A 10 Year Cooling Trend Predicted?

[thirdworld19 0]

Quote

>so find one single peer reviewed study from the past five years that
>claims that rubbing bear shit all over you does not double your lifespan.
> Without such a study, there is, indeed, a consensus.

That would make sense if you were trying to refute thousands of studies that showed it DID double your lifespan.

I disagree. What was put forth was a definition of consensus and it's just wrong. Consensus of those with an agenda perhaps, but definitely not of the scientific community.

However, the whole consensus thing doesn't make good scietific sense to begin with. Science does not rely on a show of hands. Think Galileo or Copernicus - going against the general consensus.

[billvon 2,400]

>What was put forth was a definition of consensus and it's just wrong.

Many people who deny climate change share this opinion. But many opinions do not trump thousands of peer reviewed studies.

There is this odd idea that science should be democratic - that if someone circulates a petition and gets enough signatures, they can repeal the laws of thermodynamics or alter atmospheric physics. Doesn't work.

[BikerBabe 0]

you know thirdworld, i'll ask you the exact same thing i asked rush (and never got an answer, btw).

What sort of "proof" would YOU need to change YOUR mind?

Scientific studies and reports obviously don't work. So what would cause YOU to agree that GW or whatever you wanna call it is actually happening, and that in order for humans to live a decent life on this planet, we need to change? Turning on your faucet and nothing comes out? Falling ill with a respiratory disease due to chronic lack of oxygen?

what is YOUR burden of proof.

rush couldn't answer the question.

Can you?

Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

[bwnco 0]

Well put. If you care to look at all sides of global warming, there is as much evidence that man is not the cause of it, as there is that man is the cause.. (i.e. Ice core samples, examined and looking at breakdown of atmosphere million years ago...huge climate changes back then. )
Huge Oil resources off the coasts and of course in ANWR. It is the Greens that are stopping the development of those fields.. It would take only a 1900 acre footprint to get at the reserves of oil in ANWR out of millions..
Should we ignore the signs that maybe man could be causing this as bikerbabe says? No, not at all.. We continute to develop wind, better solar, better nukes, and keep researching Hydrogen etc... but in the mean time we need to use the resources at hand until then...
Yes! not developing our oil reserves does cause high food prices etc as almost everything is tied into energy whether we want to admit it or not. Fertilizer, transportation, harvesting, even trying to develp ethanol takes Oil.... Just the nature of the beast.. We use what we have now, and try to come up with better energy alternatives in the mean time. But we have to develop what we have, while we are researching.....

"Anything I've ever done that ultimately was worthwhile initially scared me to death."

[billvon 2,400]

>We use what we have now, and try to come up with better energy
>alternatives in the mean time.

Agreed. We start ramping down our usage of oil and start ramping up our production of alternatives.

>But we have to develop what we have, while we are researching.....

Oil is 100% developed. We know how it works. To me, it makes sense to save our last reserves for when the famines and wars start. Right now we don't need it; we can run our aircraft, cars, military etc. But picture a scenario 20 years from now when we have drained every bit of oil we could find, and Iran says "OK, we want Alaska or no more oil." We will give it to them - because we will have no other choice.

The reason we are here, with $4 gas and $130 per barrel oil, is a lack of action on alternatives. The speeches about "coming up with better solutions" are no different today than they were in the 70's, and the results will be no different - unless we really get serious about giving up oil and going for alternatives, even if it is painful and expensive.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I disagree. I think those people throwing everyone into a tizzie are making the strong claims, not me.

But those people are backing up their claims with links to peer reviewed scientific research.

Quote

The IPCC report is finally shown for what it is - a bunch of crap.

Please link to the scientific studies that support that claim. Otherwise, the claim sounds like "what it is - a bunch of crap."

Quote

And people are still relying on it.

As they should as long as there is no credible research contradicting the findings.

Quote

In addition, no one seems to be taking into account the fact that this is what the Earth does - warms and cools - long before man was around and long after man is gone.

They are absolutely taking that into account. But, they also recognize that the rate of warming we are seeing is unprecedented. We know of no time when the earth has warmed so much, so quickly.

Quote

I cited several websites that include boatloads of information, but others choose not to look because it doesn't support them.

No, the reason they aren't taken seriously is because they don't cite any peer reviewed evidence, and, in some cases, the contributions are made by persons known to be lacking in professional integrity (e.g. Fred Singer, Richard Lindzen).

At the end of the day, if you want to refute scientific claims, you must use science to do it, backed with evidence of equal or superior credibility. The global warming skeptics have thus far failed in this regard.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

At the end of the day, if you want to refute scientific claims, you must use science to do it, backed with evidence of equal or superior credibility. The global warming skeptics have thus far failed in this regard.

ANDDDDD we're right back around to "how does a NON GW advocate scientist get the peer review, when all the publications are run by the 'consensus'"?

EG, M&M's paper on mistakes in Mann's calculations that was NOT selected for peer review...but later used (if I understand correctly) to correct the NOAA temperature database.

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

[billvon 2,400]

>when all the publications are run by the 'consensus'"?

IT'S A BIG CONSPIRACY! THAT's why no one ever studied the missile trails seen when flight 800 was shot down by the military. THAT's why scientists who try to study what really happened on 9/11 are ridiculed by the "mainstream" scientists. THAT's why evidence that the earth is only 6000 years old is supressed by the liberal corporate anti-religion scientific community. THAT's why flat-earth researchers are muzzled by the scientific establishment.

But to be serious for a second, Occam's Razor applies as well to all of those theories as they do to the various denial theories.

[mnealtx 0]

Ok, Bill... got the funnies out of your system now?

Perhaps you'd care to explain why, if M&M's correction of Mann's data WASN'T 'worthy of publishing' why it was used to correct the temperature database?

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

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

ANDDDDD we're right back around to "how does a NON GW advocate scientist get the peer review, when all the publications are run by the 'consensus'"?

Come on’ Mike … that assertion has already been shown to be false at least once: e.g., this list of articles that not only were accepted by the editors but made it through the peer review process, including one published in Science.

Here are 3 more publications from peer-reviewed technical journals from Steven McIntyre & Ross McKitrick’s own website:

“Hockey Sticks, Principal Components and Spurious Significance” Geophysical Research Letters, Vol 32(3), Feb 12 2005, copyright 2005 American Geophysical Union (doi: 2004GL012750). Further reproduction or electronic distribution is not permitted. This is a preprint of the GRL paper that shows Mann's program mines for hockey sticks and overstates the statistical significance of the final result.

“The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate index: Update and Implications” Energy and Environment 16(1)69-100. AVAILABLE ON-LINE AT ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT by kind permission of the publisher. This paper shows how Mann's results can be reconciled to our results based on handling of the PC algorithm and a Gaspe cedar ring series. We also discuss the bristlecone pines in detail and show why they should not have been included in the original data set.

"Corrections to the Mann et al (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series" Energy and Environment 14(6) 751-772. This is the "correction" to Mann's analysis of tree ring data; it was published in a leading environmental science journal.

(Unfortunately most of M&M's own links appear to be broken.)

---

Quote

EG, M&M's paper on mistakes in Mann's calculations that was NOT selected for peer review...but later used (if I understand correctly) to correct the NOAA temperature database.

Quote

Ok, Bill... got the funnies out of your system now?

Perhaps you'd care to explain why, if M&M's correction of Mann's data WASN'T 'worthy of publishing' why it was used to correct the temperature database?

Short answer: it was published.
And it does not appear to have been used "to correct the temperature database" ... as it's about statistical methods, that makes sense.


The McIntyre & McKitrick episode ended up being a fascinating little trail to unwind. In a completely nerdy-way, it was cool little puzzle to unravel. -[at myself].


Follow it for yourself – don’t take my word.

Per McIntyre & McKitrick’s own website, the interaction with Nature in 2004 is a little different:

“In the light of this detailed advice, we have regretfully decided that publication of this debate in our Brief Communications Arising section is not justified. This is principally because the discussion cannot be condensed into our 500-word/1 figure format (as you probably realise, supplementary information is only for review purposes because Brief Communications Arising are published online) and relies on technicalities that do not bring a clear resolution of the underlying issues.”

They wouldn’t fit into the word limit. Nature editors do not discriminate when it comes to word limits. I’ve gotten the “hack” or “go take your manuscript elsewhere” response from Nature editors on nanotechnology-related manuscripts.

They got good reviews. They just didn’t follow the journal’s rules. It’s akin to complaining about not being picked for a world record RW attempt when you don’t follow the organizer’s rules. Nature is an elite journal which publishes ~1% of the manuscripts submitted. (I’ve had more articles rejected than I have had published.) They had an option to shorten/revise and resubmit.

Their paper on the subject that was published in Energy and Environment was 32 pages long. While, it is most likely that they expanded it, no one gets 32 pages in Nature. IIRC, the longest articles are 6 pages.

At McIntyre & McKitrick’s request, Nature did publish a Corrigendum, i.e., a notification of significant error in the calculation of Mann’s manuscript (1 July 2004, v430, p.105 + >80 additional supplementary files – PM me if you want a pdf.) Mann et al’s original paper was from 1998. The editors sought a correction from the original authors 6 years later.

McIntyre & McKitrick also note: “On March 2, 2006, Steve and I made an invited presentation to a panel of the US National Academy of Sciences investigating millennial climate reconstructions. Our presentation was one of 11 solicited from experts around the world.”

According to McIntyre & McKitrick’s own website, the NAS invited them. That’s not a conspiracy. Science is an adversarial pursuit. Digging into & pulling data apart is a non-discriminatory practice amongst scientists.

While they do list a number of activities and presentations, McIntyre & McKitrick don’t mention anything about NOAA or a "temperature database." As their correction – “the underlying data should be transformed to have a standardized variance prior to taking a PC [principal component], which implies we should have used a PC based on the decomposition of the correlation matrix rather than the covariance matrix” [italics in orginal] -- is related to statistical derivations based on tree ring data from bristlecone pine trees, that’s not surprising.

Perhaps you may not be aware that McIntyre & McKitrick’s methods & conclusions are being challenged:

"The recent paper by McIntyre and McKitrick (Energy and Environment, 14, 751-771, 2003) claims to be an "audit" of the analysis of Mann, Bradley and Hughes (Nature, 392, 779-787, 1998) or "MBH98". An audit involves a careful examination, using the same data and following the exact procedures used in the report or study being audited. McIntyre and McKitrick ("MM") have done no such thing, having used neither the data nor the procedures of MBH98. Thus, it is entirely understandable that they do not obtain the same result. Their effort has no bearing on the work of MBH98, and is no way a "correction" of that study as they claim. On the contrary, their analysis appears seriously flawed and amounts to a gross misrepresentation of the work of MBH98."

"MM do not list the number of indicators in their putative revision of the MBH network (which is based on a complicated combination of original data from MBH98 and data substituted from other sources). The reader must do a considerable amount of detective work, based on scrutiny of the Tables in their pages 20-23 and the indicated data links, to determine just what data have been eliminated from the original MBH network."

Apparently McIntyre & McKitrick selectively eliminated data when they did their "correction."

---

Thank you – this is actually a great case illustrating that the scientific peer review system worked!
If anyone got through 'easy' is was McIntyre & McKitrick, ironically! And the case vividly illustrates that there is no conspiracy.
It also illustrates the critical importance of skeptics. It’s part of the process of science (public, repeatable).

What's the next case?
VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[mnealtx 0]

Thanks for the info - I'm glad they were able to get their information published and that people are looking at the possibility of other explanations.

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

[billvon 2,400]

>I'm glad they were able to get their information published and that
>people are looking at the possibility of other explanations.

Glad you're glad. Indeed, since people have been looking at other explanations since Arrhenius first published his theory on global warming in 1896, you have good reason.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

ANDDDDD we're right back around to "how does a NON GW advocate scientist get the peer review, when all the publications are run by the 'consensus'"?

Climate scientists are not a close-knit “social” group that engages in group think. Hundreds of scientists work in this field and we are a competitive bunch. We
compete for scarce research dollars, academic recognition, and professional standing. Every scientific publication that my colleague or I have published has been subject to
rigorous and independent peer review. Peer review in my field is anonymous. Authors play no role in selecting peer reviewers. And it is quite possible --- indeed likely --- that a journal will select someone who has expressed skepticism in one’s work as a peer reviewer.

-Dr. Michael E. Mann, before a House subcommittee, July 27, 2006

Quote

EG, M&M's paper on mistakes in Mann's calculations that was NOT selected for peer review...but later used (if I understand correctly) to correct the NOAA temperature database.

Wasn't peer reviewed? I believe you are mistaken on that point, sir. It has been reviewed by many climatologists and other scientists. To be generous, the M&M critique was found to be an exaggeration of the facts. Others might argue that it was a blatant attempt to mislead readers and offer the appearance of a large amount of doubt on a topic for which there is little scientific doubt.

Let's examine the paper's peer reviews more closely, shall we? First, a (very) general overview:

Another study by McIntyre and McKitrick (2003) claimed that temperatures estimated by Mann et al. (1998) from 1400 to 1980 contained errors, and that corrections to the data showed that the early 15th century was warmer than any period in the 20th century. However, these claims were countered by Mann et al. (2003b) who found that McIntyre and McKitrick (2003) made errors in their analysis and omitted or truncated key proxy indicators from 1400-1600. Mann et al. (2004) acknowledge that their 1998 paper contained several errors that, when appropriately corrected, had no effect on previously published results. McIntyre and McKitrick (2005) claimed that the method of Mann et al. (1998) is biased toward producing a ‘hockey stick’ shaped curve and underestimates uncertainty in the 15th century. This assertion was tested by von Storch and Zorita (2005) and Huybers (2005) who found that the normalization used by Mann et al (1998) tends to bias results toward having a “hockey stick” shape, but the scope of this bias is exaggerated by the choice of normalization used by McIntyre and McKitrick (2005) and by an error in their estimation of significance levels.
Source

Now, from Comment on ``Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance'' by McIntyre and McKitrick [2005]:

MBH98 use principal component analysis (PCA) to distill the large number of tree ring records (90% of the total 415 proxy records) into a smaller number of principal components (PCs). MM05 focus on a subset of the data, the seventy North American tree ring records (NOAMER) extending back to AD1400, and show that the MBH98 normalization leads to biases in the leading principal component (PC1). It is in this same step that MM05 use a questionable normalization procedure (emphasis mine -jcd11235), making it useful to describe the various normalization conventions in detail.
…

It is useful to compare the record averages with the PC1 results after scaling both to Northern Hemisphere instrumental temperatures [Jones and Moberg, 2003] (see Figure 2). The pre-1902 values of the MBH98 PC1 are more negative than the corresponding record average. Conversely, the pre-1902 values of the MM05 PC1 are less negative, an observation somewhat at odds with the statement in MM05 that their PC1 is “very similar to the unweighted mean of all the series”. These offsets between PCs and record averages further indicate that the MM05 results are biased in the opposite direction to those of the MBH98 results (emphasis mine -jcd11235). The fully normalized PC1 and average closely resemble one another (r2 =0.95), indicating that the fully normalized PC1 describes variability common to much of the NOAMER data-set.

A second issue involves the MM05 estimate of significance levels for the reduction of error statistic, RE = 1 – summation(y – x)^2 / summation(y^2), using Monte Carlo methods. In this case, y is instrumental Northern Hemisphere temperatures and x is the PC1 of random, proxy-like records. An approximate distribution for the null-hypothesis of no relationship between x and y is obtained by binning many random realization of RE. Records whose actual RE value exceeds 99% of the randomly realized values are said to be significant. Inspection of the MM05 Monte Carlo code (provided as supplemental online material) shows that realizations of x are not adjusted to the variance of the instrumental record during the 1902 to 1980 training interval — a critical step in the procedure.

The MM05 code generated realizations of x having roughly a fourth the variance of y, biasing RE realizations toward being too large. MM05 thus estimate a RE critical value substantially higher (RE=0.6) than that of MBH98 (RE=0.0) and incorrectly conclude that the AD1400 step of the MBH98 temperature reconstruction is insignificant. When the MM05 algorithm is corrected to include the variance adjustment step and rerun, the estimated RE critical value comes into agreement with the MBH98 estimate.

In summary, MM05 show that the normalization employed by MBH98 tends to bias results toward having a hockey-stick-like shape, but the scope of this bias is exaggerated by the choice of normalization and errors in the RE critical value estimate. Those biases truly present in the MBH98 temperature estimate remain important issues, and corrections for these biases will be taken up elsewhere.

What if different methodologies are applied to the data?

From Dr. Eugene R. Wahl and Dr. Caspar M. Ammann's Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes Reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere Surface Temperatures: Examination of Criticisms Based on the Nature and Processing of Proxy Climate Evidence:

Altogether new reconstructions over 1400-1980 are developed in both the indirect and direct analyses, which demonstrate that the Mann et al. reconstruction is robust against the proxy-based criticisms addressed. In particular, reconstructed hemispheric temperatures are demonstrated to be largely unaffected by the use or non-use of PCs to summarize proxy evidence from the data-rich North American region.
…

Our results show that the MBH climate reconstruction method applied to the original proxy data is not only reproducible, but also proves robust against important simplifications and modifications. The results of this study demonstrate that the primary climatological claim described in MM05a--that the method used by MBH to form PC summaries of climate proxies from data-rich regions results in calibrations that inappropriately weight proxies with a single-bladed hockey stick-like shape in the 20th century--cannot be upheld, and leaves unchanged the overall MBH result of uniquely high Northern Hemisphere temperatures in the late 20th century (relative to the entire 15th-20th century period). Indirect examination of this issue by use of all the continuous individual proxy data over this period, without any form of summarization (PC or otherwise), results in a reconstruction that is similar to the MBH original. Such an approach produces a small reduction of amplitude over the pre-20th-century period (possibly due to calibration overfitting), but the temporal structure exhibits a clear single-bladed hockey stick shape in the 20th century.

What does Dr. Mann have to say about the controversy of his study?

From the testimony of Dr. Michael E Mann, Associate Professor, Department of Meteorology and Geosciences, Penn State University, before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, July 27, 2006:

Since the publication of our original work in the late 1990s and the publication of the 2001 IPCC report, numerous other Northern Hemisphere average temperature reconstructions have been published in peer-reviewed journals. Each of these reconstructions, using different sets of proxy data (in some cases which are entirely independent of the data we used) and different statistical methods, come to the same key conclusion: That late 20th century warmth is likely anomalous in the context of at least the past 1000 years (emphasis mine -jcd11235) (see exhibit A). In fact, recent studies extend this conclusion to at least the past 2000 years. See Moberg A, Sonechkin DM, Holmgren K, Datsenko NM, Karlen W. 2005. Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low and high-resolution proxy data. Nature 433: 613-617.

At the time my collaborators and I published our original studies, there were no existing methods of combining diverse proxy data to reconstruct past spatial temperature patterns. Our results, as discussed further below, have proved robust. In the decade since our original calculations were performed, new proxy climate records have been developed, statistical methods for reconstructing climate from proxy data have been refined, new methods for using synthetic climate proxy data derived from simulations have been tested, and detailed comparisons between proxy reconstructions and independent estimates from theoretical climate models have been conducted. All of this is aimed at better understanding the workings of the climate system.

I have been actively engaged in these research activities. For more than five years, my collaborators and I have been developing and applying alternative methods that represent a significant refinement to our original methods. We have shown that these methods are not subject to the criticisms that have been raised regarding our original work (see, e.g., Mann, M.E., Rutherford, S., Wahl, E., Ammann, C., Testing the Fidelity of Methods Used in Proxy-based Reconstructions of Past Climate, Journal of Climate, 18, 4097-4107, 2005) and yet they yield results essentially indistinguishable from those reported in our original work (emphasis mine -jcd11235). See Rutherford, S., Mann, M.E., Osborn, T.J., Bradley, R.S., Briffa, K.R., Hughes, M.K., Jones, P.D., Proxy-based Northern Hemisphere Surface Temperature Reconstructions: Sensitivity to Methodology, Predictor Network, Target Season and Target Domain, Journal of Climate, 18, 2308-2329, 2005.

For a layman explanation of the controversy stirred up by the M&M Critique …, see Dr. Gavin Schmidt and Dr. Caspar Amman's Dummies guide to the latest ”Hockey Stick” controversy.

At the end of the day, there appears to be very good reason why the M&M paper was published in Energy & Environment and not a credible peer reviewed journal.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[rushmc 18]

Quote

you know thirdworld, i'll ask you the exact same thing i asked rush (and never got an answer, btw).

What sort of "proof" would YOU need to change YOUR mind?

Scientific studies and reports obviously don't work. So what would cause YOU to agree that GW or whatever you wanna call it is actually happening, and that in order for humans to live a decent life on this planet, we need to change? Turning on your faucet and nothing comes out? Falling ill with a respiratory disease due to chronic lack of oxygen?

what is YOUR burden of proof.

rush couldn't answer the question.

Can you?

I gave you an answer YOU DID NOT LIKE so you say I did not answer.

btw, I once supported the hype the man caused GWing and I used to support gun control.

In both cases I decided to look deaper and look where I am now.

btw, what would it take to change your mind?

Snow in Las Vegas AZ in August maybe?

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

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Snow in Las Vegas AZ in August maybe?

You're probably never going to see snow in Las Vegas, AZ, global warming or not.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Snow in Las Vegas AZ in August maybe?

You're probably never going to see snow in Las Vegas, AZ, global warming or not.

Um, I was asking the oposite......

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

[thirdworld19 0]

Quote

you know thirdworld, i'll ask you the exact same thing i asked rush (and never got an answer, btw).

What sort of "proof" would YOU need to change YOUR mind?

Scientific studies and reports obviously don't work. So what would cause YOU to agree that GW or whatever you wanna call it is actually happening, and that in order for humans to live a decent life on this planet, we need to change? Turning on your faucet and nothing comes out? Falling ill with a respiratory disease due to chronic lack of oxygen?

what is YOUR burden of proof.

rush couldn't answer the question.

Can you?

Are you asking me what sort of "Proof" I need to believe that GW is happening or that man is causing it? And please define GW for me - or whatever it is you are asking.

FYI, I haven't made my mind up - so to change it means to sway me one way or the other. In addition, I think humans are living pretty decent lives right now and will continue to for many more years to come. People are living far longer than they used to - which may be part of the problem - overpopulation. Maybe we shouldn't be trying to save everyone. When an animal population is too much, we typically cull the herd or issue more hunting licenses - or nature will take it's course and they will die off of starvation or disease.

Also, I believe you are starting with a false assumption that some of these studies constitute proof.

There have been so called scientific studies that have been proven to be a load of crap (ICPP). I will not rush to judgment on an issue such as this where it's (warming/cooling) been happening for millions of years and the time frame is not something that we can grasp in our lifetime.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Snow in Las Vegas AZ in August maybe?

You're probably never going to see snow in Las Vegas, AZ, global warming or not.

It's not that rare there, if you lose the August requirement.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Snow in Las Vegas AZ in August maybe?

You're probably never going to see snow in Las Vegas, AZ, global warming or not.

It's not that rare there, if you lose the August requirement.

It never snows in Las Vegas AZ.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[thirdworld19 0]

OK, so here is a link to a list of some peer reviewed studies - and it's about a year old. So yes, you'll still have to find the studies, I don't have the time to spoon-feed like many others here do.

Bikerbabe, does this 'proof' convince you otherwise now? So which peer-reviewed study will you follow?

What about the question, find one peer reviewed study in the past 5 years...So will you now concede there is no consensus?

Of course not.

I find it interesting that everyone is so quick to jump on the bandwagon of something that we just don't know enough about yet. Do you realize how much money is changing hands due to this hype?

I don't think it's bad for each person to be a responsible citizen while on the Earth.

But if you truly buy into the hype, why haven't you stopped driving your cars or using electricty or any number of things? It's because we're not really that concerned. We still have to get to work and live right? And god forbid we don't jump anymore - think of all the gas saved with no more skydiving. Oh, maybe you'll take shorter showers and turn the lights off in a room you're not in. Maybe you even spent a bit of money to buy a hybrid car (very chic - but still driving a car). Very nice.

That's a good question, what have you done to stop global warming? I'll bet for most, it's the very small, not even measurable, stuff that doesn't inconvenience you too much. I'll bet you have made changes to stop wasting - versus to actually stop using period. How much do you really believe?

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84E9E44A-802A-23AD-493A-B35D0842FED8


Here's another - I know most don't like Singer, but it is peer reviewed.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a8c_1197385712

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

At the end of the day, there appears to be very good reason why the M&M paper was published in Energy & Environment

You're right. I confused Energy & Environment (E&E), which is a low-tiered interdisciplinary peer-reviewed journal, with Environmental Science and Technology (EST), which is a leading environmental science journal published by the American Chemical Society (professional society).

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Here's another - I know most don't like Singer, but it is peer reviewed.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a8c_1197385712

I will give you credit, it has (surprisingly) passed the first stage of peer review, sufficient to be published in a legitimate peer reviewed journal. Unfortunately, it has failed the subsequent worldwide peer review.

Here is one thorough debunking. Comment number 14, by Richard Ordway, offers and especially lucid layman explanation as to why the Douglass et al. study was academically dishonest and can reasonably be disregarded. Some highlights:

A new study (that is already full of fatal omissions and inaccuracies) has just come out in a legitimate peer-reviewed journal (Inernational Journal of climatology).

Remember, a study needs at least two things to really be important scientifically:

1. To come out in a legitimate peer-reviewed journal (this is true with this study).

2. This same study has to stand up under world-wide peer-review scrutiny for accuracy (This study has already failed this criteria).
…

Even if the study were right…(which it is not) mainstream scientists use *three* methods to predict a global warming trend…not just climate computer models (which stand up extremely well for general projections by the way) under world-wide scrutiny…and have for all intents and purposes already correctly predicted the future-(Hansen 1988 in front of Congress and Pinatubo).
…

Now, on to actual problems with the paper:

Any real scientist, ahem, includes error bars in their projections because of possible variables. The study does not include them. If it did, or they were honest enough to, they would fit the real-life records (enough to overlap the two records) and be a non issue.

Secondly, this study is dishonest and does not show all the evidence available (v1.3 and V1.4)…boing…this paper has just failed peer-review. Science is an *open* process and you just don’t cherry pick or real scienists will correctly invalidate your results.

Third, with this omitted data, the computer models agree with the actual data (enough for it to be a non-issue).

Fourthly, the study does not honestly work out the error bars for the models themselves by giving them reasonable uncertainty for accounted-for unknowns such as El Nino (Enso) and other tropical events.

Now however, there are honest unknowns with the models and how they (slightly) mismatch histoical records…but they are accounted for in the big scheme of things…more work needs to be done…but it does not invalidate what the models are saying for general warming trends
…
In other words, this study is a strawman and the authors know it.

Quote

OK, so here is a link to a list of some peer reviewed studies - and it's about a year old. So yes, you'll still have to find the studies, I don't have the time to spoon-feed like many others here do.

Study 1 Debunked here (to the extent that it contradicted IPCC findings, although the author didn't claim IPCC findings were incorrect).

In short, the global temperature time series clearly does not follow the model adopted in Schwartz's analysis. It's further clear that even if it did, the method is unable to diagnose the right time scale. Add to that the fact that assuming a single time scale for the global climate system contradicts what we know about the response time of the different components of the earth, and it adds up to only one conclusion: Schwartz's estimate of climate sensitivity is unreliable. We see no evidence from this analysis to indicate that climate sensitivity is any different from the best estimates of sensible research, somewhere within the range of 2 to 4.5 deg C for a doubling of CO2.

A response to the paper, raising these (and other) issues, has already been submitted to the Journal of Geophysical Research, and another response (by a team in Switzerland) is in the works.

Moving right along, we have Dr. Robert M. Carter's testimony before the Senate's Committee on Environmental and Public Works, December 6, 2006.

Dr. Carter is a known global warming skeptic.

Professor Carter, whose background is in marine geology, appears to have little, if any, standing in the Australian climate science community. He is on the research committee at the Institute of Public Affairs, a think tank that has received funding from oil and tobacco companies, and whose directors sit on the boards of companies in the fossil fuel sector.
…
Professor Carter told the Herald yesterday the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had uncovered no evidence the warming of the planet was caused by human activity. He said the role of peer review in scientific literature was overstressed, and whether or not a scientist had been funded by the fossil fuel industry was irrelevant to the validity of research.
…

A former CSIRO climate scientist, and now head of a new sustainability institute at Monash University, Graeme Pearman, said Professor Carter was not a credible source on climate change. "If he has any evidence that [global warming over the past 100 years] is a natural variability he should publish through the peer review process," Dr Pearman said. "That is what the rest of us have to do."
Source

So, Dr. Carter receives funding indirectly from oil and tobacco companies, is not considered an expert in the climate science community, and doesn't think peer review is important. Not exactly a model of credibility, is he?


Study 2 acknowledges anthropogenic warming, and hypothesizes an additional cause of warming.

Okay, I'm through, for a while anyway. I've gone through almost half the page, and found only two real studies, neither of which contradict anthropogenic global warming, and one piece of testimony from a biased scientist who is not only not well respected in the field in which he claims to be an authority, but also doesn't recognize the necessity of peer review.

I have to say, thus far your "list" is far from compelling.

Quote

Do you realize how much money is changing hands due to this hype?

Are you referring to the billions at stake for the petroleum companies?

Quote

I don't think it's bad for each person to be a responsible citizen while on the Earth.

But if you truly buy into the hype, why haven't you stopped driving your cars …

I haven't started my car in 7+ months.

Quote

… or using electricty or any number of things?

I tend to conserve electricity, also. I'm not perfect at it, but not bad, either.

Quote

It's because we're not really that concerned.

You may not be. Many people are.

Quote

I'll bet you have made changes to stop wasting - versus to actually stop using period.

No one can stop using completely. We burn energy simply resting. All we can do is stop wasting and seek alternative sources.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[thirdworld19 0]

[replyNo one can stop using completely. We burn energy simply resting. All we can do is stop wasting and seek alternative sources.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

What about the question, find one peer reviewed study in the past 5 years...So will you now concede there is no consensus?

Science is not a process done by concensus. Remember your earlier example of Galileo, when he published his ideas they were challenged heartily. So was Robert Koch when he first started suggesting germ theory (i.e., bacteria & viruses cause diseases, so wash your hands before doing surgery, etc). Biotechnology and nanotechnology have their critics (e.g., political scientist Frank Fukuyama & literary theorist David Berube.) In March the President's Commission of Bioethics (which has very few, if any bioscientists left) issued their latest report condemning/criticizing biotechnology applications: Human Dignity and Bioethics. Darwin is still being challenged (mostly) by those outside of science. Do you see a pattern here?

Then there are the Pons & Flesihmans (cold desktop fusion) and Telayarkens (cold sonoluminescence-induced fusion). Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Some like sun-centered solar system, germ theory, evolution, vaccination, anthropogenic climate change, stem cell research, xenotransplantation (using human organs 'grown' in animals for organ transplants) have engendered controversy in the public arena. Science should be challenged by scientists and by non-scientists both. Science is a public, repeatable process done with data. Policymaking is more like proverbial sausage-making ... & it's not always public or repeatable.

Btw: I tried to point you to the list of papers I linked above in my response to Mike showing challenging publications. Ironically, trying to help you.

The crux is most of what you seem to be objecting to is the implications of policy choices.

Quote

I find it interesting that everyone is so quick to jump on the bandwagon of something that we just don't know enough about yet. Do you realize how much money is changing hands due to this hype?

Again, the ideas & experiments on climate change go back to the late 1800s. Is that your definition of a "bandwagon"?

Yes, money is changing hands -- I'm of the opinion capitalism is a good thing! Do you hold a different opinion? The leading area of US investment for venture capitalists last year was "clean tech" including things like solar enery, according to Steve Forbes.

McIntyre & McKitrick are making substantial money as climate change gadflys. Are you equally critical of their capitalistic endeavors? Or is that situation "different"?

Quote

I don't think it's bad for each person to be a responsible citizen while on the Earth.

Fantastic - we agree!

Quote

But if you truly buy into the hype, why haven't you stopped driving your cars or using electricty or any number of things?

Some of have done the things you're describing. Public transportation, walking, choosing to live close to where I worked so I could bike. (I also like the excecise, but that's a indirect benefit.) Participating in Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) programs, which rely on locally grown produce. (Found a neat one with a slightly different execution model here in Georgia: Moore Farms.)

It's a false construct -- altho' a rhetorically powerful one that has been used in many of the debates I mentioned above -- to portray the only option as a dystopic vision, in this case return to 17th Century way of living.

You do realize that it didn't take the industrial revolution for humans to have a negative impact on their environment sometimes to the ultimate demise of cities or whole civilizations, e.g. Cahokia, Anasazi, Catalhayuk, yes?

Quote

It's because we're not really that concerned. We still have to get to work and live right? And god forbid we don't jump anymore - think of all the gas saved with no more skydiving.

Yep, that's the problem -- the hard personal choices and policies which are the crux.

And hindsight is glorious -- if the 1970s, policymakers would have decided to invest strongly in basic research for solar technology, fuel cells, fusion (the real kind like the Europeans have been barely keeping going), algae-based biolfuels (get away from the cellulosic, unless its kudzu) imagine where we might be now? (I can think of one >$110B, yes billion, program that I would put to the top of the list as a candidate for better investment for Americans and national security if it had gone toward the areas I just mentioned ...)

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

To say we burn energy simply resting is a cop out. We can stop using, no reason not to except conveniences.

No, it's basic physics that we cannot stop using energy. All we can do is conserve and seek alternative sources.

Also, you can't seriously be relying on Hansen: