Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Validating AGW skepticism
Posted by: McQ on Tuesday, February 26, 2008

Keith from A Second Hand Conjecture drops me a note with an interesting link.
Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile — the list goes on and on.

No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.

Meteorologist Anthony Watts compiled the results of all the sources. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C — a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year time. For all sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.
And it was down.

Not only do we have all the sea ice back, we have more than we once had. Record low temps. Record snowcover. And record global temperature drops.

The reason? Well apparently, like many of us have been saying all along, that big old yellow fiery thing that hangs in the sky every day has a big effect on our world's temperature:
Scientists quoted in a past DailyTech article link the cooling to reduced solar activity which they claim is a much larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases. The dramatic cooling seen in just 12 months time seems to bear that out. While the data doesn't itself disprove that carbon dioxide is acting to warm the planet, it does demonstrate clearly that more powerful factors are now cooling it.
Or as many of us have been saying, it strains credulity to believe that man's minuscule contribution of a single gas is somehow responsible for the warming of the entire globe.

Now, if you want to talk 'climate change', that's fine. Because the climate is always changing. And here's something to keep in mind - a change to the warmer side of things is a much better outcome for man than a change to the colder.
Cold is more damaging than heat. The mean temperature of the planet is about 54 degrees. Humans — and most of the crops and animals we depend on — prefer a temperature closer to 70.

Historically, the warm periods such as the Medieval Climate Optimum were beneficial for civilization. Corresponding cooling events such as the Little Ice Age, though, were uniformly bad news.
In that light, you almost want to believe we can warm the world up until the sun spot activity on old Sol kicks up again. Instead we'll probably be paying a carbon tax soon while Al Gore laughs all the way to the bank - wearing his mukluks, of course.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
oh no, it’ll be time for a major class action lawsuit against Al and his production company and the Nobel trust, for creating a public nuisance and causing unnecessary fear and alarm amongst the global population.

We’ll get John Edwards to act on behalf of the ’little guy’ like he always does.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Careful McQ. Jon got a lil snippy last tiem I suggested the Sun might actually be causing climate change.

I seem to recall he also dismissed it as being the leading, controling factor, though I could be wrong...
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Jon was a bit upset when I complained about the lack of free and open discussion and made this comment:
My disinterest in arguing with AGW skeptics is reinforced most effectively by the actual arguments they make - almost all of which are profoundly ignorant of the easily discoverable answers. Again, they are much like the creationists in that regard.

If you find my response dismissive and condescending, then you have apprehended it correctly.
The green house gas effect is not and has never been proven to force global climate change - ever!

The fundamental assumption in AGW projections - the man made CO2 emissions are trapping reflected solar energy thereby causing the current change in climate - is false.

If you find my response dismissive and condescending, then you have apprehended it correctly.
 
Written By: Arch
URL: http://
McQ, you need to get with the scientific consenses. And stop badmouthing Gore; the man is well respected worldwide, he even has a Peace Prize. He’s at least on the level of men like Jimmy Carter and Arafat . . .
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
McQ, you need to get with the scientific consenses. And stop badmouthing Gore; the man is well respected worldwide, he even has a Peace Prize. He’s at least on the level of men like Jimmy Carter and Arafat . . .
And Juan Cole, and John Murtha, and . . . Who are those other guys the local resident quack likes to quote?
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
And Juan Cole, and John Murtha, and . . . Who are those other guys the local resident quack likes to quote?
You are forgetting the horrible lies the right spewed claiming Kerry wasn’t in Cambodia. He was just wrong about the date, but he was there. It’s just a question of deciding if he went there lots of times like his biographer claimed, or just once like his campaign manager claimed. Kerry’s team is still trying to get it’s story strait, but dang, don’t lie and say he wasn’t there . . .
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
I wonder, since man caused the warming, how exactly did man cause the cooling? And why can’t we do it again any time it gets too hot, or too cold?

Answer the question ... no you can’t go home until you answer the question.

Such is the power of man ...
 
Written By: bill-tb
URL: http://
Jon was a bit upset when I complained about the lack of free and open discussion and made this comment:
Yep, there will be crow to eat all over the place when this GW thing falls through . . . then again, I can’t imagine Gore eating crow. What ever happened to the guy who wrote The Population Bomb?
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
So can we stop the energy bill which is going to stop global warming by heaping taxes on a gallon of gas and force most of us to drive Geo Metros?
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
It is, of course, premature to declare GW a scam based on these numbers. It’s interesting and anybody who says it’s worthless would be wrong, but it’s not proof positive, either.

Nevertheless...

If it does become obvious to everyone that GW is a crock, I can not wait for the following events to occur, which I’m absolutely positive they will:
  • It will be discovered that global cooling is directly caused by our use of fossil fuels. Sorry, "discovered". Can’t forget the scare quotes.
  • It will be "discovered" that global cooling is the single greatest threat mankind faces.
  • It will be "discovered" that, fortunately for us, while we may have been mistaken about this global warming thing, it turns out the solution to global cooling will be the exact same things: Less use of fossil fuels, more alternative energy sources, and greater centralized control given to the government. How amazing.
However, I’m also quite positive that if it goes down this way, the following will occur:
  • It will be decades before climatology has the public’s respect again. Sanctimonious environmentalism in general will also take a blow. Fortunately, research into efficiency and alternative energy will continue, because they simply make economic and geopolitical sense. That’s enough of a reason.
  • Climatology research budgets will be slashed, big time. Which means, therefore, that if it does become clear that GW-as-social-movement is over, the current climate researchers will delay admitting it for as long as possible, because if they don’t already realize it, they will come to understand that they have bet the farm on global warming, and there’s no reason for them not to double down and hope normal variations pick back up again. (I think they could be looking at 90%+ reductions in the budget; I say this not with glee, because I think that it is almost certain that the funding agencies will grossly overreact and cut far more than they should.)
Again, yes, it’s premature to call it, and I don’t intend this as a celebratory message. It is a prediction contingent on the cooling trend continuing for a while longer. There’s nothing wrong with thinking about that contingency; in fact, I find my last bulleted point is relevant pretty much no matter what.

(If I am committing a crime of jumping to conclusions, which I deny, then at least I am doing no worse than climate scaremongers who use every summer heatwave as proof of global warming. At least I’m using a global temperature in my conclusion jumping!)

Keep your eye on spaceweather.com and the sunspot number.
 
Written By: Jeremy Bowers
URL: http://www.jerf.org/iri
I await Henke to explain why this means nothing. Since he reads all the journals, I’m sure he knows why.
 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
I’m not sure I can agree with the assertion that there’s a big yellow fiery thing hanging in the sky every day. There are weeks in Chicago that go by without a single glimpse at the sun. Must be from the cloud cover so obviously caused by the increased heat and humidity from the AGW.

But, having suffered through yet another snowstorm, I don’t mind admitting I’d be up for a little global warming, man-caused or seasonal.
 
Written By: Greg
URL: http://
McQ: thanks for touching on one of the problems with the Church of Global Warming: the unstated assumption that the earth is, or was recently, at a maximally optimal point; and that a warming earth is by definition something we don’t want, and the determination to ignore the fact that earth’s climate has changed back and forth within recent history, and somehow the human race survived. (Greenland is a good example because it’s so clear cut: it used to be warm enough to farm there, which is why the Vikings settled there; when it got too cold to farm there, they died out.)

Maybe we should be staking out agricultural projects near the Artic Circle?

(writing from Florida, where we’ve had record or near record highs almost every day since Friday)
 
Written By: kishnevi
URL: http://
Al Gore is probably trying to get a refund on his "carbon credits" he took out to cover for all of his travel.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
Anthony Watts, the author of the article that Daily Tech quoted added this to his site....
UPDATE AND CAVEAT:

The website DailyTech has an article citing this blog entry as a reference, and their story got picked up by the Drudge report, resulting in a wide distribution. In the DailyTech article there is a paragraph:

“Anthony Watts compiled the results of all the sources. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C — a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year time. For all sources, it’s the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.”

I wish to state for the record, and with objection, that this statement is not mine: “–a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years”

There has been no “erasure”. This is an anomaly with a large magnitude, and it coincides with other anecdotal weather evidence. It is curious, it is unusual, but it does not “erase” anything. I have suggested a correction to Daily Tech.
Not sure how this changes the narrative, but it seems important enough for Mr. Watts to have asked Daily Tech to edit the post, which they seem to have done, and it’s the money quote here, so I thought it relevant.



 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
I know it is so boring to actually look at real data, not just for this year, but if you want to be taken seriously, then deal;

LINK

graphed lines are measurements, colored lines are model projections.
 
Written By: Tano
URL: http://
Tano
Pretty picture - how about context - what’s the blue line what’s the pink line who/what are the sources for those ’numbers’ what are the projections - what are the dates on the numbers looks like it ends in 2007...


 
Written By: BillS
URL: http://bills-opinions.blogspot.com/
I know it is so boring to actually look at real data, not just for this year, but if you want to be taken seriously, then deal;
Serious as a scientist or as political bloggers?

Bloggers just need quotes from scientists that say scientific things they agree with.

By the way, according to the posters here, all that increase has been erased... or will it just be a another spike on that graph as it heads in the modeled direction?

I guess the debate isn’t over.

Too bad, I was going to unplug my electric car and break out the Humvee to reheat the planet.
Pretty picture - how about context - what’s the blue line what’s the pink line who/what are the sources for those ’numbers’ what are the projections - what are the dates on the numbers looks like it ends in 2007...
I didn’t post the graph, but the sourcing was easy to find from the link


 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
Which means it omits the following
All in one year time. For all sources, it’s the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.
The key element from the original data wasn’t just that January was cold, it was that the different from Jan 2007 to Jan 2008 was a HUGE drop. So take Tano’s chart which show’s 2007 back at the bottom edge of the projections and drop it out the bottom.

This chart has the full year where you can see the numbers consistently dropping, http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/rss-msu-2007-2008-delta.png

The other site of interest in that is this one which discusses sunspots and related magnetic anomolies all of which are changing...
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/26/first-sunspot-in-weeks-is-still-related-to-solar-cycle-23/

As for the impact of proving Global Warming wrong, keep in mind the majority of people don’t ever like to admit they were wrong so prognosticators who say that everyone will wake up one day and admit the error of their ways are imho not realistic. On the other hand if the cooling trends continue I think the damage done to many of the much needed environmental programs that aren’t getting proper attention will be disappointing.
 
Written By: BillS
URL: http://bills-opinions.blogspot.com/
The key element from the original data wasn’t just that January was cold, it was that the different from Jan 2007 to Jan 2008 was a HUGE drop. So take Tano’s chart which show’s 2007 back at the bottom edge of the projections and drop it out the bottom.
as the author of the data compilation suggest, all we know now is this...
This is an anomaly with a large magnitude, and it coincides with other anecdotal weather evidence. It is curious, it is unusual, but it does not “erase” anything. I have suggested a correction to Daily Tech.
The import of last years data won’t be known for years, for now, it really cannot be considered to change anything, the models are not destroyed. As you can see from the chart, there are numerous peaks and valleys in the model, but the trend is consistent. This may be just a valley, and we won’t know until it becomes part of the historical view.

 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
This is an anomaly with a large magnitude
But it an anomoly generated identically by 4 different groups.

When an experiment is absolutely repeatable, it is hald as valid.

If it was one, or even just two of the four, I’d not be AS convinced, but all four?

As for models not being destroyed, where did the models have us a year ago? 6 months ago? last month? Were they even close?

Models are guesses, these are actual observations of events. They can not be disputed, because they have been witnessed as having happened... They are NOW part of the historical view, because they have happened. Have the models been right even once?

If this is a valley, it is a HUGE one. One that co-incides while and observed reduction (of huge proportions) of solar activity. A valley that has us at almost the same point we were at 100 years ago...
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
But it an anomoly generated identically by 4 different groups.
I did not suggest that it is not accurate, that does not preclude it from being an anomaly.
When an experiment is absolutely repeatable, it is hald as valid.

If it was one, or even just two of the four, I’d not be AS convinced, but all four?
Again, you can have natural or unnatural anomalies that are not incorrect measurements, they are simply a moment in time when a consistent track moves in an unusual manner. I am not saying that it can’t be significant, just that a moment time is not significant on it’s own.
As for models not being destroyed, where did the models have us a year ago? 6 months ago? last month? Were they even close?
Did you look at the global temperature graphs? They were dead on balls accurate. But I am no scientist, and I think I would need to be to say with certitude that the every aspect of the testing, recording, and presentation were scientifically unassailable.
Models are guesses, these are actual observations of events. They can not be disputed, because they have been witnessed as having happened... They are NOW part of the historical view, because they have happened. Have the models been right even once?
You need to look at the graphs, they show the model and the ACTUAL recorded temperatures overlayed, and yes, they appear to have been accurate.
If this is a valley, it is a HUGE one. One that co-incides while and observed reduction (of huge proportions) of solar activity. A valley that has us at almost the same point we were at 100 years ago...



Yes, The Big Valley... where’s Heath?


 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
About 6 feet down, I would wager...
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide follow global warming by 800 to several thousand years, so CO2 cannot, by definition, be causal.

Man is a very minor player in CO2 emissions. According to NASA, annual atmospheric CO2 deposits total 168 billion metric tons. Natural sources are oceans, 100 BMT; decaying biomass, 30 BMT and respiration, 30 BMT. Deforestation (forest and wild fires) add another 1 BMT. Industries such as steel production, baking, fermentation and others add 1 BMT. Burning of fossil fuels account for 6 BMT. Were we to cease all use of fossil fuel, we could only reduce CO2 deposits by 3.57%.

The green house gasses include CO2, SO2, NO2, CH4 (methane), O3 (ozone) and H2O (water vapor). Of the solar radiation reaching the surface, about 30% is reflected back. These molecules absorb this radiant energy and convert it into motion (heat) very close to the surface. By far the most abundant and effective green house gas is water vapor. Ambient air contains from 0.05% to 4% water while CO2 accounts for only 0.0365%. Using the AGW logic, should we not ban emissions of water vapor?

Are we acting (at great cost) to solve a non-problem we do not fully understand by reducing a non-causal factor in a non-forcing process that is beyond our control?

To answer my own question, Yes!
 
Written By: Arch
URL: http://
I know it is so boring to actually look at real data, not just for this year, but if you want to be taken seriously, then deal;
And I think the purpose of the post should be understood. It is about skepticism of AGW being both valid and worthwhile (thus the title) and not some sort of unsupported "denial" or heresy.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net
I know it is so boring to actually look at real data, not just for this year, but if you want to be taken seriously, then deal;
And if you’re going to look at data, why look at such a narrow range of data?

I think the second link I included in my blogentry was just as, if not more, important then the 1st.

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=d7c7fcce-d248-4e97-ab72-1adbdbb1d0d0&k=4336
According to Robert Toggweiler of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at Princeton University and Joellen Russell, assistant professor of biogeochemical dynamics at the University of Arizona — two prominent climate modellers — the computer models that show polar ice-melt cooling the oceans, stopping the circulation of warm equatorial water to northern latitudes and triggering another Ice Age (a la the movie The Day After Tomorrow) are all wrong.

“We missed what was right in front of our eyes,” says Prof. Russell. It’s not ice melt but rather wind circulation that drives ocean currents northward from the tropics. Climate models until now have not properly accounted for the wind’s effects on ocean circulation, so researchers have compensated by over-emphasizing the role of manmade warming on polar ice melt.

But when Profs. Toggweiler and Russell rejigged their model to include the 40-year cycle of winds away from the equator (then back towards it again), the role of ocean currents bringing warm southern waters to the north was obvious in the current Arctic warming.
Anytime they can improve the model so that it includes more factors that effect the climate, and the more accurately it predicts near-term changes, the better.
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
Here is the GISS research, which the author cites. And a press release that explains it in somewhat more clear language. Note:
The year 2007 tied for second warmest in the period of instrumental data, behind the record warmth of 2005, in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis. 2007 tied 1998, which had leapt a remarkable 0.2°C above the prior record with the help of the "El Niño of the century". The unusual warmth in 2007 is noteworthy because it occurs at a time when solar irradiance is at a minimum and the equatorial Pacific Ocean is in the cool phase of its natural El Niño-La Niña cycle.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://QandO.net
The models vs the measured data have not been in agreement since about 1998.

If you go through the various IPCC output documents and read the reviewer remarks you come to a realization that there are real problems with the models. Since the published accounts of the IPCC documents are really just summaries of findings, you don’t get the real story about the debate going on within that community. And there is real debate, however, all you read is that x hundred reputable scientists say there is no debate in the popular press.

There are reviewers (like Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit) who believe that GW is actually happening but raise methodology issues and errors in the models from Mann and Hansen. This is part of the scientific process and it is important to truly debate over these things, else the slippery slope towards science being a pawn in watermelon politics (and maybe those on the right).

If you want to see what is wrong with the models then follow Anthony Watts efforts are reconciling the measured data with the models. He has a fascinating site that looks at each data collection station and points out the flaws in its collection location and the data from it amongst other things.

Also take a gander at climateaudit.org where they look at published papers and analyze the results. Very interesting.
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
Computer models are only as good as the laws they include. Climate is a very complex system with some important gaps in man’s knowledge of it.

The USAF awarded me a contract to fix an antenna problem. It seemed fairly simple. The antenna was mounted on the belly of a transport - an aluminum cylinder with a 131" radius. We knew the waveform well. Using a computer model, we ran a set of patterns over a cylindrical ground plane. Next, we built a full scale model of the ground plane, mounted the antenna, connected it to a real transmitter and measured the patterns. To my surprise, the measured data looked nothing like the simulation. Finally, we flew a real aircraft over an instrumented antenna test range. The patterns were significantly different from both the simulation and the near field and far field mockup patterns. Lesson learned: Validate modeling with real data.

The problem is that modelers tend to be applied math or computer science guys, not subject specialists such as radio frequency engineers or climatologists.

In 1998, when Dr Michael E. Mann provided his hockey stick charts to the IPCC, he used his simulation, projecting significant warming by 2005. He built the model assuming, as did most scientists at the time, that CO2 was the driver. In 2000, however, the warming trend since 1970 leveled off but CO2 continued to rise. When scientists put real CO2 levels in model, its temperature profile did not match the actual measured data.

 
Written By: Arch
URL: http://
Skeptics are not arguing that warming or cooling is not occurring. In climate science, change is the only constant. I remain unconvinced that human activity has caused global climate change.

In the 20th century, 85% of the 0.7° C temperature increase occurred before 1940, well before world energy demands drove up fossil fuel use. From 1940 to 1970, during WWII and the post war boom when energy use rose significantly, temperatures actually fell, triggering fears of a new ice age. From 1970 to 2000, when emission controls and CAFE standards were imposed, temperature again increased. Had CO2 driven temperatures, the period to 1940 would have been flat; 1940 to 1970 would have seen a sharp increase. There is no causal correlation between CO2 and temperature.
 
Written By: Arch
URL: http://
Henke likes to link to the source with the highest temperatures. Convienent, but it would hold more weight if other sources would agree with Hansen’s 2007 "measurements".
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
The really compelling point in all of this is that I seem to remember a year ago a number of people predicting that we’d have the hottest year ever, which is right in line with AGW dogma. Instead, we’ve got this huge drop. The question to ask is, if they can’t even predict a year in advance, are we trillions of dollars sure that these people can pick up a trend across a hundred-year span where the trend is a bare fraction of the yearly variations?

I freely acknowledge, nay, demand that in the abstract, when considering perfect data with statistical techniques, yes, yes we can. Particle physics has long since turned into just such a statistical game. But in a massively-multi-dimensional problem with constantly changing measurements across the relevant time, do I trust such subtle teasing of data when combined with such dire predictions of certain doom? No, not really.

And as far as I’m concerned, the entire AGW proposition is predicated on man-made warming overwhelming all natural variations. If we do end up going into even a three or four year cooling cycle because the sun is putting out less energy, I’m not going to care one whit for people who claim that AGW is still real, it’s just the sun did something unanticipated that totally swamps our claimed disaster scenarios. The whole AGW position is that we are on track to disaster, not that we are adding some easily-overwhelmed contribution to the global climate. Quite frankly, I don’t care about the latter because all kinds of things do that and if we aren’t headed for disaster, then the fact that we add one more small climate influence is of no consequence.

Honestly, given the trends since 1998, that’s already a reasonably plausible position. A major cooling dip for even a few years would merely cement it as the obviously rational viewpoint.
 
Written By: Jeremy Bowers
URL: http://www.jerf.org/iri/
No, you guys don’t get it, many of these people actually WANT something to be wrong.

you go figure the reasons, it varies from wanting to control others, hubris, adolescent desire for ’end times’ so they can be a cool survivor or just a plain old need to have something to worry about.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
What ever happened to the guy who wrote The Population Bomb?
Oddly enough, he’s still peddling his wares to leftwing outfits.
I guess the debate isn’t over.
Trust me, when Gore, Boxer, and Newsweek say it’s over, it’s over. The Holy Trinity has spoken and should be worshipped accordingly.
the majority of people don’t ever like to admit they were wrong so prognosticators who say that everyone will wake up one day and admit the error of their ways are imho not realistic
This is key. These people are too heavily invested to give this up. We could see data like this for the next ten years and they will not change. The beast is alive and must be fed. Period.
But it an anomoly generated identically by 4 different groups.

When an experiment is absolutely repeatable, it is hald as valid.
Sorry dude. This is the New Science. If it doesn’t hold muster with UN bureaucrats, it’s not valid. You gotta wait to see what they say.
But I am no scientist, and I think I would need to be to say with certitude that the every aspect of the testing, recording, and presentation were scientifically unassailable.
Are you kidding? I’m assuming you felt the previous AGW claims based on supposed data passed the smell test as far as you were concerned. NOW you’re skeptical. Interesting.
 
Written By: rob
URL: http://
Are you kidding? I’m assuming you felt the previous AGW claims based on supposed data passed the smell test as far as you were concerned. NOW you’re skeptical. Interesting.
No, you assume wrong, first, my skeptical comment you quoted was regarding a graph that shows that AGW is happening, and second, I am AGW agnostic, neither a denier nor a believer, for precisely the reason I gave, that the science is over my head and I don’t have the time or the inclination to become an expert. I am not competent in the science so I cannot possibly distinguish which is accurate between two real scientists who have conflicting conclusions.

From the perspective of pure credibilty, the AGW side of the argument has more weight, but that’s not science, that’s counting scientists.

 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://

From the perspective of pure credibilty, the AGW side of the argument has more weight, but that’s not science, that’s counting scientists.
Its nice to believe in a religion, gives you that warm feeling down deep. For myself, I prefer to have facts and evidence.
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
From the perspective of pure credibilty, the AGW side of the argument has more weight, but that’s not science, that’s counting scientists.
Completely nonsensical. More scientists on one side of the fence tip the credibility scale in their favor? Do you pick your team based on uniform color scheme as well? You say you’re not a scientist, fine. Are you familiar with Bjorn Lomborg (sp) and the skeptic argument from an economist perspective? How about history? The sheer number of times the climate doom bubble has been tossed about leading back to the end of the 19th century should convince you that the public is being mislead by enviro-dorks once again. The only way to feed the beast is to convince the rabble that enviro-doom is lurking around the corner yet can be stopped if you act TODAY. If that doesn’t work, scare the crap out of the little kids. Tell them other little kids are going to die in the Great Floods if you don’t use energy-efficient bulbs. Tell them that vicious Republicans purposely caused Hurricane Katrina and that only DemGreens can save your town from the next killer storm. As you know, these are not exaggerations but actual arguments from the Marin County yarblers. I wish I were kidding. Lastly, the arrogant lifestyles of Gore and the Bali jetsetters should tell you even they don’t believe what they’re preaching. You can hem and haw about the science (which is mighty spotty by itself), but taken in context it’s pretty obvious what’s going on.
 
Written By: rob
URL: http://
More scientists on one side of the fence tip the credibility scale in their favor? Do you pick your team based on uniform color scheme as well?
Without becoming a scientist, one may as well pick their side by the cut of the scientists jib.

It’s very clear that people of certain political ideologies believe one set of scientists, and people of another, believe the opposing scientists, there is simply no way that can be an accurate way of determining which set of scientists are more accurate. That’s faith, not knowledge.

I am just being honest, and I said, my credibility edge comment is not science, it’s just counting scientists. I am not prepared to ride a bicycle to work over that.
Its nice to believe in a religion, gives you that warm feeling down deep. For myself, I prefer to have facts and evidence.
Odd that you are making that point directed at me, while I am making that point directed at you.

As I said, I am AGW agnostic, what side of the debate have you put your faith into? Or are you saying that you are more knowledgeable about climatology than the scientists on either, and so can discern the correct science from the incorrect?

Anyone can quote scientists, but unless you are very knowledgeable in the field, you really can’t tell who is blowing smoke up your arse.

 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
you say that you are:
As I said, I am AGW agnostic
but you believe in another side:
the AGW side of the argument has more weight
so much for agnosticism. ;)

I used to believe in AGW but become convinced (and I am a physicist by training, computer scientist by profession), that something was funny in the science being presented.

However, the proverbial straw was the sight of a politician who failed out of university in divinity studies trying to convince me of impending climatic doom.
but unless you are very knowledgeable in the field, you really can’t tell who is blowing smoke up your arse.
I wish it was that complicated, but the statistics and data provenance (especially Hansen’s data) has serious issues with it.

You pick your religion, I will pick my science.
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
You pick your religion, I will pick my science.
Okay, genius, go ahead and twist my words to suit your opinions, and call yourself brilliant.

I can be agnostic on AGW and make disinterested observations, and as I said, my weighting includes no value judgement.

If I were a "believer", I would place value on reversing AGW, I don’t.
I wish it was that complicated, but the statistics and data provenance (especially Hansen’s data) has serious issues with it.
If you think it is uncomplicated, you have drunk deeply of the Kool-Aid and knelt at the alter of your faith in the scientists who’s work says what you prefer to BELIEVE.

Let’s test this. You say Hansen’s data has serious issues. How did you come by this conclusion? Was it your own research into Hansen’s methodology, or was it someone else’s? If it was yours, did you publish? (link) If it was someone else, did they publish? (link).

What I will do is find how the debunking of Hansen’s data has been itself debunked, and then we could probably find someone who claims to have debunked the debunker, all of them using complexities so far beyond what laymen are willing to invest themselves in, that they could not possibly say with anything but faith which is accurate and which is not.

I can be agnostic and try and keep score, but you’re assertion of reliance on pure fact is nothing more than faith in someone’s presentation of data that you choose to believe.
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
AGW agnostic - that’s a pretty good description of my view as well.

I’m skeptical, yet think we should err on the side of caution.

There are good reasons for becoming less dependent on fossil fuels. There are good reasons for becoming more energy efficient. There are good reasons to be good stewards of the environment.

Without a complete and accurate understanding of the climate, how do we know that that the warming is or isn’t forestalling an ice age?
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
If you think it is uncomplicated, you have drunk deeply of the Kool-Aid and knelt at the alter of your faith in the scientists who’s work says what you prefer to BELIEVE.
Say Hallelujah, brother and pass the collection plate. Keep praying for Armageddon.
Let’s test this. You say Hansen’s data has serious issues. How did you come by this conclusion? Was it your own research into Hansen’s methodology, or was it someone else’s? If it was yours, did you publish? (link) If it was someone else, did they publish? (link).
Appeal to authority fallacy. Thanks for playing.

This is the grownup world, I can read and interpret the science to the best of my ability. I can actually read and understand the papers that are published. I can read what skeptics say and then determine whether they have a point. I don’t need to rely on a sacred priesthood to tell me what I should think or believe.

 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
the debunking of Hansen’s data has been itself debunked
I linked to the evidence that Hansen’s data is the most extreme of all the major organizations that track global temperature changes.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
I don’t need to rely on a sacred priesthood to tell me what I should think or believe.
Of course you do, you just won’t admit it.

You read a paper and pretend to understand it, and then you believe it, but you have no idea what data of the thousands of potential variables are left out, and you have no idea whether what is left out is significant. No different than Al Gore.

Yet you believe, like Al Gore.

For everyone like you, that thinks they are reading the science and understanding it, and conclude there is no AGW, there are 10 people that say the same and conclude there is AGW. Believers all.

I am comfortable waiting for the skeptics (and I hate that moniker) to publish research that gets agreement for the AGW crowd, or vice-versa. Of course this precludes consensus between those that are paid for their conclusions on either side, but there are real scientists who DO rely on the facts, and can be convinced by facts, it’s just hard to tell who is who.





 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
The point is, GW AND AGW are not based on facts about how Earth’s climate works, they’re based on THEORIES of how it all works.

The sh!t flows down hill from there.

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Looker:

My point exactly.

The AGW theory is that human activity has generated CO2 and that green house gas is forcing warming. Since CO2 levels rise 800 to several thousands of years after warming begins, it cannot be a cause. Causes precede results, so the basic underlying premise is invalid.

What forces climate change?

What, if anything, can we do about it?

What will it cost to fix?

If we refuse to allow a free and open discussion and award government study contracts and grants to one side and not the other, the conclusions are likely to be biased politically rather than tested and proven scientifically.

 
Written By: Arch
URL: http://
Appeal to authority fallacy. Thanks for playing.
Holy crap, capt. Joe. Are you really incapable of recognizing the difference between questioning your methods and an appeal to authority?

No wonder it’s so difficult to have a rational conversation about this "science" stuff.
 
Written By: J Sterlace
URL: http://
Or are you saying that you are more knowledgeable about climatology than the scientists on either, and so can discern the correct science from the incorrect?
You didn’t direct this at me, but I can answer as it cuts to the heart of the problem. We’re at a point publicly where the elites in the media and a seemingly large majority of public policy makers have officially declared which side the "real" science is on. This is flat scary to me. If more people were agnostic like you, we wouldn’t be in the dilemma we’re in today, where so many people want to knee-jerk our public policy in the most drastic ways imaginable and are lobbying hard for that. They’ve basically scared a lot of people into the skeptic camp with their hardlining.
Was it your own research into Hansen’s methodology, or was it someone else’s? If it was yours, did you publish? (link) If it was someone else, did they publish? (link).
Ah, but if it were only so simple in the age of politicized science! If you have findings worthy of such media, you can’t just expect the hallowed halls to publish your stuff for you if you don’t agree with their perspective. You may have to publish in "lesser" media and have the learned sniff at your inferior birthright, if you will.
You read a paper and pretend to understand it, and then you believe it, but you have no idea what data of the thousands of potential variables are left out, and you have no idea whether what is left out is significant.

Dude, if this is your standard for everything, you must be agnostic about everything. How do you know which gas to use for your car? How do you know if anything you eat is nutritious? Did you actually analyze those carrots yourself? Of course not, at some point you decided that something made sense and you acted accordingly. You took a side. Otherwise you’d still be sitting there, fork in hand, and extremely hungry.
I am comfortable waiting for the skeptics (and I hate that moniker) to publish research that gets agreement for the AGW crowd, or vice-versa. Of course this precludes consensus between those that are paid for their conclusions on either side, but there are real scientists who DO rely on the facts, and can be convinced by facts, it’s just hard to tell who is who.
Once again, you’re going to be waiting a long time. I can appreciate you trying to be fair here (honestly), but I can’t see a consensus coming anytime soon. In the meantime, legislation is going to start coming fast and furious that will have significant economic ramifications, globally and locally. While you remain on the fence, they’re going to shove it past you. May as well be on the "wait just a second" side.

And yes, there are "real" scientists who rely on the facts, but they need funding to continue their work as well. So the funding will come from the side who his facts lean toward. Then his facts will become "facts" because he’s now a "paid shill" and by your standard you’ll have to throw out his findings. See how the game is played?
 
Written By: rob
URL: http://
May as well be on the "wait just a second" side.
As for the science, I will remain agnostic, as for policy, I’m with you on the "wait a second" side.

 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider