The Global Warming Debate...

[Royd 0]

I'll bet ol' Hillary will be hatin' all of that global warming tomorrow, when all of the 90 yr. old women who are going to vote her into office can't make it out to vote.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

That's great. I'd just avoid democratssuck.org, newsmax.com, foxnews.com etc and stick to the scientific publications.

Nice... I guess all the left-leaning sources of info are ok, then?

ummm....it was what, two posts ago that he said

Quote

Which is why you should ignore the hysterical "climate change ended in 1998!" and the "climate change will destroy the world!" articles in the popular media

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

>those organizations that disregard any material that doesn't come from
>"the consensus"...

Not at all. Read Nature sometime; you'll see plenty of dissent on established positions. It's how science works. Unfortunately for people who have strong political opinions, anger, rhetoric and vehemence are not sufficient to disprove established scientific principles; that requires experimentation and data.

Sort of like how Nature discounted McKittrick/McIntyre's view's on Mann's data...which was later shown to be valid...AFTER Nature rejected it?

Quote

> I think I'll keep my options open and read what the skeptics have to
>say, as well.

That's great. I'd just avoid democratssuck.org, newsmax.com, foxnews.com etc and stick to the scientific publications.

Nice... I guess all the left-leaning sources of info are ok, then?

Ever notice (and I think you have) that attacking the source is the mode of operation and not taking on the content?

And the list is always the same, now, I have listed a couple of sites but they have taken themselves out, like CBS

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[mnealtx 0]

Hey - quit interjecting logic when Bill and I are having a sarcasm fight, dammit!!

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[jakee 1,279]

Quote

Ever notice (and I think you have) that attacking the source is the mode of operation and not taking on the content?

Except that's just a lie, isn't it?

I don't think that any statement about any poster could be as false as saying that Bill doesn't address content. Can you think of anyone who's posted even half the amount of scientific information to this forum as Bill has?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Ever notice (and I think you have) that attacking the source is the mode of operation and not taking on the content?

Except that's just a lie, isn't it?

I don't think that any statement about any poster could be as false as saying that Bill doesn't address content. Can you think of anyone who's posted even half the amount of scientific information to this forum as Bill has?

In Bills case you are mostly correct however, I stand by my lie

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[ExAFO 0]

Butt Secks.

Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.

[Lefty 0]

Why does the global warming issue seem to perfectly divide the political left and right of this country?

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[billvon 2,473]

>Sort of like how Nature discounted McKittrick/McIntyre's view's on Mann's data . . .

They didn't discount it. They refused to publish it because McKittrick's analysis was mathematically flawed, and the peer review process caught his errors. Indeed, if you applied even the flawed MM05 methodology to any complete set of temperature records, you get the same result - the 'hockey stick.' Only by excluding data that does not support your desired result (which is what MM05 did) do you show the hockey stick is 'false.'

Fortunately, the peer review process weeds out such errors.

See below for the analysis of the same data with the MM05 vs the MBH98 protocols.

>I guess all the left-leaning sources of info are ok, then?

Nope. NASA is neither left nor right leaning when it comes to climactic data; Nature is similar. Disagreement with a position central to one political party does not denote membership in the opposite party.

Here are some examples.

If you want information on what happened to TWA flight 800, should you go to:

1) the NTSB report on the accident
2) www.whatreallyhappened.com ('proves' they were shot down)

I assume you would be wise enough to heed the NTSB over the conspiracy site. Now here's the critical part - even though some right wing extremists believe the stuff on www.whatreallyhappened.com, that does NOT make the NTSB a left wing organization. Even if it disputes what right wingers believe.

If you want information on how the WTC collapsed, should you go to:

1) The NIST (National Institute of Science and Technology) report
2) www.whatreallyhappened.com ('proves' it was a government conspiracy)

Again, I assume you would be wise enough to heed the NIST over the conspiracy site. And again, even though some left wing extremists believe that Bush blew up the WTC, that does NOT make the NIST a right wing organization. Even if it disputes what left wingers believe.

(I am also assuming here that you're not one of those "reality has a liberal bias" types.)

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

They didn't discount it. They refused to publish it because McKittrick's analysis was mathematically flawed, and the peer review process caught his errors. Indeed, if you applied even the flawed MM05 methodology to any complete set of temperature records, you get the same result - the 'hockey stick.' Only by excluding data that does not support your desired result (which is what MM05 did) do you show the hockey stick is 'false.'

The Wegman report refutes that. In fact, it supports the fact that Mann's datasets and methodology "mine for" hockey stick data and assign undue weight to them.

Quote

Fortunately, the peer review process weeds out such errors.

Only if the peers are truly impartial, which doesn't seem to be the case in regards to the 'consensus'.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 2,473]

>The Wegman report refutes that.

No, it doesn't. Indeed, during the hearings, Hans von Storch pointed this out, and no one objected. His change in PCA orderings had no impact on the final graph. The hockey stick was still there and quite clear. See below for von Storch's re-analysis using the MM05 centered PC analysis.

>Only if the peers are truly impartial, which doesn't seem to be the case
>in regards to the 'consensus'.

Again, "coming to conclusions that disagree with my politics" is not the same as "biased."

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Why does the global warming issue seem to perfectly divide the political left and right of this country?

it really doesn't. The left has plenty of people who see the folly in attributing every weird weather event to a warming environment. And I'm sure there are many on the right who see it happening, but don't want to invest the economic costs of would be solutions, some of which are pretty half baked.

and more importantly, you have huge numbers of 'leftists' who believe it's a problem that something should be done about, yet continue to drive their SUVs alone to work and do lots of other wasteful practices. All talk, and really no better than the rightists who want to ignore it entirely.

[mnealtx 0]

>> No, it doesn't.

Yes, it does, actually. From the report pdf:

"In particular, the MBH98 methodology (and
follow-on studies that use the MBH98 methodology) show a marked preference for
‘hockey stick” shapes."

The National Research Council also confirmed the error in Mann's datasets and methodology.

>>Again, "coming to conclusions that disagree with my politics" is not the same as "biased."

That would be fine, if Nature (and others) weren't letting their politics drive the approval process. You and Kallend have both dismissed data that did not come from the 'consensus'...how is that not political?

I also find it odd that 'scientists' cannot adequately tell me how a cause (higher CO2 levels) can LAG an effect (increased global temps).

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[ExAFO 0]

Big Floppy Rabbit Ears.

Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.

[kallend 1,679]

Quote

Why does the global warming issue seem to perfectly divide the political left and right of this country?

Well, in the case on one far-right leaning contributor to this forum, the company he works for admits to emitting 32 million TONS of CO2 annually, so it's clear where his bread is buttered.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Why does the global warming issue seem to perfectly divide the political left and right of this country?

Well, in the case on one far-right leaning contributor to this forum, the company he works for admits to emitting 32 million TONS of CO2 annually, so it's clear where his bread is buttered.

I like how you claim to know about some one than they know about themselves. Your elitism is showing again sir.

Oh, and I hope we can double the out put in 7 years sarcasm intended

And I am "far" right huh. I suppose that makes you middle of the road then huh

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,679]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Why does the global warming issue seem to perfectly divide the political left and right of this country?

Well, in the case on one far-right leaning contributor to this forum, the company he works for admits to emitting 32 million TONS of CO2 annually, so it's clear where his bread is buttered.

I like how you claim to know about some one than they know about themselves. Your elitism is showing again sir.

Oh, and I hope we can double the out put in 7 years sarcasm intended

And I am "far" right huh. I suppose that makes you middle of the road then huh

Funny how you can contradict yourself so effectively within a single post.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Why does the global warming issue seem to perfectly divide the political left and right of this country?

Well, in the case on one far-right leaning contributor to this forum, the company he works for admits to emitting 32 million TONS of CO2 annually, so it's clear where his bread is buttered.

I like how you claim to know about some one than they know about themselves. Your elitism is showing again sir.

Oh, and I hope we can double the out put in 7 years sarcasm intended

And I am "far" right huh. I suppose that makes you middle of the road then huh

Funny how you can contradict yourself so effectively within a single post.

Avioding the subject yet again?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,679]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Why does the global warming issue seem to perfectly divide the political left and right of this country?

Well, in the case on one far-right leaning contributor to this forum, the company he works for admits to emitting 32 million TONS of CO2 annually, so it's clear where his bread is buttered.

I like how you claim to know about some one than they know about themselves. Your elitism is showing again sir.

Oh, and I hope we can double the out put in 7 years sarcasm intended

And I am "far" right huh. I suppose that makes you middle of the road then huh

Funny how you can contradict yourself so effectively within a single post.

Avioding the subject yet again?

What are you disputing - your right wing affiliation, or your company's (admitted) pollution output?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Why does the global warming issue seem to perfectly divide the political left and right of this country?

Well, in the case on one far-right leaning contributor to this forum, the company he works for admits to emitting 32 million TONS of CO2 annually, so it's clear where his bread is buttered.

I like how you claim to know about some one than they know about themselves. Your elitism is showing again sir.

Oh, and I hope we can double the out put in 7 years sarcasm intended

And I am "far" right huh. I suppose that makes you middle of the road then huh

Funny how you can contradict yourself so effectively within a single post.

Avioding the subject yet again?

What are you disputing - your right wing affiliation, or your company's (admitted) pollution output?

Neither, just the context YOU want/need to place them in

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,473]

>In particular, the MBH98 methodology (and follow-on studies that use
>the MBH98 methodology) show a marked preference for ‘hockey stick”
>shapes."

And so does the MM05 methodology. Either it's an error that everyone makes no matter how careful they are - or the data is valid.

>That would be fine, if Nature (and others) weren't letting their politics
>drive the approval process.

They don't.

>You and Kallend have both dismissed data that did not come from
>the 'consensus'...how is that not political?

Doctors regularly dismiss data on lung cancer that come from tobacco companies. Structural engineers regularly dismiss data that comes from 9/11 conspiracy sites. That does not mean they are politically motivated. Indeed, it indicates they are intelligent.

>I also find it odd that 'scientists' cannot adequately tell me how a cause
>(higher CO2 levels) can LAG an effect (increased global temps).

Because the cause of the _initial_ warming was not CO2 in the case you are referring to. Believe it or not, there are a lot of other things that can cause the planet to warm.

[mnealtx 0]

Ok...if MM05 shows that, then WHY is it that trendless data produces hockey stick graphs using Mann's program?

Nature doesn't let politics drive approvals? I'm sorry, but I'm not convinced - agree to disagree, I suppose.

When data is dismissed out of hand solely because of the source, that *is* political. If the data is studied and found to be faulty, that is something else entirely. The claim of "not approved by the consensus" doesn't give much confidence that political considerations aren't driving the train. Neither does dismissal of people bringing us such things as solar output and UHI effects on recording as "deniers" for not toeing the party line.

In the historical record, CO2 lags behind the temps...but CO2 is somehow the cause of modern GW, according to the "consensus". Now you're saying it's not, or am I missing something?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Ok...if MM05 shows that, then WHY is it that trendless data produces hockey stick graphs using Mann's program?

Nature doesn't let politics drive approvals? I'm sorry, but I'm not convinced - agree to disagree, I suppose.

When data is dismissed out of hand solely because of the source, that *is* political. If the data is studied and found to be faulty, that is something else entirely. The claim of "not approved by the consensus" doesn't give much confidence that political considerations aren't driving the train. Neither does dismissal of people bringing us such things as solar output and UHI effects on recording as "deniers" for not toeing the party line.

In the historical record, CO2 lags behind the temps...but CO2 is somehow the cause of modern GW, according to the "consensus". Now you're saying it's not, or am I missing something?

Appears to me you have summed it up pretty well.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,473]

>When data is dismissed out of hand solely because of the source,
>that *is* political.

Correct. And when data is dismissed because it is faulty, that is peer review.

>The claim of "not approved by the consensus" doesn't give much
>confidence that political considerations aren't driving the train.

Also correct. Which is why "not approved by the consensus" is not a reason research is rejected.

>Neither does dismissal of people bringing us such things as solar output
>and UHI effects on recording as "deniers" for not toeing the party line.

?? The IPCC includes solar output forcing in its models. Who is "dismissing" solar output?

>In the historical record, CO2 lags behind the temps...but CO2 is somehow
> the cause of modern GW, according to the "consensus". Now you're
>saying it's not, or am I missing something?

CO2 is one of the many possble causes of warming. Historically, the only thing that puts that much CO2 in the air are volcanic eruptions - and such massive eruptions do not last 100 years.

We are putting historically high levels of CO2 in the air now. That's the primary source of the "forcing" (increased heating) we are seeing now.

There are a lot of other possible causes of climate change. Solar irradiation changes due to solar output. Milankovitch cycles that increase the irradiation of one hemisphere. Massive releases of methane due to clathrate instability. Albedo changes caused by glaciation and desertification. Atmospheric opacity changes caused by aerosols, caused in turn by things like asteroidal impacts.

There are some somewhat foolish deniers out there who think that scientists have never even considered such possibilities, because they are "blinded by the consensus" or some such crap. That is, of course, completely wrong. Scientists often know more than non-scientists about their fields of study, since they have been studying them for a while. Indeed, it can sometimes even be worthwhile to listen to such scientists, instead of immediately hitting Google to find a political activist who disagrees.

Let's use an example. (I know, my examples always suck, but bear with me.) Let's say your house is cold. You turn your heater on and it gets warmer. OK, makes sense.

Now let's say you leave your heater off, but light a fire in your fireplace. Your house warms up. Does that prove that your heater does not work, and cannot possibly heat up your house? Or does it indicate that more than one thing can warm up your house?

Now extend it further. Let's say it's cold out. You notice that your heater is on and working, and hot air is coming out of the vents. You also notice your house is heating up at the same rate it always does when the heater is on, and there is no fire in the fireplace. Which of the possible conclusions is more likely?

1) the heater is warming your house.

2) since other things can heat up your house, you can draw no conclusions at all about what's going on. No one can understand it, and no one can tell with any certainty what your heater is doing. Any foolish HVAC technician who tells you that the heater is warming up your house is just "parroting the consensus" and is blind to what's really going on.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>When data is dismissed out of hand solely because of the source,
>that *is* political.

Correct. And when data is dismissed because it is faulty, that is peer review.

>The claim of "not approved by the consensus" doesn't give much
>confidence that political considerations aren't driving the train.

Also correct. Which is why "not approved by the consensus" is not a reason research is rejected.

And when the 'peer review' is subsequently proven false?

Quote

>Neither does dismissal of people bringing us such things as solar output
>and UHI effects on recording as "deniers" for not toeing the party line.

?? The IPCC includes solar output forcing in its models. Who is "dismissing" solar output?

When you take into account *known* increased temperatures on Mars and Neptune, it seems logical to NOT dismiss solar output as a primary forcing.

Again, I refer back to historical record and CO2 lagging temperature.

Quote

>In the historical record, CO2 lags behind the temps...but CO2 is somehow
> the cause of modern GW, according to the "consensus". Now you're
>saying it's not, or am I missing something?

CO2 is one of the many possble causes of warming. Historically, the only thing that puts that much CO2 in the air are volcanic eruptions - and such massive eruptions do not last 100 years.

We are putting historically high levels of CO2 in the air now. That's the primary source of the "forcing" (increased heating) we are seeing now.

A question, here - *if* CO2 were driving the temperature after the initial spike, would there not be a 'line cross' somewhere in the graphs where CO2 levels would *lead* the temperature line?

Quote

There are a lot of other possible causes of climate change. Solar irradiation changes due to solar output. Milankovitch cycles that increase the irradiation of one hemisphere. Massive releases of methane due to clathrate instability. Albedo changes caused by glaciation and desertification. Atmospheric opacity changes caused by aerosols, caused in turn by things like asteroidal impacts.

All good points...and I believe that some of those point are being disregarded in favor of the current theory.

Quote

There are some somewhat foolish deniers out there who think that scientists have never even considered such possibilities, because they are "blinded by the consensus" or some such crap. That is, of course, completely wrong. Scientists often know more than non-scientists about their fields of study, since they have been studying them for a while. Indeed, it can sometimes even be worthwhile to listen to such scientists, instead of immediately hitting Google to find a political activist who disagrees.

Agreed - which is why I also read the views of the scientists that disagree with the currrent consensus.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706