Scientists agree ... Consensus on Global Warming by Ghoulman

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I read his earler title "Guns, Germs and Steel", and recommend it. I haven't read his first book book "The Third Chimpanzee".

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 20, 2005 7:13 PM

I am generally very skeptical of apocalyptic environmentalist stories because so many of them are based on sensationalism, pseudo-science or just pure fabrication. And what troubles me even more, particularly as a scientist, is that much of this nonsense comes from the scientific community. Generally science is very reliable in most fields, but when politics gets mixed in, as it has with environmental science, you run a real chance of ending up with bullshit. The real scary part about this is that most people tend to look to the scientific community for answers (e.g. the media), and if the scientific community is propping up poor conclusion for political reasons, there's a real chance that some bad ideas could get disseminated as good ideas.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 21, 2005 1:08 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I read his earler title "Guns, Germs and Steel", and recommend it. I haven't read his first book book "The Third Chimpanzee".

I read "Guns, Germs..." at SignyM's suggestion. While I didn't agree with it 100%, it was interesting and thought provoking.

And relating to Finn's comment above, the latest Analog has a blurb from Jeff Kooistra about a book titled "Kicking the Sacred Cow: Questioning the Unquestionable and Thinking the Impermissible", by James P Hogan. It goes after many of the "Everybody Knows" subjects from Darwinism to global warming. Should be an interesting read as well.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 22, 2005 10:51 AM

Hey Rue! Good to meet on the forums again

Here's another good read.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=109

Basically put, it's the fault of the media for jumping on papers the have not gone through peer review and not reporting when they are de-bunked. Along with the very few "scientists" that project a political agenda by publishing in a non-scientific journal and publicizing there results before peer review kicks in.

Finn makes the mistake that because of a few bad apples and what the media does with it is politicised, the scientific community as a whole is guilty of it as well.

This is exactly wrong. This exactly wrong statement also implies a world wide conspericy to put forth this agenda. Unfortunatly (for Finn) if this was the case, scientists from other fields that do some work in climatology from time to time would notice this and sound the bells of alarm. This is exactly not happening.

Basically, the science is good. It's what the media does with it that is typically not.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 22, 2005 12:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
This is exactly wrong. This exactly wrong statement also implies a world wide conspericy to put forth this agenda. Unfortunatly (for Finn) if this was the case, scientists from other fields that do some work in climatology from time to time would notice this and sound the bells of alarm. This is exactly not happening..

“Exactly wrong?” Vizzini.

No it doesn’t imply a world wide conspiracy, just a particular state of mind and an adherence to an ideology. People, who believe an idea is fundamentally true, will sometimes find evidence to support such ideas, whether evidence exists or not. And (fortunately for me) there are in fact scientists from other fields who “sound the bells of alarm” when they notice such fallacies in the evidence from time to time. But largely, scientists tend to form little niches which can impede the movement of new ideas.

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
And relating to Finn's comment above, the latest Analog has a blurb from Jeff Kooistra about a book titled "Kicking the Sacred Cow: Questioning the Unquestionable and Thinking the Impermissible", by James P Hogan. It goes after many of the "Everybody Knows" subjects from Darwinism to global warming. Should be an interesting read as well.

This sounds like a very interesting book. I checked at the local B&N, but no one seems to carry it. It must be new. Or banned.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 22, 2005 5:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
...yes, science is real!

This is my new all-time most favorite quote of all.
All of the coworkers and ex-coworkers (engineers and scientists all) who heard it laughed uproariously!

Sorry I didn't credit you, Ghoulman

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 22, 2005 9:13 PM

My husband is a research scientist working for the US Department of Energy. Neither he, nor any other scientist he knows there at the Dept, have found any scientific evidence that CO2 is causing global warming. He has studied the data and attended computer modeling training on global warming issues. He tells me it is all unspeakable junk science.

The ironic thing is that his bosses, yes the ones hired by the Bush administration, have instructed him and other scientists to refrain from openly criticizing the whole global warming speculation. The whole attitude is, "We don't care about whether or not you think there is no scientific support for global warming. You will pay lip service to because it has political clout." Notice that the federal government's position has always supported the whole idea that global warming is happening. The current admin simply refuses to DO anything about it, but they don't deny the premise itself. It is the individual scientists who are the disbelievers, not the Bush admin.

Before my husband's position is dismissed because he is a "govt employee under the Bush administration," please note had Kerry won, he'd be a govt employee under the Kerry admin. The same people work for the dept no matter who is elected. And by the way, he didn't vote for either Kerry or Bush.

Having said that, should you or anything take his word for it? Absolutely not.

People who really want to claim the high ground of science should 1) learn the rigors of scientific methodology, and 2) look at the data themselves rather than rely of pronouncements of scientists. Scientists are just human and can make pronouncements for all sorts of reasons that are political, financial, religious, emotional and NOT scientific.

For what it's worth,

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 23, 2005 3:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
My husband is a research scientist working for the US Department of Energy. Neither he, nor any other scientist he knows there at the Dept, have found any scientific evidence that CO2 is causing global warming. He has studied the data and attended computer modeling training on global warming issues. He tells me it is all unspeakable junk science.

Please ask him then, what parts of the IPCC ( http://www.ipcc.ch/) report and the ACIA ( http://amap.no/acia/) report does he disagree with?

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 23, 2005 3:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

No it doesn’t imply a world wide conspiracy,

You said
"but when politics gets mixed in, as it has with environmental science,"
and
"if the scientific community is propping up poor conclusion for political reasons, there's a real chance that some bad ideas could get disseminated as good ideas."

I really find the "if" starting the second quote off interesting because the "if" there contradicts the conclusion that you come to earlier in your post. You seem to be typing "if", but really meaning it not to be there.

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

People, who believe an idea is fundamentally true, will sometimes find evidence to support such ideas, whether evidence exists or not.

If the evidence exists then it is true and no problem.

If the evidence does not exist then the peer review will weed out these papers.

If these things do not happen, then the community at large is putting forth this mentality and thus are conspiering to hide the truth.

You do indeed imply a conspericy whether you intended to or not. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

If you don't want such things to happen, be more careful with the words you choose.

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

And (fortunately for me) there are in fact scientists from other fields who “sound the bells of alarm” when they notice such fallacies in the evidence from time to time. But largely, scientists tend to form little niches which can impede the movement of new ideas.

I believe it was you who critisized me for not citing my source (which I actually did by definintion by the way).

So would you please cite your source. Provide me with examples of published peer reviewed articles criticizing the scientific consensus on human impact on global climate.

You're apparently a scientist. You should be able to do this promptly given your knowledge of the subject, right?

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 23, 2005 6:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Please ask him then, what parts of the IPCC ( http://www.ipcc.ch/) report and the ACIA ( http://amap.no/acia/) report does he disagree with?

I could ask him, but he is a busy person, and I don't know when I could get back to you with an intelligent, thoughtful answer. A quick answer to your question is that the data the IPCC presents do not warrant the conclusions they draw.

If I may, does his opinion really matter? Whatever he says, wouldn't global warming subscribers like yourself just argue with him? I have yet to see debate change anyone's mind.

What if he came back with a technical analysis of everything wrong with the IPCC reports? How would you know if he is right or wrong? If you had the technical expertise to judge his response, then you don't really need his opinion. You can judge the empirical data for yourself.

For intelligent, thoughtful critiques presented by non-anonymous scientists, read Global Warming: Opposing Viewpoints. It is an excellent summary of arguments both pro and con.
(amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0737709081/ref=wl_it_dp/
002-9643452-8496055?%5Fencoding=UTF8&coliid=IIC36V0LHLQJY&v=glance&colid=1PRL9REGJR6J6)

Most people who believe in global warming do so because they believe the authorities (such as the IPCC) who tell them it is so. I wanted to toss out the fact that there are scientists who disagree. The bottom line is one shouldn't just take the word of the IPCC, or their scientific critics. A consumer of science should always asks, "How do you know that? What data do you have to support it? What assumptions are you making about unknown variables? Do the data really warrant these conclusions?" Search for what parts of the reports you don't agree with for yourself. That is the best and most convincing answer.

Best,

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 23, 2005 10:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
I really find the "if" starting the second quote off interesting because the "if" there contradicts the conclusion that you come to earlier in your post. You seem to be typing "if", but really meaning it not to be there.

I said ‘if’ because I meant ‘if.’ Maybe you should just read what I said and not try concocting superfluous conclusion from my words.

And I imply no conspiracy.

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
I believe it was you who critisized me for not citing my source (which I actually did by definintion by the way).

No, that’s not what I criticized you for. I criticized you for making arrogant speeches when someone asks you for a source.

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
So would you please cite your source. Provide me with examples of published peer reviewed articles criticizing the scientific consensus on human impact on global climate.

Think about this, if there is a consensus on global warming then would it not be possible that peer reviewed articles may reflect this consensus, simple because the consensus exists? In other words, if the scientific community accepts certain positions as infallible, then articles refuting those positions are less likely to find themselves accepted for publication then articles supporting the consensus.

That being said; try looking up some articles by Dr. Bjørn Lomborg, Associate Professor of Statistics, University of Aarhus, Denmark.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 23, 2005 10:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
I could ask him, but he is a busy person, and I don't know when I could get back to you with an intelligent, thoughtful answer. A quick answer to your question is that the data the IPCC presents do not warrant the conclusions they draw.

Basically, the IPCC uses computer simulations as the bases for their conclusion. But we may not fully understand the climate enough to make reliable simulations possible. We don’t understand fully the affect of aerosols, water vapor and cloud cover, all of which must be incorporated into the models. As it stands now, IPCC models are overestimating the warming affect.

In a nutshell.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 24, 2005 9:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

And I imply no conspiracy.

Just because you say things doesn't make them true. You can state again and again and... but if you provide no counter argument then it just turns into a yes/no school yard argument. Basically, provide logic. As a scientist, you should know this already.

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
I believe it was you who critisized me for not citing my source (which I actually did by definintion by the way).

No, that’s not what I criticized you for. I criticized you for making arrogant speeches when someone asks you for a source.

I stated, "...Source Sue Johanson." in another thread which you responded "...if you cite a source, I’ll consider it." I responded "Actually I did cite my source,..." which you replied "No, you didn’t cite your source. Giving someone’s name is not citing your source." In which this last post only makes reference to arrogant speeches. So, you are wrong. You did criticise me for not citing my source, which I actually did by definition.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=cite
Cite:
2. To mention or bring forward as support, illustration, or proof
AND
make reference to

I made reference to Sue and plugging her name into google with the topic in that discussion provided her homepage with all the information necessary info on it. NOTE: You are guilty of this here as well. You citisised me for only providing a name which you did in you response to me here. So, by your definition of citation, which I will hold you to, give me a link. Cite your source to the level which you have required others.

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Think about this, if there is a consensus on global warming then would it not be possible that peer reviewed articles may reflect this consensus, simple because the consensus exists?

If you read the article above you would realize that there have been papers published that say that global warming has nothing to do with human activities. It just turned out that they are bad science and proved to be just that. So, your comment here is rather incorrect to say the least.

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

In other words, if the scientific community accepts certain positions as infallible, then articles refuting those positions are less likely to find themselves accepted for publication then articles supporting the consensus.

A quote from the above linked article (because it is obvious that you didn't read it):
"
So even if the conclusions of the Shaviv and Veizer (2003) study discussed earlier, for instance, had been correct, this would be one small piece of evidence pitted against hundreds of others which contradict it. Scientists would find the apparent contradiction interesting and worthy of further investigation, and would devote further study to isolating the source of the contradiction.
"

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

That being said; try looking up some articles by Dr. Bjørn Lomborg, Associate Professor of Statistics, University of Aarhus, Denmark.

Link me. Abid by your own definition of citation.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 24, 2005 9:39 AM

@CantTakeSky:
Since there has been an increase of about 1 degree C in the last century in average global temp. there is no doubt that the earth is warming. I would think that the only arugment here is whether we are causing it or at least helping that along or not.

Do I believe that it is happening? Yes.

I tend to think that given that ( http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/004.htm) 122 Lead Authors, 515 Contributing Authors with 420 reviewers submitting valuable suggestions for improvement, followed by review by governments and experts, through which several hundred more reviewers participated are going to be more or less right (given current knowledge). Especially since the different models used to predict tell pretty much the same tale.

Do I think that this could change tommorow? It's a possibility.

From what I see though, this discussion is rather a catylist for change in the thinking of how we live as a global community.

What I mainly focus on is that we have an overwelming amount of evidence in the direction that we are causing global warming to a large extent. So lets change things.

But, even if we are not causing global warming, things should change anyway. The health hazards that go along with production that produces greenhouse gases, etc are an argument unto themselves. Look at all the chemicals that enter our food chain that are harmful to us, etc. ie Even if we aren't harming the planet, it is undeniable that we are harming ourselves.

So, if we are causing it then we (as people that live on earth) should adopt certain policies to change that. If we aren't, then we should adopt the same policies for many other reasons.

So, lets huck that stone at that bird as save ourselves, and we just might kill two birds with one stone as well.

The book you linked to is at a high school level. Anything a touch more technical?

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 24, 2005 1:11 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Hi SigmaNunki,

It's nice top be back, if only briefly. It's strange, I also have RealClimate in my message. I'm still super busy, so I only drop in for a few minutes every few weeks. Haven't read further down the line yet, but here are some things I ran across and gathered together that seemed apropos to the topic:

http://www.realclimate.org/
Real information seems to be anathema on this board (I noticed no one commented on the ScienceDaily postings), but for those who like to inform their opinions with facts, and who like to monitor the real debates, the website is a portal to climate research discussion. (Please note some linked sites require paid subscription.)

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/environment/story.jsp?story=603975
Countdown to global catastrophe
Climate change: report warns point of no return may be reached in 10 years, leading to droughts, agricultural failure and water shortages

This is obviously not the original report itself. (It will be interesting to see if it makes it onto the internet. Some reports of great interest seem to be tightly controlled and can't be found even with extensive searching.)

Below are more incidental global warming studies encapsuled in sciencedaily:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041129113717.htm
Stratosphere Temperature Data Support Scientists' Proof For Global Warming

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/01/050111164648.htm
Antarctic Iced Over When Greenhouse Gases -- Not Ocean Currents -- Shifted, Study Suggests

... And it's not a blessing

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 24, 2005 1:58 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
People who really want to claim the high ground of science should 1) learn the rigors of scientific methodology, and 2) look at the data themselves rather than rely of pronouncements of scientists.

Without supercomputers and access to ALL the data, we are all, no matter how well informed, too limited to perform a definitive personal scientific evaluation. Yes, even your husband. As you may know, the science is assembled by many people around the globe. Different research teams uncover new factors, feedback cycles, gage strength of response etc. Then these pieces are assembled into supercomputer models. The models are run (forwards and backwards in time) and the accuracy of the predictions is checked against many measures. The modelers probably have the best overall view of the state of the science, but not of the nuts and bolts of its mechanics. So while your plea for informed discussion is an elevating one, I'd like to point out that no one (not even those global climate modelers in Switzerland) can possibly pay the ticket price you'd charge for an entry in the debate.

And then we have people referencing a science fiction author as a source of learned scientific discourse.

Now dang, but I just read what accounts for the difference between calculated and actual global warming for any given CO2 level, but I can't remember where that was. There is a reason, but until I can lay my hands on a url, I'll have to defer on specifics.

... And it's not a blessing

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 24, 2005 3:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
I stated, "...Source Sue Johanson." in another thread which you responded "...if you cite a source, I’ll consider it." I responded "Actually I did cite my source,..." which you replied "No, you didn’t cite your source. Giving someone’s name is not citing your source." In which this last post only makes reference to arrogant speeches. So, you are wrong. You did criticise me for not citing my source, which I actually did by definition.

As one can clearly see, I did not, in fact, criticize you for not citing your sources, I simply said that I would consider the information if you cited a source.

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
If you read the article above you would realize that there have been papers published that say that global warming has nothing to do with human activities. It just turned out that they are bad science and proved to be just that. So, your comment here is rather incorrect to say the least.

Bad science? What I see is disagreement within the field. The evidence for substantial climate change due to an anthropogenic global warming is, after all, less then conclusive. That some people have come to conclusions that contradict the prevailing attitude is not bad science, yet proclaiming that their science is “bad” because it does not support the consensus might be. The article that you posted places a lot of emphasis on the peer-review process, and seems to suggest that the Peer-Review Process fails if it does not serve to support the consensus. Indeed this seems to be tantamount to the very thing for which I have expressed concern. If we accepted this authors assertions then accepted scientific journal articles can now be dismissed if they refute the notion of anthropogenic global warming. The papers that the author noted may very well have been flawed, but that alone does not render their conclusions inconsequential, particularly if the evidence as a whole is largely inconclusive.

If the evidence is not conclusive, then it stands to reason that conclusions drawn in contrary to a thesis may be flawed. However, it also stands to reason that conclusion drawn in favor of the same thesis are certainly as likely to be flawed, if they are based on the same inconclusive evidence. Essentially, the inconclusiveness of the information makes it difficult to draw concrete conclusion one way or another, but if the scientific community has decided that one thesis is more likely, then it stands to reason that the flaws in papers contrary to this prevailing thesis are more likely to be aired, then those in support of it. The “consensus” then may be wholly or partially circular.

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Link me. Abid by your own definition of citation.

You’re a smart guy, aren’t you? I think you can figure it out. Like you said, google it.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 25, 2005 7:08 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I was curious enough about the whole issue to look for global warming naysayers.

First I found the Leipzig Declaration. It looked impressive enough, though the list is outdated (last updated in 1997). Out of curiosity, I looked for publications of the 'scientist' signatories (not the TV weathermen who also signed) to get a feel for their area of expertise and their forum for scietific publishing. Nearly all of those listed are found only in reference to aformentioned Declaration, which appears to be their only contribution to climate study. Many, sadly, have since passed on. Out of the entire list, I could find only three who had any publications listed on the internet. Only one was significantly geared to large-scale (though not global) climate. None appear to be researchers in the field.

I could have saved myself the effort if I had simply checked out this site:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=Leipzig_Declaration_on_Glo
bal_Climate_Change

Quote:
When journalist David Olinger of the St. Petersburg Times investigated the Leipzig Declaration, however, he discovered that most of its signers have not dealt with climate issues at all and none of them is an acknowledged leading expert. A journalist with the Danish Broadcasting Company attempted to contact the declaration's 33 European signers and found that four of them could not be located, 12 denied ever having signed, and some had not even heard of the Leipzig Declaration. Those who did admit signing included a medical doctor, a nuclear scientist, and an expert on flying insects.

Checking out "global warming" and uncertain further, I came across:
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/climateuncertain
ties.html

Quote:
Scientists know for certain that human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide (CO2 ), in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times have been well documented. There is no doubt this atmospheric buildup of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities.
It's well accepted by scientists that greenhouse gases trap heat in the Earth's atmosphere and tend to warm the planet.

and

Quote:
But projecting what the exact impacts will be over the 21st century remains very difficult.

The debate according to them is apportioning HOW MUCH is due to human activity, and HOW FAR will the changes reach.

Trying to find the nub of the challenge, I found:
http://www.globalwarming.org/
However, one will find articles written for newspapers by staff writers and similar items, not high level expertise. But don't take my word for it, check it out.

In http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=363384

Quote:
The petition was accompanied by an article purporting to debunk global warming that was formatted to look as though it had been published in the journal of the respected National Academy of Sciences. The resemblance was so close that the NAS issued a public statement that the OISM petition "does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy."

On the other hand Dr. S. Fred Singer, President of the Science and Environmental Policy Project (who funds that?) has gotten a lot of air time lately. I couldn't find a good list of his scientific publications, however, just some scattered references to selected items. However, he is one of the few signatories of the Leipzig Declaration who appears to actually have done research and published in peer-reviewed papers.

Anyway, time's too short to try to track these experts down. They leave too few internet tracks. (Even I have more internet references than they do.)

As I have said before, the global warming consensus, which appears to be in place as of the time, is the best science we have at the moment. But the competative, contentious nature of science continues to generate alternatives. Debate is certainly not being stifled, and as with any complex issue, anomalies and contradictions will always emerge. Does this mean that the science is WRONG? No, only that, like ALL theories, it is only provisionally right.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 26, 2005 6:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
The debate according to them is apportioning HOW MUCH is due to human activity, and HOW FAR will the changes reach.

Although rue’s ‘fact’ finding mission of the opposing argument may have primarily been an attempt to prop up her own position, I still applaud her for at least attempting to check the other side, and in the process she has apparently learned something.

Whether or not a consensus exists on global warming depends largely on exactly what is being agreed upon. It is a common tactic among advocates of global warming to point to a consensus on anthropogenic global warming, but talk instead on the highly speculative catastrophic affects. This is frequently intentionally misleading people to the conclusion that the consensus is the catastrophic affects, but this is inconclusive at best. The scientific community might be in consensus on the earth warming; there might even be a consensus on anthropogenic global warming. Of far less certainty, however, is whether or not this warming will lead to apocalyptic changes or to what degree humans are affecting or can affect a change in global climate.

Here’s another petition. This one has 17100 independently verified signatures, 2660 of which are physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p41.htm

"There are no experimental data to support the hypothesis that increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are causing or can be expected to cause catastrophic changes in global temperatures or weather. "
http://www.oism.org/pproject/review.pdf

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 26, 2005 5:19 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Source: University Of Bristol
Date: 2005-01-25
URL: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/01/050124005755.htm

New Research Suggests That Climate Warming May Be Occurring Even Faster Than Previously Recognized
A long standing puzzle that has haunted climate researchers looking at the fate of carbon stored in the world's soils, has now been resolved. The research suggests that climate warming may be occurring even faster than previously recognised.

The international team of researchers, led by Bristol University and reporting in Nature [20 January 2005], show that an apparent biological adaptation of micro-organisms that break down carbon in soils, thereby releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, can in fact be explained by the widely contrasting properties of those organic carbons.

Recent reports of laboratory experiments have stated that the micro-organisms responsible for soil carbon decomposition gradually acclimatise to an increase in heat and adjust the rate at which carbon is released into the atmosphere, such that it is effectively released at a steady rate. However, this does not agree with long-established rules of physical chemistry that predict that as the climate warms these reactions should speed up, resulting in an increase in the amount of carbon dioxide released.

The team of researchers at Bristol University and the Natural Environment Research Council's QUEST programme, the Max-Planck-Institute for Biogeochemistry in Germany, and the National Centre for Atmospheric Research in Colorado, has now managed to solve the puzzle, bringing the apparent contradictions from laboratory experiments in line with theoretical predictions.

They show that what looked liked a biological adaptation of the micro-organisms can in fact be explained by widely contrasting properties of organic carbon present in soils.

These properties range from highly digestible (labile) sugar-like compounds to almost stable, charcoal-like compounds which the micro-organisms have difficulty breaking down. Such an extreme mixture has so far prevented theoretical interpretation of the laboratory experiments.

The next step will be to apply the new theory in complex climate simulations, using so-called Earth System Models. So far, these models only use properties from the labile soil carbon because they are easier to measure. But an estimated 90% of the carbon locked up in the world's soil is made up of the more stable components, which must now be built into the model.

The new results predict that since the micro-organisms are not keeping the release of carbon dioxide from the soil at a steady state, as previously thought, an increase in climate temperatures will result in an increase in the rate at which the stable components decompose. This will lead to even more carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere and more rapid climate change.

This story has been adapted from a news release issued by University Of Bristol.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1511&ncid=1511&e=8&u=/ afp/20050127/wl_afp/scienceenvironment _050127013448

Global warming could be twice as bad as feared: computer model

PARIS (AFP) - Global warming may be twice as bad as expected, according to a new assessment of a commonly-used yardstick of possible carbon dioxide (CO2) pollution.

Until now, most computer models of climate change predict that if atmospheric levels of CO2 reach double of the pre-industrial age, the Earth's surface temperature will be between two and five C (3.6-9.0 F) warmer when compared with 1990 levels.

But a study published Thursday in the British science journal Nature suggests that the temperature rise could be much higher -- of between nearly two (3.6 F) and more than 11 C (19.8 F).

The research comes from a highly ambitious project in "shared computing," in which more than 90,000 people in more than 140 countries downloaded a special programme to crunch through data on their personal computer.

The screensaver software, which operates when the PC is not in use, was first pioneered by a US project, SETIAhome, which sifts through radio noise from deep space that, it is hoped, may one day contain a signal from extra-terrestrial life.

The organisers of the climateprediction.net project used the volunteers' spare commuting power to run through more than 2,000 different models on possible climate change.

Once the first batch of results was obtained, the researchers selected those models that had simulated the past climate accurately.

These best-performing models were then asked to predict how much the Earth would warm after CO2 concentrations had doubled from the pre-industrial level of 280 parts per million (ppm).

The responses ranged from 1.9 (3.4 F) to 11.5 C (20.7 F), "substantially greater" than the conventional model, they found. Most estimates clustered around 3.4 C.

By comparison, the top UN scientific authority on global warming, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), estimated in 2001 that there would be a temperature rise of between 1.4 C (2.5 F) and 5.8 C (10.4 F) from 1990-2100.

Those figures were respectively based on CO2 scenarios that ranged from 540 to 970 ppm by the end of this century.

Current CO2 levels, as recorded in March 2004 at a Hawaii monitoring station, stood at 379 ppm. In 2000, they were 368 ppm.

The burning of oil, gas and coal, the drivers of the Industrial Revolution and the foundation of the world economy today, is releasing into the atmosphere billions of CO2 that have lain buried for millions of years.

The gas hangs in the atmosphere, trapping heat from the Sun that otherwise would radiate safely back into space.

Scientists say this unbridled pollution is bound to have an effect on the world's delicately-balanced climate system.

Their big challenge, though, is to figure out when, where and how the effects will kick in, and if the change will be gradual or if there will be a "tipping point" beyond which change will be cataclysmic.

While there are many uncertainties, recent evidence suggests that carbon pollution is worsening faster than thought and that the first signs of climate change are already visible, in the form of extreme weather events such as recurrent El-Ninos, droughts, floods and storms.

Copyright © 2005 Agence France Presse

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 26, 2005 5:50 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Finn,

If I recall correctly, at one point you claimed to have access to Top Secret US Intelligence on covert ops in S. America. More recently you claimed to be a scientist. So tell me, are you 'intelligence', or a scientist?

If I had the time, I'd address the (outdated) nonsense you linked, but it will have to wait for a few days until I can get to it, if ever.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 26, 2005 6:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
If I recall correctly, at one point you claimed to have access to Top Secret US Intelligence on covert ops in S. America. More recently you claimed to be a scientist. So tell me, are you 'intelligence', or a scientist?

Maybe a little of both.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
If I had the time, I'd address the (outdated) nonsense you linked, but it will have to wait for a few days until I can get to it, if ever.

Nonsense? Because it doesn’t support what you want to be true.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 28, 2005 5:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

...and seems to suggest that the Peer-Review Process fails if it does not serve to support the consensus.

Where the hell are you getting this from?

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

The papers that the author noted may very well have been flawed, but that alone does not render their conclusions inconsequential, particularly if the evidence as a whole is largely inconclusive.

In fact, it does. If the data and/or method used to come to the conclusion is faulty, then the conclusion cannot come close to even be considered correct.

And you presume to call yourself a scientist?

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

If the evidence is not conclusive, then it stands to reason that conclusions drawn in contrary to a thesis may be flawed. However, it also stands to reason that conclusion drawn in favor of the same thesis are certainly as likely to be flawed, if they are based on the same inconclusive evidence. Essentially, the inconclusiveness of the information makes it difficult to draw concrete conclusion one way or another, but if the scientific community has decided that one thesis is more likely, then it stands to reason that the flaws in papers contrary to this prevailing thesis are more likely to be aired, then those in support of it. The “consensus” then may be wholly or partially circular.

I'm always amazed at how long people can go on without saying anything or near nothing. You certainly like to hear yourself talk don't you.

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Link me. Abid by your own definition of citation.

You’re a smart guy, aren’t you? I think you can figure it out. Like you said, google it.

Then you refuse to abid by the standards that you yourself set then, eh. Interesting.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 28, 2005 5:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Hi SigmaNunki,

It's nice top be back, if only briefly. It's strange, I also have RealClimate in my message. I'm still super busy, so I only drop in for a few minutes every few weeks. Haven't read further down the line yet, but here are some things I ran across and gathered together that seemed apropos to the topic:

I know the feeling. I've only had time to come here and post a few minutes a week for the past while with no end in site.

Oh well, I guess we'll have to intermittently fight the good fight

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 28, 2005 7:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
In fact, it does. If the data and/or method used to come to the conclusion is faulty, then the conclusion cannot come close to even be considered correct.

And you presume to call yourself a scientist?

All experiments have flaws and limitations. Are the conclusions of every scientific pursuit then rendered null?

And yes to your second question.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 28, 2005 9:24 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Hi SigmaNunki,

Just a short hi and - have a reasonable weekend.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 28, 2005 9:27 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Finn

Quote:
Maybe a little of both.

Not either one, eh?

As to why it's nonsense, the shortest expln is it's because it's not science. It's just a website for people to vote for their favorite dogma.

Now, if you believe it's science, then no amount of education I might try to provide would possibly help.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 28, 2005 9:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Finn
Quote:
Maybe a little of both.
Not either one, eh?

As far as you know, I suppose.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
As to why it's nonsense, the shortest expln is it's because it's not science. It's just a website for people to vote for their favorite dogma.

Now, if you believe it's science, then no amount of education I might try to provide would possibly help.

Doublethink. This is a rather humorous juxtaposition of statements. On one hand you dismiss outright something based purely, it would seem, on nothing more then that it disagrees with your position, and then criticize me for, apparently, not accepting your claim on pure faith.

Incidentally, not that this has anything to do with current discussion, but tonight is expected to be one of the coldest on record in my state.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 28, 2005 11:11 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

So, what is my position?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 29, 2005 5:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
So, what is my position?

Apparently, it is the belief that there is a scientific consensus that the affects of global warming are necessarily apocalyptic. But if you don’t know then perhaps you would like some time to contemplate that for yourself, as that is hardly something I can tell you?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 29, 2005 10:48 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I hate to quote myself b/c it seems egotistical, but after some specfic corrections to data on volcanoes, I've said (in various postings):
Science goes where the data takes it, dogma does not.
Right now, global warming IS the better understanding. As scientists do more to understand more, that future understanding will then be the 'better understanding', b/c that's where the data will have led. And you won't see me clinging to the old model either. Neither should you be clinging to the old model now.

Then I posted nearly a dozen references to research articles, websites and news reports with REAL SCIENCE addressing global warming and other environmental problems.

My position has been clearly to always insist that people go where the data leads.

As to what is science, it is PROACTIVE, ONGOING and OPEN investigation, observation, experimentation, evaluation and interpretation to test theories. Without continued effort, transparent methods and data, and a forum for debate, it's not science. The website you posted dates to 1997, the date at which the signatories seem to have stopped considering data. There are no peer-reviewed papers, and no ongoing evaluations of current studies. If you read what it is that people actually sign, it's a conclusion about global warming saying it just ain't so. That's not science, it's dogma.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 29, 2005 11:36 AM

That’s all well and good, but many of the articles that you posted largely seem to hold to the ‘doomsday’ scenario which is neither the only or most prominent scientific opinion, although it may be largely the only one that gets much political coverage. And I believe your characterization of an article that I posted, which disagreed with this doomsday scenario, was “nonsense.” Granted the article was dated 1998, which is hardly old news, but admittedly not the most recent, however your immediate dismissal (without cause) of this article should be somewhat alarming given your aversion to ‘dogma.’

Incidentally the article that I posted was dated January 1998, not 1997, and it IS a peer-reviewed published scientific article. I’m not certain that any of the articles that you have posted or linked to have been peer-reviewed at all. (Which, by itself, doesn’t really mean the information is necessarily wrong, but if you want to be snobbish about it I think you’ve lost.)

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 29, 2005 7:17 PM

Sorry it took me so long to come back. Been terribly busy.

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Since there has been an increase of about 1 degree C in the last century in average global temp. there is no doubt that the earth is warming. I would think that the only arugment here is whether we are causing it or at least helping that along or not.

Yesterday, the temperature where I live was 20 degrees F. Today it is 40. There is no doubt it is 20 degrees warmer here, and all in one day no less. What does it mean? Does it mean anything at all?

Yeah, 1 degree C in the last 100 years. Scientists ask questions about such observations. First we ask, in context of earth's ENTIRE history, is this random fluctuation, or is it a significant statistical change? What parts of the earth do these measurements represent, and can these temperatures be taken to be representative of the entire planet?

IF this 1 degree is statistically significant (which has been disputed) and IF it can be taken as representative of the whole planet, THEN we can ask what could be causing it. Is it CO2, is it the orbit of the earth, is it changes in electromagnetic forces because of the increased use of TVs and cell phones? IF it is CO2, is it because of the 1 billion people breathing in China, or the deforestation of the planet, or increased use of fossil fuels amongst many other possibilities? How can we tease out these variables without any direct experimentation?

My point is there are a lot of assumptions involved in the global warming hypothesis, and no way to truly test the hypothesis, let alone the assumptions. All we have are computer models--these are the only venues we have for "experimentation." EVEN if these models are reasonably accurate (which is highly disputed), they are still a far, far cry from true experimental data. So armed with only modeling data, the best scenario for the global warming idea is that it is plausiblethat CO2 is causing significant global warming IF our computer models and our assumptions are accurate. IF. There are scientists who say those models and assumptions are unbelievably faulty.

One of the most strenuous tenets of scientific reasoning is that "correlation does not equal causation." All we have in real world data is that 1 degree in 100 years, and oh yeah, a whole lot of CO2 produced at the same time. That is a correlation, which of course, does not mean causation. If you look at the last 100 years, you'll find a lot of other variables that can be correlated with this temperature change. The number of hair dyes, vaccines, microwaves, and cesarean births have all gone up. The number of buffalo has gone way down. What PROVES that CO2 is causing that temperature change more than any of these other variables?

The important thing is, real science is painstakingly cautious and tentative about its reasoning and conclusions. Politics is not. The pronouncement of global warming, in the end, is a political agenda, not a scientific one. This is a crucial distinction. It doesn't much matter that the agenda is promoted by people who happen to do research in their day job.

Quote:
But, even if we are not causing global warming, things should change anyway. The health hazards that go along with production that produces greenhouse gases, etc are an argument unto themselves. Look at all the chemicals that enter our food chain that are harmful to us, etc. ie Even if we aren't harming the planet, it is undeniable that we are harming ourselves.

I actually have no argument with you there. The toxins in fossil fuel emissions and the conventional production of energy itself should be of *immediate* concern. Even if global warming were true, it would be like worrying about high cholesterol when you're popping cyanide pills.

Quote:
So, lets huck that stone at that bird as save ourselves, and we just might kill two birds with one stone as well.

Unless the second bird is imaginary. Personally, I'd prefer to save my stone chucking on only birds that demonstrate empirical threat, and save birds that pose hypothetical threats for further study.

Quote:
The book you linked to is at a high school level. Anything a touch more technical?

The "high school level" might surprise you. It is technical enough for a scientifically literate person. You could probably check it out through interlibrary loan. If it is still unsatisfactory, email me (canttakesky@att.net) and I'll find you more sources. I like this book because it summarizes the major technical arguments without bogging the reader down in minutiae.

That's just me.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 30, 2005 10:37 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
One of the most strenuous tenets of scientific reasoning is that "correlation does not equal causation." All we have in real world data is that 1 degree in 100 years, and oh yeah, a whole lot of CO2 produced at the same time. That is a correlation, which of course, does not mean causation. If you look at the last 100 years, you'll find a lot of other variables that can be correlated with this temperature change. The number of hair dyes, vaccines, microwaves, and cesarean births have all gone up. The number of buffalo has gone way down. What PROVES that CO2 is causing that temperature change more than any of these other variables?

Ummm... do you have ANY background in science??? You're correct- correlation does not equal causation. Generally in order to show that A causes B you need to show not only correlation, you need to provide a MECHANISM. It is an undeniable fact of physics... and an easy high school demonstration... that CO2 (and methane) absorb strongly in the infrared range. (If you don't know what infrared is, perhaps RADIANT HEAT will give you a clue.)

Just sheer physics alone (X CO2 increase causes Y absorption of heat) should tell you something. Tossing in a bunch of red herring doesn't change that calculation.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 30, 2005 2:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
In fact, it does. If the data and/or method used to come to the conclusion is faulty, then the conclusion cannot come close to even be considered correct.

And you presume to call yourself a scientist?

All experiments have flaws and limitations. Are the conclusions of every scientific pursuit then rendered null?

There is a difference between within statistical error and faulty method. If you were a scientist you would be aware of this.

If these "conclusions" that you speak of were actually attainable by proper method, then those scientists would have retracted there paper, fixed there method, etc and re-submitted a paper that had conclusions based on proper methods (read: proper science) in it.

But all I see is retraction. Kind of telling, isn't it.

I might add that you still have yet to answer my first question posed. But, then again, from your history, I hardly expect an answer.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 30, 2005 2:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:

Yesterday, the temperature where I live was 20 degrees F. Today it is 40. There is no doubt it is 20 degrees warmer here, and all in one day no less. What does it mean? Does it mean anything at all?

There is a difference between weather and climate. So, this point is rather moot given the topic at hand.

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:

My point is there are a lot of assumptions involved in the global warming hypothesis, and no way to truly test the hypothesis, let alone the assumptions. All we have are computer models--these are the only venues we have for "experimentation." EVEN if these models are reasonably accurate (which is highly disputed), they are still a far, far cry from true experimental data. So armed with only modeling data, the best scenario for the global warming idea is that it is plausiblethat CO2 is causing significant global warming IF our computer models and our assumptions are accurate. IF. There are scientists who say those models and assumptions are unbelievably faulty.

Actually, these models are tested against data taken over the last... quite some time. So, there accuracy is tested against real data.

I might note that I've never seen any predictions beyond 100 yrs. This isn't an accident. Round off error and not fully understanding things reduce the amount of time in the future that we can predict.

Also, given that the models tell a grim tale within 20 or 30 years is rather telling.

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:

The important thing is, real science is painstakingly cautious and tentative about its reasoning and conclusions. Politics is not. The pronouncement of global warming, in the end, is a political agenda, not a scientific one. This is a crucial distinction. It doesn't much matter that the agenda is promoted by people who happen to do research in their day job.

There is a major problem with this statement.

The real problem is that people in general don't understand statistics and probability. So, the science has to be "dumbed down" for general consumption.

If you asked any real climatologist about the situation, (s)he'll tell you about probabilities and statistics and say that given the current information we're headed for a very warm future.

Problem is, and I re-state, people can't handle these ideas. They just don't understand them.

[note: this is the reason why I don't like books at the highschool level. They can't describe what is actually going on because they assume a level that is insufficient for the topic at hand.]

See also, SignyM's post.

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:

Quote:
So, lets huck that stone at that bird as save ourselves, and we just might kill two birds with one stone as well.

Unless the second bird is imaginary. Personally, I'd prefer to save my stone chucking on only birds that demonstrate empirical threat, and save birds that pose hypothetical threats for further study.

I think you missed that "might" that I typed.

To be clear, if we adopt certain policies, then we save ourselves by way of not poisoning ourselves to death. Also, if global warming is happening, then we've just killed two birds with one stone.

In either case, one stone is used. So, there is no wasting of stone throwing, period.

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:

If it is still unsatisfactory, email me

How about just posting some sources here to benefit us all.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 30, 2005 4:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Incidentally the article that I posted was dated January 1998, not 1997, and it IS a peer-reviewed published scientific article. I’m not certain that any of the articles that you have posted or linked to have been peer-reviewed... if you want to be snobbish about it I think you’ve lost.)

Finn, you aren't referring to that CO2 paper from that other "Oregon Institute", are you?

Because if you are, well, no it did not appear in any peer-reviewed journal.

You're involved in the sciences, you must remember that particular to-do, as it was delivered in that oh-so-thorough bulk mailing, right?

Remember how the NAS had to put ouut a rather odd statement to the press, and everybody was in a stir about how to protect the reputation of the Academy from such flim-flammery?

Oh Google, your all-seeing eye finds the source again,
http://www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/isbn/s04201998?OpenDocument
Ah yes, here's the relevant portion,

Quote:
The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal.

So to reiterate, not peer-reviewed, disavowed by the NAS, perilously close to forgery and fraud, big scandal in the scientific community (I mean, I don't pay much attention to such things and I was aware of it at the time.).
Hey, kinda like that Dan Rather fella, huh? Maybe y'all shoulda been more Christian to him when you had the chance.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 30, 2005 4:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Just sheer physics alone (X CO2 increase causes Y absorption of heat) should tell you something. Tossing in a bunch of red herring doesn't change that calculation.

Just because one variable is more plausible than others for being involved in a mechanism doesn't PROVE it is the cause. The very purpose of science is to tease out this sort of intuitively compelling, but spurious reasoning.

I threw in less plausible correlations to highlight the point that correlation does not equal causation. I'm glad to see you agree. Can we agree then that any correlation of CO2 to increased temperatures itself (if such a correlation truly exists) does not prove manmade global warming?

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 30, 2005 4:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
There is a difference between weather and climate. So, this point is rather moot given the topic at hand.

No, it is not moot. The same questions persist. Is 1 degree significant? Or is it statistical noise? I threw in an example in weather to demonstrate how all data have to be evaluated in context of a larger data set.

Quote:
How about just posting some sources here to benefit us all.

How about not dismissing the source I recommended based on someone's evaluation that it is at a "high school level"? Yes, it is written for the general public, but that doesn't invalidate its arguments. Again, if you don't like this source after you've read it, we can discuss why and I can address those concerns with other specific resources. This book is more technical than arguments say, at this website. http://www.open2.net/truthwillout/globalwarming/global_stott.htm

But since you insist, here are 2 generic technical arguments you must have seen already.
http://zwr.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
and
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 30, 2005 7:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
To be clear, if we adopt certain policies, then we save ourselves by way of not poisoning ourselves to death. Also, if global warming is happening, then we've just killed two birds with one stone.

I'm sorry I did not explain myself well. Sure, one stone could kill two birds, or 3, or 4, or however many other speculative birds we want to throw in there. For me, it is a matter of principle that we stick to the truth, and not throw in conjecture and hypotheses, to justify policy changes. Maybe restricting fossil fuel emissions will cure cancer as well. But since we don't know that for sure, it should not be a factor in the decision. That is what I meant.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 30, 2005 7:42 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

"Can we agree then that any correlation of CO2 to increased temperatures itself (if such a correlation truly exists) does not prove manmade global warming?"

Can you disprove my contention that an increase in CO2 enhances infrared absorption?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 30, 2005 8:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by NeutrinoLad:
Finn, you aren't referring to that CO2 paper from that other "Oregon Institute", are you?

No. I’m not referring to that article. That’s certainly a different article, and I think it is also a different petition. There have been several petitions by scientists protesting the Kyoto Protocol.

And I vaguely remember that “to-do.” Although I didn’t pay much attention to it. Climatology is only marginally related to my field of study so I tend to follow the major issues and not get involved very deeply in the internal conflicts.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 30, 2005 9:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by NeutrinoLad:
Finn, you aren't referring to that CO2 paper from that other "Oregon Institute", are you?
No. I’m not referring to that article.

Then I lost the thread of the conversation. I don't know the article to which you are refering, sorry.
Which paper was it?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 30, 2005 9:45 PM

Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
Robinson, et al. (1998) Medical Sentinel, Volume 3 No.5, 171-178
http://www.heartland.org/pdf/23295m.pdf

The Medical Sentinel ( http://www.haciendapub.com/medsent.html) is a peer-reviewed journal of the AAPS. While I don’t necessarily agree with all the conclusions this paper has arrived at or that a paper is necessarily made valid through the peer-review process, it is published in a peer-reviewed journal.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 30, 2005 10:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
Robinson, et al. (1998) Medical Sentinel, Volume 3 No.5, 171-178
http://www.heartland.org/pdf/23295m.pdf

The Medical Sentinel ( http://www.haciendapub.com/medsent.html) is a peer-reviewed journal of the AAPS. While I don’t necessarily agree with all the conclusions this paper has arrived at or that a paper is necessarily made valid through the peer-review process, it is published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Strangely, the paper you cite here is not cited in any of your messages previous in this thread. I very carefully grepped for it, and there is nothing even close. How odd.

Oh wait, yes it is, just sourced differently, that is, at a different URL.
The paper you cite here, Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, is exactly the same paper that I cite above.
EXACTLY THE SAME.
Same title, same authors, just sourced through a different URL, how about that?
Maybe you should READ the sources you cite. Here I had to go to the trouble of chasing down your reference and check it, only to find that it is EXACTLY THE PAPER TO WHICH I REFERRED. That means you owe me, my dear boy. Very very far out of bounds, your behavior on this one. Not cricket.

I guess you're simply no good at bilbliographies, eh Finn?

But of course, being a man of honor, you will offer a full and groveling apology to the people in this thread.Won't you?

Or do you set yourself above the National Academy of Science? In which case your talents are wasted, eh ;)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 30, 2005 11:06 PM

And now I'm going to add a personal comment, because I take it personal when somebody tries to trick me by treating a source as a completely different source simply by referencing it by a different link.

This is a dirty trick, the sort of thing that makes a person lose a lot credibility with me. It either means that you didn't know what you claimed to know, that is you didn't even look at the original source, or you knew that it was the same source and instead of admitting it was thoroughly discredited, used it to "score a point" like we're playing a rutting football match, even though you knew it was compromised to the point of fallacy.

I haven't made up my mind about the very complex issue of human waste generation and environmental impact but I can tell you there are some people here whose tactics have given me an abiding, and, I'll admit it, unfair, distaste for their position.

Now, anybody can make a mistake. I've said things here that I wish I could take back, and my fellow Browncoats have, on the whole, forgiven me, I hope. But I would hope that we could admit our mistakes and move on in our quest for the truth.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 30, 2005 11:08 PM

You did not exactly cite any paper. Let me quote you your exact words in your previous posts:

Quote:
Originally posted by NeutrinoLad:
Finn, you aren't referring to that CO2 paper from that other "Oregon Institute", are you?

Because if you are, well, no it did not appear in any peer-reviewed journal.

Whatever paper you may have been referring to, it apparently was one that was not published in a peer-reviewed journal. THAT paper, whatever is was or is, cannot be the paper I referenced, because the paper I referenced was published in a peer-reviewed journal. You are either mistaken about the title of the paper or about the journal in which it was published, but either way, the misunderstanding here is certainly as much yours, and your claim of my “behavior” would seem to be your imagination, as well.

The URL that I used in the second post was simply to demonstrate that the paper was indeed published in the journal in question. Obviously it was not a trick, as the paper in question is clearly the exact same paper I referenced earlier. Regardless of the URL or medium in which the paper occurs it is the same paper. No trick, it really is the same paper.

Furthermore, the link to the NAS that you posted gives no indication of what paper they are talking about. There is no title, only references to a Wall Street journal article and another paper that they do not identify, but that they characterize as one that was “not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal.” It may have been talking about the same petition, but it’s difficult to say whether they are talking about the same paper, given the clear discrepancy.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 31, 2005 3:28 AM