboard of links? Is that your form of confirmation bias?

I took a quick look at those under my name. You are so laughable at times.

[RandomGuy]

Please...

What good is a scoreboard of links? Is that your form of confirmation bias?

I took a quick look at those under my name. You are so laughable at times.

(shrugs)

I'm not the one trying to make my case with "what ifs" and things that are provably illogical.


You wish that we do unexceptionably stupid measures to avoid a risk

Is a very obvious strawman. I have some rather mild views as to what we should be doing to avoid the worst risks of anthroprogenic global climate change.

You distort these rather mild solutions as if they are, by implication, wildly extreme and irrational. I believe you do this only because I tend to believe the climate scientists when they tell me something is going on.

This is just one example. If you don't like to have your illogical statements, and unproven underlying assertions pointed out to you, then the solution is to take responsibility for yourself, learn to think logically, and apply some mild critical thinking to your underlying assumptions.

Don't go blaming everybody else for your own shortcomings.

[RandomGuy]

And I'm psychopathic.

:lmao

Yes, I think you are at some level. Psycopathic/sociopathic, take your pick.

A rational person would, at this point, ask themselves if someone genuinely thought they were a bit sociopathic, what might have cause that person to make that statement.

Sociopaths aren't real big on introspection, so they simply dismiss and deny that there is something wrong.

Here also is someone who will blame everybody else but themself. You will fail to take responsibility or accept any kind of fault with yourself. The fault will lie with someone else.

Maybe you do actually show some sort of compassion or empathy, maybe you can make an honest statement or argument, I don't know. I certainly don't see much of it here.

To be honest, I quit really reading most of what you post here after finding out that the majority of it is simply dishonest spin and disengenuous bullshit.

You have proven to just about everybody, even those that would tend to agree with you, that you can't really be trusted to tell the truth.

[MannyIsGod]

Hey, Manny! WTF?

BRITAIN FACES A MINI 'ICE AGE' (http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/276516)


Can we release the Kracken, or some CO2 at least, and warm this puppy up?

Wtf indeed. The author cites no research. You're a gullible idiot.

[MannyIsGod]

Problem is, CO2 is not the culprit to warming. The AGW crowd forgets their basic chemistry of gas solubility in liquids vs. temperature. The oceans contain (if I remember right) about 93% of the carbon, in the carbon cycle, it doesn't take much warming of the ocean to release (rather change equilibrium percentage) CO2. On top of they, it takes an average of 800 years for a complete cycle of the ocean, so the absorption or release of gasses is slow to respond to changes.

Someone want to explain to the partschanger whythis is ironic and funny as hell?

[RandomGuy]

Wtf indeed. The author cites no research. You're a gullible idiot.

Actually it does, somewhat tangentally.



And it coincides with research from the Met Office [presumedly short for "Meteorological", is the official weather arm of the UK government http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/ -RG] indicating the nation could be facing a repeat of the “little ice age” that gripped the country 300 years ago, causing decades of harsh winters.


It goes on:


The prediction, to be published in Nature magazine, is based on observations of a slight fall in the sun’s emissions of ultraviolet radiation, which may, over a long period, trigger Arctic conditions for many years.

...

The National Grid will this week release its forecast for winter energy use based on long-range weather forecasts.

Such forecasting is, however, notoriously difficult, especially for the UK, which is subject to a wide range of competing climatic forces.

A Met Office spokesman said that although La Nina was recurring, the temperatures in the equatorial Pacific were so far only 1C below normal, compared with a drop of 2C at the same time last year.

Research by America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration showed that in 2010-11 La Nina contributed to record winter snowfalls, spring flooding and drought across the world.

To be clear:

AGW theory and climate scientists readily acknowledge that parts of the world will still experience cold spells.

This is why taking an example of one of those events/trends as somehow debunking the AGW theory is a strawman and something of a dishonest lie.

Were I still bothering to keep track of the number and scale of Yonivores lying on the subject, this would be yet another very clear instance.

I think I have adequately proven the point of the OP long since with his help. Even when he knows someone is going to be checking, he still is unable to bring himself *not* to lie. That is the definition of pathological, is it not?

[RandomGuy]

Someone want to explain to the partschanger why this is ironic and funny as hell?

Nah. Let the man have his rope. What he does with it, is [gallows] humorously up to him.

[Wild Cobra]

Someone want to explain to the partschanger whythis is ironic and funny as hell?

Why?

Don't you understand it enough to put in words, or do you just believe what others tell you?

[RandomGuy]

Why?

Don't you understand it enough to put in words, or do you just believe what others tell you?

Put on your critical thinking hat and try to see why he thinks it is humorous/ironic. I have a pretty good idea what he is hinting at, but I'm not giving it away.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Why?

Don't you understand it enough to put in words, or do you just believe what others tell you?

You really need to put this quote in your sig:


A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.

its the story of your life.

[boutons_deux]

Worse Than We Thought: Evidence Builds That Scientists Underplay Climate Impacts

But as the impacts of climate change become apparent, many predictions are proving to underplay the actual impacts. Reality, in many instances, is proving to be far worse than most scientists expected.

"We're seeing mounting evidence now that the scientific community, rather than overstating the claim or being alarmist, is the opposite," said Naomi Oreskes, a science historian with the University of California, San Diego. "Scientists have been quite conservative ... in a lot of important and different areas."

http://www.alternet.org/environment/152777/worse_than_we_thought:_evidence_builds_that_scient ists_underplay_climate_impacts?page=entire

[Wild Cobra]

Boutons, of course we will continue to see more warming, even if the causes cease. For decades, there has been missing energy in the energy budget. Less energy leaving than what is incoming which means the earth, most likely the oceans, have been storing heat. The we get a net global warming or cooling is because the energy budget is out of balance. The earths heat content, weather seen in temperature increases or not, will continue until there is balance.

Why is Alternet making known science as if it wasn't foreseen? Is it because the AGW crowd doesn't understand enough of the various geosciences to see the reality of the forces at work?

Regardless of man or not. The earth would be warming, It's natural.

[MannyIsGod]

:lol

WC once again displays his failure to understand conversation of energy while chastising others for not understanding the science. Practically every post this dude makes is a classic.

[Wild Cobra]

:lol

WC once again displays his failure to understand conversation of energy while chastising others for not understanding the science. Practically every post this dude makes is a classic.
Conversion of energy is latent energy, that can become heat later.

Unless you're going to get specific, STFU.

Just because you don't understand what I am talking about, doesn't mean I don't understand. It means you don't understand. Especially since you go strait to accusations without asking me to clarify. It just proves you don't know squat.

[MannyIsGod]

Who said anything about heat? I said energy. You have no clue and its obvious. I don't need that clarified.

[Agloco]

:lol

WC once again displays his failure to understand conversation of energy while chastising others for not understanding the science. Practically every post this dude makes is a classic.

I've never heard of that either tbh. Maybe he has a point here....

[MannyIsGod]

D'oh!

[MannyIsGod]

Its actually funny because I think he thought I meant conversion of energy. :lmao

[boutons_deux]

these billionaires probably have some very smart people working for them, but of course not as smart as WC, Yoni, and other climate denying shills here.

Investors Worth $20 Trillion Call For Urgent Action on Climate

Today, in the lead-up to the COP 17 climate talks in Durban, South Africa, 285 of the top investors representing $20 trillion in assets signed a letter of support for policy action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions:

Well designed and effectively implemented long-term climate change and clean energy policy (“investment-grade policies”) will not only present significant opportunities for investors in areas such as cleaner and renewable energy, energy efficiency and decarbonisation, but will also yield substantial economic benefits including creating new jobs and businesses, stimulating technological innovation, and providing a robust foundation for economic recovery and sustainable long-term economic growth.

The countries that have attracted the most investment in low-carbon technologies, renewable energy and energy efficiency have generally been those that have provided long-term certainty around the structure and incentives associated with these investments. Conversely, many countries have struggled to attract investment because they do not have appropriate policies in place, because the policies are poorly implemented or because the policies do not provide sufficient incentives for investment. A more recent concern has been the move by some governments to retroactively scale back climate change-related policies and incentives, which has deterred investment in those countries.

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/10/19/347597/investors-worth-20-trillion-call-for-urgent-action-on-climate/

[DarrinS]

Dissection of ClimageGate emails, going back to the mid-90's.

Some interesting stuff. Make of it what you will.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/climategate_analysis.pdf

[RandomGuy]

Dissection of ClimageGate emails, going back to the mid-90's.

Some interesting stuff. Make of it what you will.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/climategate_analysis.pdf

Without bothering to read the piece, I am going to take a wild guess...

Another detailed analysis by a website with an obvious narrative about the subject that (shocker) confirms that narrative to a T.

I make very little of that.

The opening graphic on page 1 depecting the IPCC as the Titanic about to hit an iceberg labeled "truth", pretty much detroys any credibility about the follow up conclusions that the paper might have.

I stopped reading there, as I don't think it is worth my time reading yet another stilted, biased diatribe.

Hopefully *it* doesn't compare climate scientists to Nazis.

[RandomGuy]

Its actually funny because I think he thought I meant conversion of energy. :lmao

I puzzled over that for a second as well.

It is a bit damning that WC didn't figure out that you meant conservation.

You will note that he still can't find/state the irony/humor implied by you in his earlier statement either. Being able to figure out why you might imply that requires critical thinking skills that I have always said he did not possess. That may be just my confirmation bias talking, but an inability to accurately state the position of someone you are discussing complex topics with, once again, dovetails with the assertion of the OP.

[RandomGuy]

Is it because the AGW crowd doesn't understand enough of the various geosciences to see the reality of the forces at work?

Regardless of man or not. The earth would be warming, It's natural.

The implication:


"the AGW crowd" believes that the climate of our planet is fixed and immutable, without natural changes.



Fallacy: Straw Man


The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:


1) Person A has position X.
2) Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3) Person B attacks position Y.
4) Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

1) AGW crowd (person A) says that man-made action is causing warming trends beyond what would naturally occur otherwise (position X).

2) WC (person B) presents the implication:
"the AGW crowd" believes that the climate of our planet is fixed and immutable, without natural changes (position Y)

3) WC implies that because anybody, including person A, that believes position Y is obviously "ignorant of geosciences",

4) therefore position X is flawed.


Given:

1) Logical fallacies represent shitty logic
and

2) WC believes things that are logical fallacies.

Therefore:
WC's logical reasoning is shitty, QED.

[RandomGuy]

Given:

1) All pseudoscientists have shitty logical reasoning.

and

2) WC/Darrin/Yonivore have shitty logical reasoning.

Can we safely conclude, based on this information, that WC/Darrin/Yonivore are NOT pseudoscientists?

[DarrinS]

Given:

1) All pseudoscientists have shitty logical reasoning.

and

2) WC/Darrin/Yonivore have shitty logical reasoning.

Can we safely conclude, based on this information, that WC/Darrin/Yonivore are NOT pseudoscientists?

We can conclude from your posts that you are a douche.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

We can conclude from your posts that you are a douche.

I actually find his approach to be consistent and logical. Yours on the other hand is consistent in that you parrot shit from your email and Fox News.

He is being a douche to you for very clear, detailed and thought out reasons. Thats the entire point of this thread which you fell right into.

This thread is the ultimate troll job. Yet even trolls can find the truth to be important.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Boutons, of course we will continue to see more warming, even if the causes cease. For decades, there has been missing energy in the energy budget. Less energy leaving than what is incoming which means the earth, most likely the oceans, have been storing heat. The we get a net global warming or cooling is because the energy budget is out of balance. The earths heat content, weather seen in temperature increases or not, will continue until there is balance.

Why is Alternet making known science as if it wasn't foreseen? Is it because the AGW crowd doesn't understand enough of the various geosciences to see the reality of the forces at work?

Regardless of man or not. The earth would be warming, It's natural.

This is almost as good as when you wiki'd basic properties of caps.


A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.

You sure dumbed this one down.

[RandomGuy]

We can conclude from your posts that you are a douche.

Fair enough.

You get the "dishonest" tag, and I get the "douche" tag. :toast

Now can we all agree I am right, even if I am a douchbag? :D

[RandomGuy]

Do economists all favour a carbon tax?


LAST week, a Twitter conversation broke out among a few economists concerning whether any serious economists opposed a carbon tax. No, concluded the tweeters, but Tyler Cowen begged to differ. Mr Cowen writes that he personally favours a carbon tax but can imagine a number of principled reasons other economists might not.

Why would we expect economists to support a carbon tax? It's very close to the economic ideal. Global warming is a phenomenon associated with emissions of greenhouse gases over and above natural cycles—largely those resulting from the burning of carbon fuels humans have dug up out of the ground. We expect normal economic activity to maximise social good because each individual balances costs and benefits when making economic decisions. Carbon emissions represent a negative externality. When an individual takes an economic action with some fossil-fuel energy content—whether running a petrol-powered lawnmower, turning on a light, or buying bunch of grapes—that person balances their personal benefits against the costs of the action. The cost to them of the climate change resulting from the carbon content of that decisions, however, is effectively zero and is rationally ignored. The decision to ignore carbon content, when aggregated over the whole of humanity, generates huge carbon dioxide emissions and rising global temperatures.

The economic solution is to tax the externality so that the social cost of carbon is reflected in the individual consumer's decision. The carbon tax is an elegant solution to a complicated problem, which allows the everyday business of consumer decision making to do the work of emission reduction. It's by no means the only economically sensible policy response to the threat of climate change, but it is the one we'd expect economists to embrace.

Mr Cowen argues for caution on this point for several reasons. A carbon tax will be less effective if it's not universally applied, potentially leading to carbon leakage to countries with looser environmental rules. He worries that where carbon fees have been applied innovation has not been quick to respond. He fears that good substitutes for carbon fuels don't exist, especially in the transport sector, and worries that higher fuel prices might harm the economy. He suggests that a "green-energy subsidies first" policy might make more sense, and he talks about distributional and rent-seeking costs of the policy.

I think the weakness of these arguments is telling, and it's not surprising that Mr Cowen continues to support a carbon tax. What if a carbon price doesn't immediately drive emission reductions? Then the tax will be an effective revenue raiser, much more efficient than a tax on income. Either way you win. The worry about carbon leakage is a real one, but this dynamic also implies that each new country that prices carbon increases the benefit of existing carbon-price policies in other countries.

Substitution in the transport sector is somewhat problematic, but a viable carbon price would not have much effect on petrol costs at the outset. A carbon tax of $30 per tonne of CO2 would only increase petrol costs by about 9 cents per gallon. This is dwarfed by moves in the market price of petrol. The vulnerability of the American economy to oil shocks argues for an increased tax on petrol, but that's a different policy debate. Mr Cowen seems to ignore the fact that oil is just one small part of the American economy's fossil-fuel use.

A carbon tax would attract rent-seeking, but arguably less than alternative policies, like subsidies or a cap-and-trade system. Importantly, money spent on adaptation or post hoc climate-disaster relief is also subject to rent-seeking and corruption issues. Given that many poor countries with weak institutions are likely to feel the brunt of the impact of global warming first and are likely to be poor spenders of the aid money that will invariably flow, a carbon tax looks like one of the policy solutions best suited to the minimisation of these ills.

Mr Cowen doesn't mention what I see as one of the most important roles of a carbon tax: as a check on other ill-advised programmes. A carbon tax would have quickly made the net dirtiness of corn-based ethanol obvious (by helping to offset subsidies and making corn-based ethanol more expensive). It would be more difficult to roll out and sustain such misguided programmes with a carbon tax, and the ones that went ahead anyway would do less damage. A carbon tax is also the easiest way to capture whatever low-hanging emission-reduction fruit is out there. Right now, consumers are generally indifferent between similarly-priced goods with wildly different carbon profiles. A carbon tax encourages consumers to realise the easy carbon gains available from switching to good low-carbon substitutes wherever they exist.

The biggest problem with a carbon tax is that America's government seems unable to deliver one. Attitudes may change, however, and near-uniform economist support for the policy (probably) doesn't hurt its odds of eventual passage.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2011/09/climate-policy

For the love of Christ, don't make me explain negative externalities again. Fucking get off your lazy denier asses, and learn the concept.

[Wild Cobra]

Who said anything about heat? I said energy. You have no clue and its obvious. I don't need that clarified.
You obviously never studied the Earth's Energy Budget.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You obviously never studied the Earth's Energy Budget.

You apparently have and Bert was right:

A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.

[Wild Cobra]

I've never heard of that either tbh. Maybe he has a point here....
I understand. Manny cannot debate me so he picks up any little thing and tries to smack me with it, but doesn't explain why he thinks he's right over me. Attacking rather than asking for a clarification. He can go fuck himself.

[Wild Cobra]

It is a bit damning that WC didn't figure out that you meant conservation.


Why, because didn't respond directly to chemical changes or state changes? This is a very complex field. One could go on for thousands of words just responding to something, and still miss what the other person intends.

It's pretty unscientific to jump to conclusions.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Why, because didn't respond directly to chemical changes or state changes? This is a very complex field. One could go on for thousands of words just responding to something, and still miss what the other person intends.

It's pretty unscientific to jump to conclusions.

its a complex field but state change versus chemical change is taught in middle school. Keep on dumbing it down, dimwit.

[DarrinS]

RG,

As an accountant, if you "cooked the books" to give your boss (or client) a result they wanted, as opposed to the actual result, could you get into any legal trouble?

Just curious.

[MannyIsGod]

Um I'm not even talking about state changes. I'm talking about conservation of energy. If energy in the ocean is transfered to the atmosphere should the energy in the ocean decrease, increase, or stay the same? Its ridiculously simple.

[mouse]

Without bothering to read the piece, I am going to take a wild guess...

expected from you....

[Wild Cobra]

Um I'm not even talking about state changes. I'm talking about conservation of energy. If energy in the ocean is transfered to the atmosphere should the energy in the ocean decrease, increase, or stay the same? Its ridiculously simple.
Yes, that part is simple. Of course if energy is transferred to the atmosphere, the ocean loses an equal amount. I do understand those simple aspects of science, and you thinking I don't is very insulting.

Remember, the Thermohaline Circulation is a very long process, and changes in absorbed heat have some predictable results that the AGW crowd completely ignores. There are several aspect to climate change, besides greenhouse gasses. the ocean can sore and release stored energy as well.

[MannyIsGod]

No, you don't understand this easy science. I find it laughable that within a few posts you claim scientists with more expertise in their little finger than you have in total body don't know simple science and then claim to be insulted when its pointed outhow your theories ignore fundementals because you're too stupid to understand them.

So, is the ocean losing energy or gaining it?

[Wild Cobra]

No, you don't understand this easy science. I find it laughable that within a few posts you claim scientists with more expertise in their little finger than you have in total body don't know simple science and then claim to be insulted when its pointed outhow your theories ignore fundementals because you're too stupid to understand them.

So, is the ocean losing energy or gaining it?
I already answered your question. Do you think by asking again, I will change my answer?

[DarrinS]

No, you don't understand this easy science. I find it laughable that within a few posts you claim scientists with more expertise in their little finger than you have in total body don't know simple science and then claim to be insulted when its pointed outhow your theories ignore fundementals because you're too stupid to understand them.

So, is the ocean losing energy or gaining it?





Well I have my own article on “where the heck is global warming?” We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. …

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The … data published in the August … 2009 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

...

How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are nowhere close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter?

We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we cannot account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geo-engineering quite hopeless, as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!

[MannyIsGod]

I already answered your question. Do you think by asking again, I will change my answer?

Yes or no, is the ocean losing energy? Yes or no? True or false?

[Agloco]

Um I'm not even talking about state changes. I'm talking about conservation of energy. If energy in the ocean is transfered to the atmosphere should the energy in the ocean decrease, increase, or stay the same? Its ridiculously simple.

It's so easy, WC could do it.

o5JV0Fs_GE8

[Wild Cobra]

Yes or no, is the ocean losing energy? Yes or no? True or false?
You change the question.

I don't know if it is losing or gaining energy right now. So many factors to consider, and I haven't been tracking them. I will assume, because of where we are in our elliptical orbit, and passing the equinox into winter, that we are gaining energy in the ocean.

[Wild Cobra]

You know Manny, the bottom line is this. You don't want an honest debate. When I say something incorrect, that could be a misstatement or incorrect term, rather than ask for clarification, you use it as a weapon. I have asked several times recently and in the past for you to ask what I mean rather than accuse. Now, you expect me to answer silly ass questions when you wont answer mine. My answers in such cases will be illusive since I will pick my own parameters behind such silly questions.


I understand. Manny cannot debate me so he picks up any little thing and tries to smack me with it, but doesn't explain why he thinks he's right over me. Attacking rather than asking for a clarification. He can go fuck himself.

Someone want to explain to the partschanger whythis is ironic and funny as hell?
Because you cannot explain it to me, right?

How about it Manny. Why was my remark funny? Don't you understand solubility of gasses in liquids, and how the equilibrium respond to temperature?

[MannyIsGod]

You change the question.

I don't know if it is losing or gaining energy right now. So many factors to consider, and I haven't been tracking them. I will assume, because of where we are in our elliptical orbit, and passing the equinox into winter, that we are gaining energy in the ocean.

Then you don't know if the oceans are the reasonfor the warming and you obviously don't understand basic physics principles. Conservation of energy. Look it up.

[MannyIsGod]

You know Manny, the bottom line is this. You don't want an honest debate. When I say something incorrect, that could be a misstatement or incorrect term, rather than ask for clarification, you use it as a weapon. I have asked several times recently and in the past for you to ask what I mean rather than accuse. Now, you expect me to answer silly ass questions when you wont answer mine. My answers in such cases will be illusive since I will pick my own parameters behind such silly questions.



Because you cannot explain it to me, right?

How about it Manny. Why was my remark funny? Don't you understand solubility of gasses in liquids, and how the equilibrium respond to temperature?

Its not my fault your ignorance leads to youconstantly spewing garbage. Don't claim to understand things you don't and then get butthurt when you get called out.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You change the question.

I don't know if it is losing or gaining energy right now. So many factors to consider, and I haven't been tracking them. I will assume, because of where we are in our elliptical orbit, and passing the equinox into winter, that we are gaining energy in the ocean.

No he didn't. You are just too ignorant to figure it out. While you are at it look up zero sum. Its at the root of that energy budget stuff you tout. Btw I love how those budget guys tout the inaccuracies of data collection on the one hand but then feel free to make claims about the enthalpy of the entire the globe.

I purposely stay out of this discussion because large scale models such asthis are nonperiodic and have no sense of linearity even in small domains. Yet your dumb ass has no problem acting the fool.

[Wild Cobra]

Then you don't know if the oceans are the reasonfor the warming and you obviously don't understand basic physics principles. Conservation of energy. Look it up.
I understand conservation of energy. I am not claiming any violation of such physics. Do you believe that regardless of the shortwave and longwave energy the ocean absorbs, it maintains a constant temperature?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I understand conservation of energy. I am not claiming any violation of such physics. Do you believe that regardless of the shortwave and longwave energy the ocean absorbs, it maintains a constant temperature?

You act like they do not understand the theory of others that you poorly explain about the heat exchange with the ocean and ocean currents.

You really are mindnumbingly stupid.

[MannyIsGod]

I understand conservation of energy. I am not claiming any violation of such physics.


No, you don't. If you did you wouldn't say the ocean is causing the heating and then follow it up with you don't know whether or not the ocean is gaining or losing energy.


Do you believe that regardless of the shortwave and longwave energy the ocean absorbs, it maintains a constant temperature?

Of course not. Because of the additional downward radiation caused by GHG increases it is gaining energy. This is seen in thermal expansion and increased oceanic heat content. Because it is gaining energy, it cannot be the cause increased atmospheric heating.

[Wild Cobra]

No, you don't. If you did you wouldn't say the ocean is causing the heating and then follow it up with you don't know whether or not the ocean is gaining or losing energy.



Of course not. Because of the additional downward radiation caused by GHG increases it is gaining energy. This is seen in thermal expansion and increased oceanic heat content. Because it is gaining energy, it cannot be the cause increased atmospheric heating.
We have a misunderstanding, and instead of being a man, you want to make accusations rather than get to the bottom of our misunderstanding. I have to either conclude you are clueless, or you have no desire to debate an argument you will lose.

[Halberto]

Another contributor of GHG:

vcXqyoRxFeY

[Wild Cobra]

Another contributor of GHG:

vcXqyoRxFeY
What's worse is the hot air our politicians spew on a regular basis.

[Wild Cobra]

I'm going to go way back to this post to try to get a point across that you fail to see.

:lmao

I specifically said outgoing LW radiation in each post and somehow you still didn't get it but you understand EVERYTHING sooooooooooooooooo well. You're amazing.
Yes, I understand these theories, believe it or not. However, you are also taking about longwave being seen by satellites. I do understand that the general dynamics include when less energy leaves the system, the earth warms. However, you still have to look at the entire spectra. Not just CO2, and not just longwave.

How far would you say the spectra of CO2 can be seen? To explain my point, I will compare it to fog. The thicker fog is, the less distance we see through it. At some point, you cannot discern anything. Same thing with the IR spectral imaging. At this point, from a satellite view, we are only seeing the uppermost atmosphere. Not into the troposphere. Looking at any specific spectra, you can only see so far before it appears opaque. Then... how in hell do you determine just how deep you were looking? Any stereoscopic method that helps determining distance also reduces accuracy to the point of being useless date. Upper atmospheric temperatures do not coincide with lower atmosphere temperatures. Seeing less power emitted from the CO2 bands can mean it is blocking more, or it can mean the CO2 in the upper atmosphere is cooling. It can mean the surface is cooling. Seeing less LW spectra can mean the same thing. More blocking, cooler upper atmosphere, or cooler surface. These chances can also be natural oscillations we are not yet aware of. Maybe if we had 1,000 years of satellite data, we could theorize something more solid, right now, it's still just hypothetical and poorly understood theoretical.

Now what about addressing shortwave? If more shortwave is being reflected or refracted, there is less energy to change to LW. After all, nearly all the longwave energy we measure originates from the shortwave.

What about the small amount of SW being emitted by oxygen, nitrogen, ozone, etc? You have to look at the whole package. Not just shortwave or CO2.

The atmospheric mix is primarily nitrogen, followed by oxygen, argon, and then CO2. It is only about 0.04% of the atmosphere, and even though per molecule, the the spectral emissions are small for the other three, by shear volume alone, they cannot be discounted. H2O is in there too, but primarily stays below 10 km in altitude.

There is so much going on. Varying humidity, varying clouds, varying solar output, varying earth distance to the sun by time of year, etc. Eventually, any warming that occurs with CO2 or H2O, is transmitted to the Nitrogen, oxygen, and argon. Same holds true with them. Solar activity has seen decreasing for some time now, probably reducing the higher energy spectra that heats the upper atmosphere, the same way the aurora australis and aurora borealis change with the solar cycles. Can you convince me that this obvious change in uppermost atmosphere temperature changes will not affect the long wave spectra, after the heat transfer takes place between the molecules? Do you think they someone magically segregate themselves?

About 25% to 28% of the solar energy is absorbed in the atmosphere, mostly from shortwave energy. This energy will have an effect on the CO2 and H2O heat also. It works both ways.

Changes in cloud density and coverage likely have the largest effect on atmospheric heat. CO2 is a minor player for so many reasons. H2O is pretty effective at blocking all but one CO2 spectral band, and partially blocks another. The one band can be determined to see CO2 vibration, but again. It can only be seen so deep before the error becomes too much for any accuracy, because it is mixed with other gasses, heating or cooling it as they do in any fluid/gas system.

When you talk about only longwave, with no talk about incoming energy, or shortwave levels, it is pointless.

Back to temperature in the upper atmosphere. With such a variance in temperature vs. altitude, they are bound to be some pretty big swings:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/science/spectralcalc/tempvsaltitude.jpg

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'm going to go way back to this post to try to get a point across that you fail to see.

Yes, I understand these theories, believe it or not. However, you are also taking about longwave being seen by satellites. I do understand that the general dynamics include when less energy leaves the system, the earth warms. However, you still have to look at the entire spectra. Not just CO2, and not just longwave.

How far would you say the spectra of CO2 can be seen? To explain my point, I will compare it to fog. The thicker fog is, the less distance we see through it. At some point, you cannot discern anything. Same thing with the IR spectral imaging. At this point, from a satellite view, we are only seeing the uppermost atmosphere. Not into the troposphere. Looking at any specific spectra, you can only see so far before it appears opaque. Then... how in hell do you determine just how deep you were looking? Any stereoscopic method that helps determining distance also reduces accuracy to the point of being useless date. Upper atmospheric temperatures do not coincide with lower atmosphere temperatures. Seeing less power emitted from the CO2 bands can mean it is blocking more, or it can mean the CO2 in the upper atmosphere is cooling. It can mean the surface is cooling. Seeing less LW spectra can mean the same thing. More blocking, cooler upper atmosphere, or cooler surface. These chances can also be natural oscillations we are not yet aware of. Maybe if we had 1,000 years of satellite data, we could theorize something more solid, right now, it's still just hypothetical and poorly understood theoretical.

Now what about addressing shortwave? If more shortwave is being reflected or refracted, there is less energy to change to LW. After all, nearly all the longwave energy we measure originates from the shortwave.

What about the small amount of SW being emitted by oxygen, nitrogen, ozone, etc? You have to look at the whole package. Not just shortwave or CO2.

The atmospheric mix is primarily nitrogen, followed by oxygen, argon, and then CO2. It is only about 0.04% of the atmosphere, and even though per molecule, the the spectral emissions are small for the other three, by shear volume alone, they cannot be discounted. H2O is in there too, but primarily stays below 10 km in altitude.

There is so much going on. Varying humidity, varying clouds, varying solar output, varying earth distance to the sun by time of year, etc. Eventually, any warming that occurs with CO2 or H2O, is transmitted to the Nitrogen, oxygen, and argon. Same holds true with them. Solar activity has seen decreasing for some time now, probably reducing the higher energy spectra that heats the upper atmosphere, the same way the aurora australis and aurora borealis change with the solar cycles. Can you convince me that this obvious change in uppermost atmosphere temperature changes will not affect the long wave spectra, after the heat transfer takes place between the molecules? Do you think they someone magically segregate themselves?

About 25% to 28% of the solar energy is absorbed in the atmosphere, mostly from shortwave energy. This energy will have an effect on the CO2 and H2O heat also. It works both ways.

Changes in cloud density and coverage likely have the largest effect on atmospheric heat. CO2 is a minor player for so many reasons. H2O is pretty effective at blocking all but one CO2 spectral band, and partially blocks another. The one band can be determined to see CO2 vibration, but again. It can only be seen so deep before the error becomes too much for any accuracy, because it is mixed with other gasses, heating or cooling it as they do in any fluid/gas system.

When you talk about only longwave, with no talk about incoming energy, or shortwave levels, it is pointless.

Back to temperature in the upper atmosphere. With such a variance in temperature vs. altitude, they are bound to be some pretty big swings:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/science/spectralcalc/tempvsaltitude.jpg

So let me get this straight. Your same brain likes the ocean current model and the methodology behind that but think the satellite's millions upon millions of points of data are worthless?

Do you even have any notion what they are talking about when they say confirmation bias? You really do disgust me. Hes keeping a list of your stupid shit like a mark of shame and you just blithely saunter right back in.

At least the warming has become serious enough lately that risk assessment takes over for the subterfuge of the shills you parrot.

We don't need shill minions.

[Wild Cobra]

So let me get this straight. Your same brain likes the ocean current model and the methodology behind that but think the satellite's millions upon millions of points of data are worthless?

Both have merit, but the accuracy is lacking unless you can see defined areas.


Do you even have any notion what they are talking about when they say confirmation bias?
Yes.

You really do disgust me. Hes keeping a list of your stupid shit like a mark of shame and you just blithely saunter right back in.

That is his confirmation bias, and yours if you agree.


At least the warming has become serious enough lately that risk assessment takes over for the subterfuge of the shills you parrot.

Assigning a risk assessment is one thing, but determining the root cause for what reason has what effect is not accurate, at least to date.

[RandomGuy]

RG,

As an accountant, if you "cooked the books" to give your boss (or client) a result they wanted, as opposed to the actual result, could you get into any legal trouble?

Just curious.

That depends. There is more leeway to some things than one might think in terms of which estimates or starting assumptions you want to use.

There is a line though, past which it moves from optimistic to outright fraud.

Legal trouble would be had if such cooked books were relied on by a third party. Depending on the scope/party, it would be criminal, or at the least civil, yes.

[RandomGuy]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/10/21/berkeley_earth_surface_temperature_study/




Massive study concludes: 'Global warming is real'
Climate skeptics dealt 'clear and rigorous' blow
....
The BEST team, however, had a stated goal of neither proving nor disproving global temperature increases. As expressed by project cofounder Elizabeth Muller, Richard's daughter, the goal was to conduct an analysis so data-rich and objective that it would "cool the debate over global warming by addressing many of the valid claims of the skeptics in a clear and rigorous way."

The "valid claims" didn't survive.

For one, skeptics have charged that previous studies were done with selective data sets, but BEST lead scientist Robert Rhode points out that his team's analysis "is the first study to address the issue of data selection bias, by using nearly all of the available data, which includes about five times as many station locations as were reviewed by prior groups."

The data set was large, indeed: temperature data was gathered from 39,028 sites, collected by 10 different sources, resulting in 1.6 billion data points.

Another objection that has been raised is that temperature observations over the decades have been influenced by sensors being encroached upon by human development – the "urban heat island" (UHI) effect. The BEST analysis, however, found this effect to be negligible at best.

Enter überskeptic Anthony Watts
Finally, some skeptics have questioned the accuracy of the data used in earlier studies – notably Anthony Watts of Watts Up With That?, a leading climate-skeptic blog.

Watts argues that poorly performing temperature sensors in the US have skewed climate analysis, but the BEST analysis concludes that although readings from the stations Watts identifies as "poor" may be both higher and less accurate, the overall global warming trend is the same.

Watts has some strong criticisms of the BEST report – which, of course, is as it should be: science is enriched by objective debate. Equally true, however, is that it's crippled by arguments that seek to merely prove a pre-decided point rather than be informed by observeable data.

To help in that debate, the BEST team is sharing both its 1.6 billion temperature data points and the code used to analyze them.

Project cofounder Richard Muller is a fervent believer in data sharing and peer review – and an equally fervent critic of how journals such as Science and Nature stifle broad-ranging peer analysis, debate, and collaboration.

When contacted by The Reg, Muller responded in an email that he believes scientific papers should be widely circulated in "preprint" form before their publication. "It has been traditional throughout most of my career to distribute preprints around the world," he writes. "In fact, most universities and laboratories had 'preprint libraries' where you could frequently find colleagues."

This preprint system, he told us, is being stifled by major journals. "This traditional peer-review system worked much better than the current Science/Nature system, which in my mind restricts the peer review to 2 or 3 anonymous people who often give a cursory look at the paper."

While this more tightly controlled review method may enhance the prestige of major journals, Muller told us, it does nothing for the advancement of science.

"I think this abandonment of the traditional peer review system is responsible, in part, for the fact that so many bad papers are being published," he writes. "These papers have not be vetted by the true peers, the large scientific world."

And so the BEST data and code is out there, available to one and all, in the hope that the "large scientific world" will dig into it, and find out the truth. Because there is, after all, truth to be found – the earth is either warming or it isn't.

Muller also believes there is more work to be done before the data is complete – a glance at the map, above, shows the paucity of ocean-based sensor stations. According to Muller, that's BEST's next project.

Muller also cautions that observers should not take the BEST results and use them to prove something that they can't. When we asked him if it were possible to extrapolate from his team's results and predict whether the temperature increase will continue, he told us: "I don't think that is possible. The key issue is what fraction of the observed change is anthropomorphic. We don't shed much light on that."

But the BEST project did come up with another finding that may influence the development of climate-variation models. "We do show that decadal variations (peaks and dips lasting 3-15 years) are driven much more by the north Atlantic variability (e.g. the Gulf Stream) than they are by El Niño," he told us. "We need to include this effect in the models to see if it changes the part that the models attribute to humans."

The development of those models will require sober analysis of data and cooperation among scientists, technicians, and mathematicians, both from supporters and skeptics of predominantly accepted climate-change science.

And during those discussions, The Reg humbly suggests that we keep two things in mind. One, that although "predominantly accepted" means neither true nor false, automatic contrarianism is of value only when its proponents remain open to data-fueled persuasion.

And, two, that calling a scientist with whose results you disagree a "hockey puck" is hardly helpful.



Hopefully we can move the debate forward a bit.

I am for improvements to peer-review processes and making data/analysis more transparent.

[DarrinS]

Muller also cautions that observers should not take the BEST results and use them to prove something that they can't. When we asked him if it were possible to extrapolate from his team's results and predict whether the temperature increase will continue, he told us: "I don't think that is possible. The key issue is what fraction of the observed change is anthropomorphic. We don't shed much light on that."

But the BEST project did come up with another finding that may influence the development of climate-variation models. "We do show that decadal variations (peaks and dips lasting 3-15 years) are driven much more by the north Atlantic variability (e.g. the Gulf Stream) than they are by El Niño," he told us. "We need to include this effect in the models to see if it changes the part that the models attribute to humans."




Hmmm

[Wild Cobra]

I am for improvements to peer-review processes and making data/analysis more transparent.
Until it is, and because of the amount of lying done, the AGW crowd will continue to lose credibility.

[boutons_deux]

NOAA Bombshell: Human-Caused Climate Change Already a Major Factor in More Frequent Mediterranean Droughts

Wintertime droughts are increasingly common in the Mediterranean region, and human-caused climate change is partly responsible, according to a new analysis by NOAA scientists and colleagues at the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES). In the last 20 years, 10 of the driest 12 winters have taken place in the lands surrounding the Mediterranean Sea.

“The magnitude and frequency of the drying that has occurred is too great to be explained by natural variability alone,” said Martin Hoerling, Ph.D. of NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colo., lead author of a paper published online in the Journal of Climate this month. “This is not encouraging news for a region that already experiences water stress, because it implies natural variability alone is unlikely to return the region’s climate to normal.”

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/10/27/355639/noaa-climate-change-mediterranean-droughts/

[RandomGuy]

Until it is, and because of the amount of lying done, the AGW crowd will continue to lose credibility.

:lol

http://spurstalk.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=219&pictureid=1639

This from a guy who has done more than his share to destroy the credibility of the skeptic arguments.

[RandomGuy]

Because I believe in intellectual honesty, and one of the key requirements of this is to admit the failings and weaknesses in your own arguments:

An array of errors
Investigations into a case of alleged scientific misconduct have revealed numerous holes in the oversight of science and scientific publishing

ANIL POTTI, Joseph Nevins and their colleagues at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, garnered widespread attention in 2006. They reported in the New England Journal of Medicine that they could predict the course of a patient’s lung cancer using devices called expression arrays, which log the activity patterns of thousands of genes in a sample of tissue as a colourful picture (see above). A few months later, they wrote in Nature Medicine that they had developed a similar technique which used gene expression in laboratory cultures of cancer cells, known as cell lines, to predict which chemotherapy would be most effective for an individual patient suffering from lung, breast or ovarian cancer.

At the time, this work looked like a tremendous advance for personalised medicine—the idea that understanding the molecular specifics of an individual’s illness will lead to a tailored treatment. The papers drew adulation from other workers in the field, and many newspapers, including this one (see article), wrote about them. The team then started to organise a set of clinical trials of personalised treatments for lung and breast cancer. Unbeknown to most people in the field, however, within a few weeks of the publication of the Nature Medicine paper a group of biostatisticians at the MD Anderson Cancer Centre in Houston, led by Keith Baggerly and Kevin Coombes, had begun to find serious flaws in the work.

Dr Baggerly and Dr Coombes had been trying to reproduce Dr Potti’s results at the request of clinical researchers at the Anderson centre who wished to use the new technique. When they first encountered problems, they followed normal procedures by asking Dr Potti, who had been in charge of the day-to-day research, and Dr Nevins, who was Dr Potti’s supervisor, for the raw data on which the published analysis was based—and also for further details about the team’s methods, so that they could try to replicate the original findings.

A can of worms

Dr Potti and Dr Nevins answered the queries and publicly corrected several errors, but Dr Baggerly and Dr Coombes still found the methods’ predictions were little better than chance. Furthermore, the list of problems they uncovered continued to grow. For example, they saw that in one of their papers Dr Potti and his colleagues had mislabelled the cell lines they used to derive their chemotherapy prediction model, describing those that were sensitive as resistant, and vice versa. This meant that even if the predictive method the team at Duke were describing did work, which Dr Baggerly and Dr Coombes now seriously doubted, patients whose doctors relied on this paper would end up being given a drug they were less likely to benefit from instead of more likely.

Another alleged error the researchers at the Anderson centre discovered was a mismatch in a table that compared genes to gene-expression data. The list of genes was shifted with respect to the expression data, so that the one did not correspond with the other. On top of that, the numbers and names of cell lines used to generate the data were not consistent. In one instance, the researchers at Duke even claimed that their work made biological sense based on the presence of a gene, called ERCC1, that is not represented on the expression array used in the team’s experiments.

Even with all these alleged errors, the controversy might have been relegated to an arcane debate in the scientific literature if the team at Duke had not chosen, within a few months of the papers’ publication (and at the time questions were being raised about the data’s quality) to launch three clinical trials based on their work. Dr Potti and his colleagues also planned to use their gene-expression data to guide therapeutic choices in a lung-cancer trial paid for by America’s National Cancer Institute (NCI). That led Lisa McShane, a biostatistician at the NCI who was already concerned about Dr Potti’s results, to try to replicate the work. She had no better luck than Dr Baggerly and Dr Coombes. The more questions she asked, the less concrete the Duke methods appeared.

In light of all this, the NCI expressed its concern about what was going on to Duke University’s administrators. In October 2009, officials from the university arranged for an external review of the work of Dr Potti and Dr Nevins, and temporarily halted the three trials. The review committee, however, had access only to material supplied by the researchers themselves, and was not presented with either the NCI’s exact concerns or the problems discovered by the team at the Anderson centre. The committee found no problems, and the three trials began enrolling patients again in February 2010.

Finally, in July 2010, matters unravelled when the Cancer Letter reported that Dr Potti had lied in numerous documents and grant applications. He falsely claimed to have been a Rhodes Scholar in Australia (a curious claim in any case, since Rhodes scholars only attend Oxford University). Dr Baggerly’s observation at the time was, “I find it ironic that we have been yelling for three years about the science, which has the potential to be very damaging to patients, but that was not what has started things rolling.”

A bigger can?

By the end of 2010, Dr Potti had resigned from Duke, the university had stopped the three trials for good, scientists from elsewhere had claimed that Dr Potti had stolen their data for inclusion in his paper in the New England Journal, and officials at Duke had started the process of retracting three prominent papers, including the one in Nature Medicine. (The paper in the New England Journal, not one of these three, was also retracted, in March of this year.) At this point, the NCI and officials at Duke asked the Institute of Medicine, a board of experts that advises the American government, to investigate. Since then, a committee of the institute, appointed for the task, has been trying to find out what was happening at Duke that allowed the problems to continue undetected for so long, and to recommend minimum standards that must be met before this sort of work can be used to guide clinical trials in the future.

At the committee’s first meeting, in December 2010, Dr McShane stunned observers by revealing her previously unpublished investigation of the Duke work. Subsequently, the committee’s members interviewed Dr Baggerly about the problems he had encountered trying to sort the data. He noted that in addition to a lack of unfettered access to the computer code and consistent raw data on which the work was based, journals that had readily published Dr Potti’s papers were reluctant to publish his letters critical of the work. Nature Medicine published one letter, with a rebuttal from the team at Duke, but rejected further comments when problems continued. Other journals that had carried subsequent high-profile papers from Dr Potti behaved in similar ways. (Dr Baggerly and Dr Coombes did not approach the New England Journal because, they say, they “never could sort that work enough to make critical comments to the journal”.) Eventually, the two researchers resorted to publishing their criticisms in a statistical journal, which would be unlikely to reach the same audience as a medical journal.

Two subsequent sessions of the committee have included Duke’s point of view. At one of these, in March 2011, Dr Nevins admitted that some of the data in the papers had been “corrupted”. He continued, though, to claim ignorance of the problems identified by Dr Baggerly and Dr Coombes until the Rhodes scandal broke, and to support the overall methods used in the papers—though he could not explain why he had not detected the problems even when alerted to anomalies.

At its fourth, and most recent meeting, on August 22nd, the committee questioned eight scientists and administrators from Duke. Rob Califf, a vice-chancellor in charge of clinical research, asserted that what had happened was a case of the “Swiss-cheese effect” in which 15 different things had to go awry to let the problems slip through unheeded. Asked by The Economist to comment on what was happening, he said, “As we evaluated the issues, we had the chance to review our systems and we believe we have identified, and are implementing, an improved approach.”

The university’s lapses and errors included being slow to deal with potential financial conflicts of interest declared by Dr Potti, Dr Nevins and other investigators, including involvement in Expression Analysis Inc and CancerGuide DX, two firms to which the university also had ties. Moreover, Dr Califf and other senior administrators acknowledged that once questions arose about the work, they gave too much weight to Dr Nevins and his judgment. That led them, for example, to withhold Dr Baggerly’s criticisms from the external-review committee in 2009. They also noted that the internal committees responsible for protecting patients and overseeing clinical trials lacked the expertise to review the complex, statistics-heavy methods and data produced by experiments involving gene expression.

That is a theme the investigating committee has heard repeatedly. The process of peer review relies (as it always has done) on the goodwill of workers in the field, who have jobs of their own and frequently cannot spend the time needed to check other people’s papers in a suitably thorough manner. (Dr McShane estimates she spent 300-400 hours reviewing the Duke work, while Drs Baggerly and Coombes estimate they have spent nearly 2,000 hours.) Moreover, the methods sections of papers are supposed to provide enough information for others to replicate an experiment, but often do not. Dodgy work will out eventually, as it is found not to fit in with other, more reliable discoveries. But that all takes time and money.

The Institute of Medicine expects to complete its report, and its recommendations, in the middle of next year. In the meantime, more retractions are coming, according to Dr Califf. The results of a misconduct investigation are expected in the next few months and legal suits from patients who believe they were recruited into clinical trials under false pretences will probably follow.

The whole thing, then, is a mess. Who will carry the can remains to be seen. But the episode does serve as a timely reminder of one thing that is sometimes forgotten. Scientists are human, too.



Correction: This article originally stated that by the end of 2010 officials at Duke University began the process of retracting five papers. That should have been three papers. This was corrected on September 8th.

http://www.economist.com/node/21528593
----------------------------------------------------------


The peer review process is not without its faults, and "groupthink" is a possibility in any field. This is why I give some moderately small chance that the "skeptics" repeated claims that they are shut out of this process from the get go may have a grain of truth to them.

That said, the overall quality of assertions about the science that I have seen here and elsewhere from skeptics is very damning. Bad science, shitty logic, and obvious political motivation do not make for papers that would stand up to any fair, competant review.

I am for any improvements to the peer review process that encourage openness and transparency as a way to both address the legitimate skeptics, as well as more clearly show the political hacks like the ones who post here for what they are, i.e. unfair dogmatics.

After having read the above article, I am a bit more inclined to give some credence to the criticisms of peer review leveled by the legitimate skeptics of AGW. I am, however, very mindful of the way the political hacks will attempt to magnify anything that they think proves their case beyond all reasonable weight, the "climategate" emails come immediately to mind as an example.

In the end, I am still left with a very large amount of credible scientific evidence pointing to one firm conclusion, that we are markedly affecting our climate through our emissions of GHG. I don't think the ultimate results will be the doomsday that some posit, although the ultimate affects will be unpleasant and negative. By the same token, I have seen absolutely no evidence that any attempts we might make to stave off these affects would have any real damaging affects to our economy, as the political hacks like to claim.

Perhaps as time passes, this will change, but given that we are learning more and more about our climate each year, and the vast majority of that appears to supports AGW, I would not give that very good odds of happening.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Hmmm

He is saying that prediction methods are inaccurate but the point of the study was to find out the cause of the warming. You read all that and couldn't figure out the point of the study?

More proof of your overwhelming stupidity. Its like Paris Hilton somehow got an engineering degree. That takes some very basic reading skills to glean even from the two sentences. Its doubly sad because Manny already pointed out similar stupid thinking in this thread along those exact same lines.

This goes beyond willful ignorance into the realm of stupid. I can just see you staring off into space trying to figure out the logic expressions for sequences and just *durrrrrrr*.

[DarrinS]

He is saying that prediction methods are inaccurate but the point of the study was to find out the cause of the warming. You read all that and couldn't figure out the point of the study?


I don't see anything about "causation" here.

http://berkeleyearth.org/objectives.php




The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project has the following objectives:

1. To merge existing surface station temperature data sets into a new comprehensive raw data set with a common format that could be used for weather and climate research

2. To review existing temperature processing algorithms for averaging, homogenization, and error analysis to understand both their advantages and their limitations

3. To develop new approaches and alternative statistical methods that may be able to effectively remove some of the limitations present in existing algorithms

4. To create and publish a new global surface temperature record and associated uncertainty analysis

5. To provide an open platform for further analysis by publishing our complete data and software code as well as tools to aid both professional and amateur exploration of the data






More proof of your overwhelming stupidity. Its like Paris Hilton somehow got an engineering degree. That takes some very basic reading skills to glean even from the two sentences. Its doubly sad because Manny already pointed out similar stupid thinking in this thread along those exact same lines.

This goes beyond willful ignorance into the realm of stupid. I can just see you staring off into space trying to figure out the logic expressions for sequences and just *durrrrrrr*.


Ok there, captain insult.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I don't see anything about "causation" here.

http://berkeleyearth.org/objectives.php


OK there, captain insult.

Wow, you're right. i can admit it.

That being said i do not get your hmm statement especially after you just linked their missions statement. it makes no sense. Its funny when you correct an erroneous statement and then debase your original argument.

Oh and i insult you all the time because you say incredibly stupid shit all the time and show a definite penchant for not thinking for yourself. i will continue to do so because those you allow to think for you are a bunch of selfish pricks. Do not mistake my introspection for contrition. I can just admit when I am wrong. You should try it.

[Tree hugger]

Of course mankind has effected the Earth.

[DarrinS]

wYLmLW4k4aI

[RandomGuy]

LiYZxOlCN10

[DarrinS]

LiYZxOlCN10

This certainly helps "the cause". :lmao

Just so I understand this correctly: Scientists from other disciplines are allowed to throw their weight behind the "consensus", but their bona fides are called into question if they are skeptics? The whole thing is very cult-like.

[DarrinS]

Lol

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/10/how_did_occupy_wall_street_far.html

[Agloco]

Lol

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/10/how_did_occupy_wall_street_far.html

Why is this funny Darrin?

[Wild Cobra]

I'll bet Darrin has the same thoughts I do.

Thank God for Global Warming or it would really be cold!

[RandomGuy]

This certainly helps "the cause". :lmao

Just so I understand this correctly: Scientists from other disciplines are allowed to throw their weight behind the "consensus", but their bona fides are called into question if they are skeptics? The whole thing is very cult-like.

No, you do not understand correctly. I ain't gonna re-explain it to you either.

If you can't figure out, tough.

[RandomGuy]

I'll bet Darrin has the same thoughts I do.

Thank God for Global Warming or it would really be cold!

Meh, you are both simply being trolltards.

"That can't be cold because AGW theory says that there can't be cold spells".

Fallacy: Straw Man
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Description of Straw Man
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:


Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

-----------------------------

Climate scientists (Person A) claim that current warming trends are being heavily driven by human activity. (Position X)
Wild Cobra (Person A) says that climate scientists claim there can't be cold spells due to global warming(Position Y).
Wild Cobra (Person B) says that is the silliest thing he has heard, because here is a news story about a cold front.(Attacking position Y)
Since it still gets cold warming trends can't be heavily driven by human activity. (X is flawed, because Y is wrong)

------------------------------------------------------

I know you are simply trolling or trying to make a joke, but given what I say in the OP, making that joke by using previously debunked flawed logic simply proves my point, yet again, about the "denier" movement.

QED

[DarrinS]

Meh, you are both simply being trolltards.

"That can't be cold because AGW theory says that there can't be cold spells".

Fallacy: Straw Man




Obviously, when I post an article about a "cold spell", I am being a trolltard. Human beings have only been on this planet for a nanosecond in a geologic sense, and have been taking temperature measurements for an even shorter period. Is is only natural that we are going to see "historic" records broken, both hot and cold.

[DarrinS]

Here's a climate scientist and former IPCC lead author. I agree with him 100%.

cMNEGqNaNKs

[boutons_deux]

"Human beings have only been on this planet for a nanosecond in a geologic sense"

We serious people are only worried about the current and near (anthropocentric) futures (10s or 100s of years). FYI, the planet was humanly inhabitable, and we don't want to bring on a recurrence.

The mini-IceAge a few 100 years ago was a horrible human disaster for a MUCH SMALLER population. (heard this morning: 51 Indian babies per minute, 7B humans is official achieved today)

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Here's a climate scientist and former IPCC lead author. I agree with him 100%.

cMNEGqNaNKs

Of course you do. He concludes what your religious and politial beliefs want you to believe so you coopt your brain completely to what eh says. Thats why intelligent people have no respect for you beyond using you because you arent good for anything else.

[DarrinS]

Of course you do. He concludes what your religious and politial beliefs want you to believe so you coopt your brain completely to what eh says. Thats why intelligent people have no respect for you beyond using you because you arent good for anything else.


Point me to the paper that proves CO2 caused the 1 degree increase and I'll change my mind.

EDIT> More specifically, human emitted CO2 .

[MannyIsGod]

:lol

Oh no, Darrin doesn't agree! What are we to do when such a bastion of critical thinking and objectivity can't seem to come to the conclusion most scientists and peer reviewed science has?

Oh noesssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss!

[RandomGuy]

Here's a climate scientist and former IPCC lead author. I agree with him 100%.

cMNEGqNaNKs

As an aside, I thought it rather funny that the media types doing the interview put up the caption "Scientist says evidence doesn't indicate global warming", when the guy was actually saying "there is warming" at the exact same time.

Some other things Dr. Christie has said for context:


In a 2003 interview with National Public Radio about the 2003 American Geophysical Union (AGU) statement, he said he is "a strong critic of scientists who make catastrophic predictions of huge increases in global temperatures and tremendous rises in sea levels". He added, though, that "it is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into irrigated farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the air, and putting extra greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate has not changed in some way."[9]

In a 2009 interview with Fortune Magazine about signing the 2003 American Geophysical Union (AGU) statement, he said: "As far as the AGU, I thought that was a fine statement because it did not put forth a magnitude of the warming. We just said that human effects have a warming influence, and that's certainly true. There was nothing about disaster or catastrophe. In fact, I was very upset about the latest AGU statement [in 2007]. It was about alarmist as you can get." [11]

In a 2007 editorial in the Wall Street Journal, he wrote: "I'm sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see." [12]

In a 2007 ruling in a trial relating to automobile emission regulation in Vermont, U.S. District Court Chief Judge William K. Sessions mistakenly wrote, "Plaintiffs’ own expert, Dr. Christy, agrees with the IPCC’s assessment that in the light of new evidence and taking into account remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last fifty years is likely to have been due to the increase in GHG concentrations." [13] What Christy said in his testimony was, "You know, it's a statement that has lots of qualifications in it, so it's hard to disagree with." and "You saw me pause a long time because — this was six years ago. And the question was about what I thought six years ago." [14]

In 2009 written testimony to the U.S. House Ways and Means Committee, he wrote: "From my analysis, the actions being considered to 'stop global warming' will have an imperceptible impact on whatever the climate will do, while making energy more expensive, and thus have a negative impact on the economy as a whole. We have found that climate models and popular surface temperature data sets overstate the changes in the real atmosphere and that actual changes are not alarming." [15]
-----------------

He is probably one of the few legitimate, non-hack skeptics of the IPCC reports, which is why he is the darling of the "denier" movement.

Funny thing about his testimony to Congress:
The non-economist speculating on the effects on "the economy" from limiting GHG emissions.

The same guy who rails against the "alarmism" in the IPCC report ends up buying into the alarmism of the "deniers".

That particular alarmism on the part of the deniers about the catastrophic negative effects on the economy from limiting GHG is something any of you hacks has yet to back up with anything approaching evidence.

[DarrinS]

As an aside, I thought it rather funny that the media types doing the interview put up the caption "Scientist says evidence doesn't indicate global warming", when the guy was actually saying "there is warming" at the exact same time.




When the media says "global warming", they are talking about the anthropogenic variety. But you already knew that.

[RandomGuy]

When the media says "global warming", they are talking about the anthropogenic variety. But you already knew that.

Indeed. That is one of the ways in which reporter's shorthand can lead to people getting the wrong impression about the science involved.

It is the kind of thing that makes the politically motivated hacks of the denier movement seem far more credible than they should be to the casual observer.

[MannyIsGod]

Its always funny to watch Darrin agree with a scientist who comes out and says what Darrin wants to hear instead of taking time to research things objectively and come to a conclusion. It doesn't matter that there are way more equally qualified scientists disputing much of what Christy says because Darrin is going to cherry pick his champions based on WHAT they say not the actual data.

Textbook conformation bias.

Of course, Darrin is free to explain to him what makes Christy's research and opinions based on said research better than the thousands of opinions from qualified researchers.

[DarrinS]

Its always funny to watch Darrin agree with a scientist who comes out and says what Darrin wants to hear instead of taking time to research things objectively and come to a conclusion. It doesn't matter that there are way more equally qualified scientists disputing much of what Christy says because Darrin is going to cherry pick his champions based on WHAT they say not the actual data.

Textbook conformation bias.


Actually, I don't care that this guy is a "climate scientist". Just used it to illustrate the fact that not all climate scientists agree.

I have already indicated that I'm willing to do a complete 180 on the subject if you will point me to conclusive evidence that human greenhouse emissions are the primary cause of the 1 degree temp. increase.

[MannyIsGod]

Actually, I don't care that this guy is a "climate scientist". Just used it to illustrate the fact that not all climate scientists agree.

I have already indicated that I'm willing to do a complete 180 on the subject if you will point me to conclusive evidence that human greenhouse emissions are the primary cause of the 1 degree temp. increase.

Oh, wow. Not all climate scientists agree. Next you're going to prove taht water is wet and the sky is blue.

I can indicate that I can walk on water but that doesn't make it anymore true. You've been presented with a ton of research and you dismiss it out of hand and you regularly move goalposts and erect stupid straw men that are obvious. That may work with the idiots you encounter on a daily basis but when you're actually speaking to people with more than one brain cell they're going to see through your bullshit rather quickly, Darrin.

You may believe in your own mind that you've got an open mind and that the case merely hasn't been made but that belief only exists in your mind.

[DarrinS]

Oh, wow. Not all climate scientists agree. Next you're going to prove taht water is wet and the sky is blue.

I can indicate that I can walk on water but that doesn't make it anymore true. You've been presented with a ton of research and you dismiss it out of hand and you regularly move goalposts and erect stupid straw men that are obvious. That may work with the idiots you encounter on a daily basis but when you're actually speaking to people with more than one brain cell they're going to see through your bullshit rather quickly, Darrin.

You may believe in your own mind that you've got an open mind and that the case merely hasn't been made but that belief only exists in your mind.




I have already indicated that I'm willing to do a complete 180 on the subject if you will point me to conclusive evidence that human greenhouse emissions are the primary cause of the 1 degree temp. increase.


That's Ok. I didn't think you could.

[MannyIsGod]

Basically, Darrin your arguments usually come in one of the following flavors:
1) There's no warming!

2) Humans aren't causing the warming:

3) Humans aren't causing MOST of the warming

4) The warming isn't significant

The lack of consistency in your arguments themselves are pretty damning. If you actually had a reason to believe the theory had no basis in reality you wouldn't feel the need to flip flop back and forth looking for the most convenient argument of the moment. The fact that your arguments themselves are at odds with each other is the best part.

[MannyIsGod]

That's Ok. I didn't think you could.

:lol

Oh noessssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss. What will I ever do, Darrin. Oh noesssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss.

[DarrinS]

Basically, Darrin your arguments usually come in one of the following flavors:
1) There's no warming!

2) Humans aren't causing the warming:

3) Humans aren't causing MOST of the warming

4) The warming isn't significant

The lack of consistency in your arguments themselves are pretty damning. If you actually had a reason to believe the theory had no basis in reality you wouldn't feel the need to flip flop back and forth looking for the most convenient argument of the moment. The fact that your arguments themselves are at odds with each other is the best part.


From your list, I don't believe (1) at all.

(2) and (3) I don't know and I don't think anyone does.

I do believe (4).

[MannyIsGod]

So then you merely quote shit you don't believe in order to make an argument! Yet another reason to take you seriously!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So then you merely quote shit you don't believe in order to make an argument! Yet another reason to take you seriously!

As if you ever thought he thought for himself. All of those arguments essentially boil down to "reasons why we can continue to burn fossil fuels with impunity." He sucks the oil baron dick. Its just what he does.

[RandomGuy]

Actually, I don't care that this guy is a "climate scientist". Just used it to illustrate the fact that not all climate scientists agree.

I have already indicated that I'm willing to do a complete 180 on the subject if you will point me to conclusive evidence that human greenhouse emissions are the primary cause of the 1 degree temp. increase.


Actually, I don't care that this guy is a "evolutionary biologist". Just used it to illustrate the fact that not all biologists agree.

I have already indicated that I'm willing to do a complete 180 on the subject if you will point me to conclusive evidence that humans evolved from common ancestors as snails.

"deniers" like to wrap themselves in the cloak of legitimate skepticism and the give and take of legitimate scientific debate.

What sets them apart from legitimate skeptics is that they move goalposts and won't admit to anybody, least of all themselves, that no amount of evidence possible would suffice.

Sometimes you have to act before you have perfect information. The captain of the Titanic didn't have to know where every single iceberg was to know that he probably should have changed course.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

"deniers" like to wrap themselves in the cloak of legitimate skepticism and the give and take of legitimate scientific debate.

What sets them apart from legitimate skeptics is that they move goalposts and won't admit to anybody, least of all themselves, that no amount of evidence possible would suffice.

Sometimes you have to act before you have perfect information. The captain of the Titanic didn't have to know where every single iceberg was to know that he probably should have changed course.

It goes beyond that too. There is an economic cost to warming beyond the money that oil makes. Now that other corporate interests such as insurance have a stake in keeping warming down now that their claims are going up and similar circumstances were going to see other corporate interests feeding the GOP demographic different shit.

He is religious. He believes that Mary actually did not have sex and other nonsense and the christian tradition within this country has worked to marginalize science since this country was founded. He was taught to take shit on faith. Perhaps now that other corporate mouthpieces will change their tune he and his community will too because they trust the corporate dick but they do not trust the scientist. Corporations want people that will believe whatever you tellt hem. Scientists don't.

[DarrinS]

It goes beyond that too. There is an economic cost to warming beyond the money that oil makes. Now that other corporate interests such as insurance have a stake in keeping warming down now that their claims are going up and similar circumstances were going to see other corporate interests feeding the GOP demographic different shit.

He is religious. He believes that Mary actually did not have sex and other nonsense and the christian tradition within this country has worked to marginalize science since this country was founded. He was taught to take shit on faith. Perhaps now that other corporate mouthpieces will change their tune he and his community will too because they trust the corporate dick but they do not trust the scientist. Corporations want people that will believe whatever you tellt hem. Scientists don't.


You are the new boutons. Congrats. :toast

[MannyIsGod]

From your list, I don't believe (1) at all.

(2) and (3) I don't know and I don't think anyone does.

I do believe (4).

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4794985&postcount=3

You could learn a thing or two from boutons. At least he's consistent and KNOWS what he believes. You on the other hand...

[MannyIsGod]

You are the new boutons. Congrats. :toast

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5456329&postcount=21

LOL

You're such a windbag.

[Wild Cobra]

You're such a windbag.
Looking in the mirror again?

[DarrinS]

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5456329&postcount=21

LOL

You're such a windbag.


That's deep.

[Agloco]

That's deep.

And accurate to boot.

[DarrinS]

.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You are the new boutons. Congrats. :toast

Care to explain?

I can point to a cultural phenomenon that religion causes. i have no tin foil hat claiming the illuminati are waiting to take over the world or the like.

Sorry but societal groups tend to think alike. Thats just how it is especially in this country. You obviously do not think for yourself as you cannot even keep up with the shit that you are fed. I may be wrong as to your particular source but your denial of christian right groupthink does not mitigate that it is clear to see in GOP political circles.

[Wild Cobra]

Care to explain?

I can point to a cultural phenomenon that religion causes. i have no tin foil hat claiming the illuminati are waiting to take over the world or the like.

Sorry but societal groups tend to think alike. Thats just how it is especially in this country. You obviously do not think for yourself as you cannot even keep up with the shit that you are fed. I may be wrong as to your particular source but your denial of christian right groupthink does not mitigate that it is clear to see in GOP political circles.
OK, he forgot to say that you are the "New and Improved Boutons."

[FuzzyLumpkins]

OK, he forgot to say that you are the "New and Improved Boutons."

How surprising that you would come up with something not original, creative, thought out or in any way remotely intelligent. I would say that you should be ashamed of yourself but that would assume you were worth pity.

You are not.

You are just stupid wandering around blundering where you go. Please douse yourself with kerosene and light a match.

[DarrinS]

How surprising that you would come up with something not original, creative, thought out or in any way remotely intelligent. I would say that you should be ashamed of yourself but that would assume you were worth pity.

You are not.

You are just stupid wandering around blundering where you go. Please douse yourself with kerosene and light a match.

You are just as petty and vile as boutons, but you need to sprinkle in a few "repugs", "bubbas", "magic negros", and "VRWC".

[boutons_deux]

"petty and vile"

.... treatment is too good for you stupid right-wing dumbfucks here, and Repugs, tea baggers everywhere.

I'll have to up my game and get really nasty.

You bully fuckers don't know what to do with any pushback, do you?

[Winehole23]

Ignore it, mainly. Your game is lame.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You are just as petty and vile as boutons, but you need to sprinkle in a few "repugs", "bubbas", "magic negros", and "VRWC".

Oh noes the corporate mouthpiece calls me petty. I really dislike everything about you, Darrin. Thats why i treat you as such. You should note that i do not treat everyone as i treat WildDumbass, boutons and yourself. i treat you as such because I hold nothing but contempt for you, your thoughts and your methods.

Its been outlined quite extensively by myself and others the reasoning as to why i hold such views of indivduals such as yourselves. What youa re too stupid to distinguish is that my vitriol is not focused on imaginary entities or the boogeyman but rather specific persons like yourself.

I do not expect that you would be able to discern such differences, after all you do not think for yourself and require quite a bit of dumbing down to grasp things but your parallel is about as well thought out as most of what you post.

I do find it entertaining that you have now resorted to whining about my positions but when you have no leg to stand with your other contentions i suppose pity is the best you can hope for. I will not back off and ignoring me won't stop the responses as my intended audience is not you. You are beyond any notion of redemption. Go read your emails and hopefully they will send you something that makes sense. In the meantime go in with a can of kerosene with WC.

Thank you please drive through.

[DarrinS]

Oh noes the corporate mouthpiece calls me petty. I really dislike everything about you, Darrin. Thats why i treat you as such. You should note that i do not treat everyone as i treat WildDumbass, boutons and yourself. i treat you as such because I hold nothing but contempt for you, your thoughts and your methods.

Its been outlined quite extensively by myself and others the reasoning as to why i hold such views of indivduals such as yourselves. What youa re too stupid to distinguish is that my vitriol is not focused on imaginary entities or the boogeyman but rather specific persons like yourself.

I do not expect that you would be able to discern such differences, after all you do not think for yourself and require quite a bit of dumbing down to grasp things but your parallel is about as well thought out as most of what you post.

I do find it entertaining that you have now resorted to whining about my positions but when you have no leg to stand with your other contentions i suppose pity is the best you can hope for. I will not back off and ignoring me won't stop the responses as my intended audience is not you. You are beyond any notion of redemption. Go read your emails and hopefully they will send you something that makes sense. In the meantime go in with a can of kerosene with WC.

Thank you please drive through.



condensed version

-U7Lqwl3Vzk

[FuzzyLumpkins]

condensed version

-U7Lqwl3Vzk

This type of response is exactly why I treat you as i do. You do not merit the respect of attempting to have an intelligent conversation. Its a waste of time to do such with fools.

You can continue dissembling and crying to your hearts content but the next stupid email you decide to share i will still be here ready to hammer you once again you fucking dishrag.

[Wild Cobra]

You are just as petty and vile as boutons, but you need to sprinkle in a few "repugs", "bubbas", "magic negros", and "VRWC".
Yep, that's why he's the new and improved version. He is less bigoted.

[DarrinS]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055406/Scientist-claimed-end-scepticism-climate-change-colleague-huge-mistake.html#ixzz1cYc2O486


Scientist who claimed 'end of scepticism' on climate change under fire from colleague over 'huge mistake'

* Professor claims project director has oversold the results of a study in favour of global warming

* Expert says average world temperatures have 'paused' since the late 1990s (Gee, where have I heard this before?)





One of the authors of a scientific study billed as the ‘end of scepticism’ about climate change yesterday threatened to quit after she said the project leader underplayed the fact there has been no global warming for 13 years.

Professor Judith Curry was one of ten experts attempting to compile definitive temperature data going back more than 200 years.

But she claimed it had been ‘tarnished’ by the project’s director ‘overselling’ the results in favour of global warming.

Funded by a number of donors, including sceptics of climate change, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project concluded global temperatures had risen by around 1c since the 1950s, in line with official estimates from Nasa and the Met Office.

The project’s director, Professor Richard Muller, told the media it showed ‘you should not be a sceptic, at least not any longer’.

He also told the BBC’s Today programme the temperature rise was ongoing, saying: ‘We see no evidence of it [global warming] having slowed down.’


But Professor Curry, of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, in the U.S., said Professor Muller’s comments were a ‘huge mistake’ and that she planned to discuss her future on the project with him.

She said their data actually showed average world temperatures had ‘paused’ since the late 1990s and a graph published on the project’s website depicting temperatures from 1850 to 2006 appeared to ‘hide the decline'.

She said: ‘There is no scientific basis for saying global warming hasn’t stopped. Of course this isn’t the end of scepticism. To say that is the biggest mistake he has made. When I saw he was saying that I thought, “Oh my God”.’

The researchers analysed 1.6billion records from nearly 40,000 weather stations in a bid to counter criticisms that scientists use inaccurate or selective records.

Professor Muller said: ‘I was saying you can no longer be sceptical about the fact global temperatures have risen over the past 50 years. There are other aspects of climate change which are still uncertain as I have made clear.’

[DarrinS]

Maybe RG should read this:

http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/climate/towards_rebuilding_trust.html

An exerpt




The Changing Nature of Skepticism about Global Warming

Over the last few months, I have been trying to understand how this insane environment for climate research developed. In my informal investigations, I have been listening to the perspectives of a broad range of people that have been labeled as “skeptics” or even “deniers”. I have come to understand that global warming skepticism is very different now than it was five years ago. Here is my take on how global warming skepticism has evolved over the past several decades.

In the 1980’s, James Hansen and Steven Schneider led the charge in informing the public of the risks of potential anthropogenic climate change. Sir John Houghton and Bert Bolin played similar roles in Europe. This charge was embraced by the environmental advocacy groups, and global warming alarmism was born. During this period I would say that many if not most researchers, including myself, were skeptical that global warming was detectable in the temperature record and that it would have dire consequences. The traditional foes of the environmental movement worked to counter the alarmism of the environmental movement, but this was mostly a war between advocacy groups and not an issue that had taken hold in the mainstream media and the public consciousness. In the first few years of the 21st century, the stakes became higher and we saw the birth of what some have called a “monolithic climate denial machine”. Skeptical research published by academics provided fodder for the think tanks and advocacy groups, which were fed by money provided by the oil industry. This was all amplified by talk radio and cable news.

In 2006 and 2007, things changed as a result of Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth” plus the IPCC 4th Assessment Report, and global warming became a seemingly unstoppable juggernaut. The reason that the IPCC 4th Assessment Report was so influential is that people trusted the process the IPCC described: participation of a thousand scientists from 100 different countries, who worked for several years to produce 3000 pages with thousands of peer reviewed scientific references, with extensive peer review. Further, the process was undertaken with the participation of policy makers under the watchful eyes of advocacy groups with a broad range of conflicting interests. As a result of the IPCC influence, scientific skepticism by academic researchers became vastly diminished and it became easier to embellish the IPCC findings rather than to buck the juggernaut. Big oil funding for contrary views mostly dried up and the mainstream media supported the IPCC consensus. But there was a new movement in the blogosphere, which I refer to as the “climate auditors”, started by Steve McIntyre. The climate change establishment failed to understand this changing dynamic, and continued to blame skepticism on the denial machine funded by big oil.



Climate Auditors and the Blogosphere

Steve McIntyre started the blog climateaudit.org so that he could defend himself against claims being made at the blog realclimate.org with regards to his critique of the “hockey stick” since he was unable to post his comments there. Climateaudit has focused on auditing topics related to the paleoclimate reconstructions over the past millennia (in particular the so called “hockey stick”) and also the software being used by climate researchers to fix data problems due to poor quality surface weather stations in the historical climate data record. McIntyre’s “auditing” became very popular not only with the skeptics, but also with the progressive “open source” community, and there are now a number of such blogs. The blog with the largest public audience is wattsupwiththat.com, led by weatherman Anthony Watts, with over 2 million unique visitors each month.

So who are the climate auditors? They are technically educated people, mostly outside of academia. Several individuals have developed substantial expertise in aspects of climate science, although they mainly audit rather than produce original scientific research. They tend to be watchdogs rather than deniers; many of them classify themselves as “lukewarmers”. They are independent of oil industry influence. They have found a collective voice in the blogosphere and their posts are often picked up by the mainstream media. They are demanding greater accountability and transparency of climate research and assessment reports.

So what motivated their FOIA requests of the CRU at the University of East Anglia? Last weekend, I was part of a discussion on this issue at the Blackboard. Among the participants in this discussion was Steven Mosher, who broke the climategate story and has already written a book on it here. They are concerned about inadvertent introduction of bias into the CRU temperature data by having the same people who create the dataset use the dataset in research and in verifying climate models; this concern applies to both NASA GISS and the connection between CRU and the Hadley Centre. This concern is exacerbated by the choice of James Hansen at NASA GISS to become a policy advocate, and his forecasts of forthcoming “warmest years.” Medical research has long been concerned with the introduction of such bias, which is why they conduct double blind studies when testing the efficacy of a medical treatment. Any such bias could be checked by independent analyses of the data; however, people outside the inner circle were unable to obtain access to the information required to link the raw data to the final analyzed product. Further, creation of the surface data sets was treated like a research project, with no emphasis on data quality analysis, and there was no independent oversight. Given the importance of these data sets both to scientific research and public policy, they feel that greater public accountability is required.

So why do the mainstream climate researchers have such a problem with the climate auditors? The scientists involved in the CRU emails seem to regard Steve McIntyre as their arch-nemesis (Roger Pielke Jr’s term). Steve McIntyre’s early critiques of the hockey stick were dismissed and he was characterized as a shill for the oil industry. Academic/blogospheric guerilla warfare ensued, as the academic researchers tried to prevent access of the climate auditors to publishing in scientific journals and presenting their work at professional conferences, and tried to deny them access to published research data and computer programs. The bloggers countered with highly critical posts in the blogosphere and FOIA requests. And climategate was the result.

So how did this group of bloggers succeed in bringing the climate establishment to its knees (whether or not the climate establishment realizes yet that this has happened)? Again, trust plays a big role; it was pretty easy to follow the money trail associated with the “denial machine”. On the other hand, the climate auditors have no apparent political agenda,
are doing this work for free, and have been playing a watchdog role, which has engendered the trust of a large segment of the population.

[DarrinS]

Maybe RG and FuzzyLumpTurd should write her a strongly-worded letter about her lack of "critical thinking skills".

[MannyIsGod]

Temps have actually fallen in my area since yesterday. Global Warming is over!

/Darrin


What makes Dr. Curry's position more valid than the 9 others on the panel who don't agree with her position, Darrin? I mean other than Dr. Curry said what you wanted to hear and the others didn't.

[DarrinS]

What makes Dr. Curry's position more valid than the 9 others on the panel who don't agree with her position, Darrin? I mean other than Dr. Curry said what you wanted to hear and the others didn't.


How do you know the position of the 9 others? :rolleyes

Any why would it matter?

[MannyIsGod]

How do you know the position of the 9 others? :rolleyes

Any why would it matter?

How do I know? They just published a paper and haven't said they disagree with it. Typically if you put your name on something you agree with it. Curry didn't, and spoke out.

Why does it matter? Really? If you have 10 experts int he field and 9 say one thing and 1 says another, what are the odds the 9 are wrong and the 1 is right?

Her view is fine and she's allowed her opinion (aside from looking at things from the late 90s. She should really know better than to take stock in that), but I know that until the opinions start to swing I'm going to go ahead and go with the overwhelming majority of experts.

[MannyIsGod]

Maybe RG and FuzzyLumpTurd should write her a strongly-worded letter about her lack of "critical thinking skills".

BTW, the day you put as much effort into your posts as she put into one paragraph of her essay then you can compare yourself to her. You are not the same as Dr. Curry. RG, Fuzzy, and anyone else has the right to critique you for your lack of critical thinking (you just put it on display, again) because of your history. That essay is NOTHING like what you do.

[DarrinS]

How do I know? They just published a paper and haven't said they disagree with it. Typically if you put your name on something you agree with it. Curry didn't, and spoke out.


Actually, they haven't published anything, but they have submitted their papers for peer review. Her name is on all of them.




Why does it matter? Really? If you have 10 experts int he field and 9 say one thing and 1 says another, what are the odds the 9 are wrong and the 1 is right?



When all else fails, rely on the "consensus". There used to be a consensus that stress caused peptic ulcers, but now we know they are caused by bacteria.

[MannyIsGod]

Actually, they haven't published anything, but they have submitted their papers for peer review. Her name is on all of them.





When all else fails, rely on the "consensus". There used to be a consensus that stress caused peptic ulcers, but now we know they are caused by bacteria.


Yes Darrin, consensus is better than outliers. For every anecdote of where consensus has failed I can provide hundreds where it has held up. A track record doesn't need to be perfect. It merely needs to be good (and in this case, its great).

[DarrinS]

Yes Darrin, consensus is better than outliers. For every anecdote of where consensus has failed I can provide hundreds where it has held up. A track record doesn't need to be perfect. It merely needs to be good (and in this case, its great).





I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.

In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Hey Darrin do you have an actual link to scientific analysis or did your critical thinking skills cause you to conclude that her characterization of various sources -and she definitely trashed the ones you've used over the years- brought anything substantive to the discussion?

Oh and are you actually going to go with the 'the readings are worthless' position or are you now switching full time to the 'the readings say there hasn't been any warming' position? The two contradict. You should realize that if you werent so dumb.

its things like being able to read and understand what you just read as well as having consistency in your positions that lead me to comment on your critical thinking skills. its why I always point out how fucking stupid you are. You do it over and over again and once again your stupidity is on full display.

Bravo, dimwit.