kallend 1,683 #101 June 29, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteYou lost all credibility regarding having the ability to make a reasonable point right there. . Ummm, you're a little late coming to that conclusion. You're right - maybe the global warming is due to the Earth not having a Senator - I bet *THAT'S* the reason!!! Or, maybe it's due to the number of government officials and lawyers living on it - that's a strong possibility too, I suppose. If you say so. No-one else has made such silly claims, though.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #102 June 29, 2008 QuoteQuoteIf you think that ONLY peer review can produce a valid output (as your posts imply) … My posts imply no such thing. However, if an output cannot withstand subsequent peer review, then its validity should be questioned. Then why was your first response, and all the ones after it, only concerned with peer review?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #103 June 29, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteYou lost all credibility regarding having the ability to make a reasonable point right there. . Ummm, you're a little late coming to that conclusion. You're right - maybe the global warming is due to the Earth not having a Senator - I bet *THAT'S* the reason!!! Or, maybe it's due to the number of government officials and lawyers living on it - that's a strong possibility too, I suppose. If you say so. No-one else has made such silly claims, though. Not in regards to manmade GW, no.... (or would that be 'mann-made'?)Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #104 June 29, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteIf you think that ONLY peer review can produce a valid output (as your posts imply) … My posts imply no such thing. However, if an output cannot withstand subsequent peer review, then its validity should be questioned. Then why was your first response, and all the ones after it, only concerned with peer review? Because I'm curious as to whether the claims on which you based your argument have withstood subsequent peer review. If he is going to critique a peer reviewed study, then shouldn't that critique also be subjected to peer review? Edit: I stand corrected. Wegman didn't critique the MBH paper, he critiqued a portion of the M&M paper, which was not published in any credible peer reviewed journal.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jenfly00 0 #105 June 29, 2008 QuoteQuoteThen take your "peer review" and stuff it up your ass, unless you can refute the claims. You lost all credibility regarding having the ability to make a reasonable point right there. If you don't understand the importance of the peer review process, then your understanding whether or not a critique of a peer reviewed study is credible or not is open to doubt. As I understand it, his education is limited to a Masters degree in Google. I suspect he might understand bits and pieces of what he paraphrases.----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #106 June 29, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteIf you think that ONLY peer review can produce a valid output (as your posts imply) … My posts imply no such thing. However, if an output cannot withstand subsequent peer review, then its validity should be questioned. Then why was your first response, and all the ones after it, only concerned with peer review? Because I'm curious as to whether the claims on which you based your argument have withstood subsequent peer review. If he is going to critique a peer reviewed study, then shouldn't that critique also be subjected to peer review? So, a non-peer review has to be peer-reviewed to be valid? Who would do the reviewing - more of Mann's peers?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #107 June 29, 2008 QuoteFunny, a well-reknowned statistician actually shows that MANN'S calculations are bogus. Of course, Dr. Wegman doesn't work for Natural Science and isn't part of the consensus, so you can see how much traction it got. The comparison of the social networks of Dr. Mann and Dr. Wegman is quite interesting as well. From an analysis of Wegman's testimony: Wegman had been tasked solely to evaluate whether the McIntyre and McKitrick (2005) (MM05) criticism of Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) (MBH) had statistical merit. That is, was their narrow point on the impacts of centering on the first principal component (PC) correct? He was pointedly not asked whether it made any difference to the final MBH reconstruction and so he did not attempt to evaluate that. Since no one has ever disputed MM05's arithmetic (only their inferences), he along with the everyone else found that, yes, centering conventions make a difference to the first PC. This was acknowledged way back when and so should not come as a surprise. From this, Wegman concluded that more statisticians should be consulted in paleo-climate work. Actually, on this point most people would agree - both fields benefit from examining the different kinds of problems that arise in climate data than in standard statistical problems and coming up with novel solutions, and like most good ideas it has already been thought of. For instance, NCAR has run a program on statistical climatology for years and the head of that program (Doug Nychka) was directly consulted for the Wahl and Ammann (2006) paper for instance. But, and this is where the missing piece comes in, no-one (with sole and impressive exception of Hans von Storch during the Q&A) went on to mention what the effect of the PC centering changes would have had on the final reconstruction - that is, after all the N. American PCs had been put in with the other data and used to make the hemispheric mean temperature estimate. Beacuse, let's face it, it was the final reconstruction that got everyone's attention.Von Storch got it absolutely right - it would make no practical difference at all. Wegman's testimony is not quite the evidence of MBH being bogus you claim it to be.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #108 June 29, 2008 QuoteQuoteIf he is going to critique a peer reviewed study, then shouldn't that critique also be subjected to peer review? So, a non-peer review has to be peer-reviewed to be valid? Who would do the reviewing - more of Mann's peers? I stand corrected. Wegman didn't critique the MBH paper, he critiqued a portion of the M&M paper, which was published Energy and Environment, which is not a credible peer reviewed journal. Thus, subjecting him to peer review would be more scrutiny than M&M received.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #109 June 29, 2008 Quote Quote The issue was the variance not the principal component, if that's to what you are referring.) Yes, the primary component. Dr. Wegman's report showed that MBH incorrectly centered the data: Principal component is the term not “primary”. While “principal” and “primary” are synonyms in vernacular, they’re not the same thing in statistics. It’s akin to skydivers differentiating between the container, reserve, and main, whereas someone unfamiliar with the skydiving might just call it all “your parachute.” (Or like the difference between the vernacular use of the word “theory” and the precise technical use.) Principal Component Analysis (PCA) is a statistical method used when one needs to compare multiple data sets that have multiple variables, i.e., it’s more than just “X” & “Y” but “M-Z” that vary over some field. (PCA is used for a lot of things, including identifying volatile compounds by ‘electronic noses,’ which is the application that I have ‘on the ground’ experience w/PCA.) McIntyre & McKitrick asserted that “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 original] Wegman is referring to the variance ("centering") in the excerpt you quoted. Even if McIntyre & McKitrick‘s critique was valid, they don’t address the other model-based and proxy-based reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere mean temperature done by other folks than Mann (e.g., Jones et al [which extended the hockey stick back to 200CE], 2004; Rutherford et al, 2004; Cook et al, 2004, the 2006 National Academy of Sciences Report, etc.). See attachments from a variety of sources, data sets, including recalculations of Mann’s data all generating the "hockey stick" shape and simulations. Notable is Rutherford, et al’s 2004 paper that used the same bristlecone pine data set as Mann but applied M&M’s statistical variance methodology, i.e., addresses the centering issue. Rutherford, et al got the same ‘hockey stick’ graph shape (see attachments “Rutherford”). If one is concerned w/r/t releasing data, how does one reconcile that Wegman (GMU) has not released his report data in response to request from David Ritson (Stanford) and others, who have identified significant problems with the calculations in the Wegman report? (See attached emails; Ritson, afaik, never received any acknowledgement much less answers to the questions he posed. One more example of peer-review in action after issue of a report.) Quote Quote How do explain/disregard M&M selectively eliminating data when they re-did their calculation? If one eliminates data ("indicators" in the technical parlance), one will get a different result. (If one didn't that would be likely more problematic.) If you have ONE variable that produces a hockey-stick result OVER the influence of all the other inputs, is that single input valid data? No. However, that’s not what happened and doesn’t represent M&M or Wegman were doing (or claimed to have been doing). The scenario you describe in the context of temperature reconstructions is roughly akin statements that “the parachute failed” on a no-pull death. M&M’s eliminated data, not a principal component. PCs are calculated. The calculation depends on different variances applied. Because they discarded data (up to 80% of Mann’s data by one back-calculation ), the principal component analysis they did generated a different result. The description you gave “If you have ONE variable that produces a hockey-stick result OVER the influence of all the other inputs, is that single input valid data” is closer to what McIntyre and McKitrick did. At least 2 statisticians, Wahl and Ammann have published critical analyses of M&M. (And one-half of M has rebutted Wahl & Ammann on his website). When one starts looking across the rhetoric & data (across all sides, not just “one” or the “other”) what one finds is that Mann’s 1998 bristlecone pine calculations were challenged by McIntyre and McKitrick (not the other data nor the other calculations that went into generating “hockey stick” graphs). Subsequent attempts to re-examine Mann’s calculations validated Mann’s findings when using McIntyre and McKitrick’s method on Mann’s data (i.e., multiple independent correlations of the “hockey stick” shape). McIntyre&McKitrick and Wegman’s findings using different data (but commenting on Mann’s 1998 calculations) have not been independently validated even tho’ third party requests have been made and (at least M&Ms) fail tests for suitability. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #110 June 29, 2008 Ah, directly from Mann's mouth.... imagine that. I never said Mann's work was 'bogus'...only that there were flaws in the calculations and concurrently flaws in the output - garbage in, garbage out. The recalculations still show an increasing temperature, overall - it just removes the sharp "hockey stick" trend caused by undue emphasis on a specific dataset and the further emphasis given that dataset by incorrect centering. Of course - you're not going to find that admitted on Mann's site - or those of his co-author's. Take a look at the networking analysis, and then tell me again just WHO is doing the peer reviewing?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #111 June 29, 2008 QuoteI never said Mann's work was 'bogus'...only that there were flaws in the calculations and concurrently flaws in the output - garbage in, garbage out.' Sorry Mike, but that's just incorrect. There are different methods for dealing with multivariate data. M&M found one (of many) that when they selectively eliminated data producing a different result (that fulfilled the result they wanted). When the bristlecone pine data is used in reconstructions with the 'centering' variance M&M suggest, the data still generates a "hockey stick." VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #112 June 29, 2008 QuoteAh, directly from Mann's mouth.... imagine that. You're right. I only remembered the site was run by climatologists; I failed to check which ones in particular. Still, there are nine other contributors, so it is in no way a given that the analysis was written by Mann. QuoteI never said Mann's work was 'bogus'...only that there were flaws in the calculations and concurrently flaws in the output - garbage in, garbage out. Except the fact that there have not been any flaws in the output demonstrated. The results have been shown to be consistent under different statistical methods, by different people (i.e. they are independently reproducible), a fact you seem to keep ignoring. QuoteTake a look at the networking analysis, and then tell me again just WHO is doing the peer reviewing? Making the claims you are making based on that network analysis is akin to claiming that two politicians cannot be critical of one another because they served in the same Senate.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #113 June 29, 2008 QuoteQuoteI never said Mann's work was 'bogus'...only that there were flaws in the calculations and concurrently flaws in the output - garbage in, garbage out.' Sorry Mike, but that's just incorrect. There are different methods for dealing with multivariate data. M&M found one (of many) that when they selectively eliminated data producing a different result (that fulfilled the result they wanted). When Mann's bristlecone pine data is used in reconstructions with the 'centering' variance M&M suggest, Mann's data still generates a "hockey stick." VR/Marg I never said it didn't - one of the things that M&M refute is that the bristlecone pine data is an accurate temperature indicator, as I said up-thread. IIRC correctly, the thrust of the dispute seem to be that ANY reconstruction with the bristlecone pine data produces a hockey stick. When the bristlecone data is removed...no hockey stick. Here is a link to a page that states that the pines may be a better indicator of rainfall than of temperature - and shows a negative correlation between temperature and growth in the MBH data for 1934 (hottest year of the century, post-NOAA adjustment). I've not clicked and read all the links on the page, so don't shoot the messenger.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #114 June 29, 2008 Quoteone of the things that M&M refute … M&M were, themselves, refuted.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #115 June 29, 2008 QuoteQuoteone of the things that M&M refute … M&M were, themselves, refuted. IIRC, M&M were refuted by people taking MBH's data and running the same calculations, were they not? Did any of those 'peer reviewers' remove the bristlecone pine data and run the analysis with re-centered data per M&M's contention that the bristlecone pine data was over-emphasized by the calculations? If not, it seems more like they were re-reviewing MHB's work than M&M.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #116 June 29, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteone of the things that M&M refute … M&M were, themselves, refuted. IIRC, M&M were refuted by people taking MBH's data and running the same calculations, were they not? Either you don't recall correctly or you haven't been paying attention. Care to refresh your memory?Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 200 #117 June 29, 2008 When a group of obviously well-educated and intelligent people like those of you who've been discussing this can't reach a consensus it lends credence to my theory that we just don't know for sure. We have the "GW is caused by humans" crowd...and the "GW is not caused by humans" crowd". The truth lies somewhere in the middle.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #118 June 29, 2008 QuoteWhen a group of obviously well-educated and intelligent people like those of you who've been discussing this can't reach a consensus it lends credence to my theory that we just don't know for sure. Read the research, the real peer reviewed research. There is a consensus among the experts, and despite what the contrarians would have us believe, it's not because research reaching other conclusions is not allowed, or that the peer review process is a buddy system. The fact is, the evidence is one sided. When scientists and laymen disagree on a topic of science, the smart money rides on the scientists being correct. I have only seen "obviously well-educated and intelligent people," a group in which I am not included, argue one way on this issue, at least among those well educated posters whose education is science related. QuoteWe have the "GW is caused by humans" crowd...and the "GW is not caused by humans" crowd". We also have a notable absence of climatologists in the forum. QuoteThe truth lies somewhere in the middle. Yes. No one has claimed that global warming is 100% caused by humans. However, there is a significant anthropogenic component to it. That's science, not opinion.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,476 #119 June 30, 2008 > When a group of obviously well-educated and intelligent people like >those of you who've been discussing this can't reach a consensus . . . They can indeed, and have. However, when a group of extremely well-paid and well-connected people do their best to make it seem like there is no agreement on the basics of climate change, people who rely on popular media for their scientific opinions are often misled into thinking that there is no consensus. Manipulation of the media is a time-honored approach to forcing public opinion, and works especially well on complex issues that most people don't understand in much detail. Replace research with simple catchphrases ("it's the sun, stupid" "do they have SUV's on Mars?") and people's opinions are easily manipulated. >We have the "GW is caused by humans" crowd...and the "GW is not >caused by humans" crowd". The truth lies somewhere in the middle. That's as accurate as saying "we have the flat earth crowd and the round earth crowd - the real shape of the earth is somewhere in between." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #120 June 30, 2008 Quote> When a group of obviously well-educated and intelligent people like >those of you who've been discussing this can't reach a consensus . . . They can indeed, and have.this is a lie However, when a group of extremely well-paid and well-connected people do their best to make it seem like there is no agreement on the basics of climate change, people who rely on popular media for their scientific opinions are often misled into thinking that there is no consensus.Those after pro global warming rearch money have this down dont they Manipulation of the media is a time-honored approach to forcing public opinion, and works especially well on complex issues that most people don't understand in much detail. Replace research with simple catchphrases ("it's the sun, stupid" "do they have SUV's on Mars?") and people's opinions are easily manipulated.Thank you Al Gore"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nerdgirl 0 #121 June 30, 2008 Quote Quote You lost all credibility regarding having the ability to make a reasonable point right there. If you don't understand the importance of the peer review process, then your understanding whether or not a critique of a peer reviewed study is credible or not is open to doubt. As I understand it, his education is limited to a Masters degree in Google. I suspect he might understand bits and pieces of what he paraphrases. Regardless whether he [or anyone] has a PhD in atmospheric physics from Stanford and is tenured at Caltech or has a GED from the School of Hard Knocks, science has to be done in public. Therefore it has to be subject to scrutiny and skepticism. That's part of what makes it science (repeatable, testable, dealing with physical phenomena are other defining characteristics). There's everything right with asking questions and being skeptical … I will concede there may be moments of frustration going over the same thing repeatedly Science involves competing hypotheses, one of which eventually wins out on its merits. It's a crucial part of the process. Peer-review is also part of that process and one reason why it is so important. While the guy who designs and builds Singer or Pfaff industrial sewing machines might be able to offer insightful comments on how to best construct a canopy, that knowledge/skill set doesn't automatically make him the authority on how to pack or fly the 'parachute' sewn on his machine. (Akin to those who design statistical algorithms commenting on paleoclimatology.) ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~ Quote When a group of obviously well-educated and intelligent people like those of you who've been discussing this can't reach a consensus it lends credence to my theory that we just don't know for sure. Science isn't done by consensus either. E.g., look to the arguments of the [hairyjuan]'s of the world on depleted uranium, they would have you believe that there is a lack of data (along with a nefarious conspiracy by the military, etc.) In many ways, the "debate" over depleted uranium has remarkable parallels to the "debate" over climate science. Depleted uranium is a heavy metal; one can get heavy metal poisoning. Ballistic shrapnel of any kind is also generally not conducive to “good things” when you’re the target. That does not make it an indiscriminate weapon. Anthropogenic climate change is a signal in the noise of natural climate change; the height and width of that signal relative to the noise is the issue (imo). A couple more examples, the “debate” over incineration versus neutralization of the US stockpile of chemical weapons … or the “debate” over the (AVA) anthrax vaccine or the “debate” over smoking causing lung cancer and emphysema. In each of those examples folks who object to policy decisions, invoke a mantle of "contested science" rather than more honestly (imo) addressing the policy & economic decisions. Consensus is one way by which policy is determined, tho'. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pirana 0 #122 June 30, 2008 I think for anyone not intimately involved in the actual research, there is too much propoganda via the media going on to be able to discern the truth - - if the truth can be known. Next to the evolution debate, this has got to be the science topic that generates the most emotions (and also the most armchair experts); and is therefore worthy of the most skepticism as each article in the mainstream press seems to warrant more than anything else a little research into whether or not the author has an agenda for which they need evidence. I have no idea what exactly to believe, but hockey sticks do tend to get your attention. Try this one on: It took approximately 150,000 years for the human population to reach a billion. The most recent billion was added in 15 years. Maybe a connection?" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nerdgirl 0 #123 June 30, 2008 Quote Absolutely! But it is RARELY pointed out that 1850 was in an Ice Age. By whom? Who's ignoring it? For paleoclimatologists, it's kind of a given – like skydivers don’t point out that an Otter is a plane (not a riverine mammal) or that a Sabre’s a canopy (not a historical weapon with an odd spelling). All of the questions that you posed … and more … have been asked, repeatedly, and more stringently. Models have to be validated by known data. Otherwise they're not valid. Quote The whole global warming issue comes down to human comfort. Have they any idea of the suffering that will cause? Largely I agree. The planet will survive. Humans will survive. Humans are amazingly resilient: 70,000 years ago, the human population decreased to ~2000. What is to be done or not is not purely a science question; it's a policy question. Science can inform the decisions … & I would argue *should* inform decisions … but in the end, it's a lot more than just a science question. It's an issue of how comfortable it will be for humans. How much it will cost? And for whom? For some it will likely be a boon – like growing crops in parts of Canada. How much "suffering" is what some folks try to estimate in order to inform policymakers. Humans have decimated their local environments historically, that's not new, e.g., the Cahokia Indians in the area that's now East St. Louis, the Anasazi of the US "Four Corners" region, Easter Island, the Polynesians on Pitcairn Island. Will we humans ever learn from the past or are we destined to repeat Santayana's precept ad infinitum? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,476 #124 June 30, 2008 >this is a lie "I don't understand" is not equivalent to "it's not true." >Those after pro global warming rearch money have this down dont they Can't parse that one, sorry. If you mean that Scripps, NCAR, NOAA and NASA scientists make millions - then you have never met any. >Thank you Al Gore You're welcome, Fred Seitz! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jenfly00 0 #125 June 30, 2008 QuoteI think for anyone not intimately involved in the actual research, there is too much propoganda via the media going on to be able to discern the truth - - if the truth can be known. Next to the evolution debate, this has got to be the science topic that generates the most emotions (and also the most armchair experts); and is therefore worthy of the most skepticism as each article in the mainstream press seems to warrant more than anything else a little research into whether or not the author has an agenda for which they need evidence. Agreed, and you have shown sound judgment in by not diving in with limited understanding of the science (me too) paraphrasing google searches that agree with your political predisposition. Why some people seem compelled to repetitively embarass themselves in this manner is puzzling.----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Page 5 of 7 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
nerdgirl 0 #121 June 30, 2008 Quote Quote You lost all credibility regarding having the ability to make a reasonable point right there. If you don't understand the importance of the peer review process, then your understanding whether or not a critique of a peer reviewed study is credible or not is open to doubt. As I understand it, his education is limited to a Masters degree in Google. I suspect he might understand bits and pieces of what he paraphrases. Regardless whether he [or anyone] has a PhD in atmospheric physics from Stanford and is tenured at Caltech or has a GED from the School of Hard Knocks, science has to be done in public. Therefore it has to be subject to scrutiny and skepticism. That's part of what makes it science (repeatable, testable, dealing with physical phenomena are other defining characteristics). There's everything right with asking questions and being skeptical … I will concede there may be moments of frustration going over the same thing repeatedly Science involves competing hypotheses, one of which eventually wins out on its merits. It's a crucial part of the process. Peer-review is also part of that process and one reason why it is so important. While the guy who designs and builds Singer or Pfaff industrial sewing machines might be able to offer insightful comments on how to best construct a canopy, that knowledge/skill set doesn't automatically make him the authority on how to pack or fly the 'parachute' sewn on his machine. (Akin to those who design statistical algorithms commenting on paleoclimatology.) ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~ Quote When a group of obviously well-educated and intelligent people like those of you who've been discussing this can't reach a consensus it lends credence to my theory that we just don't know for sure. Science isn't done by consensus either. E.g., look to the arguments of the [hairyjuan]'s of the world on depleted uranium, they would have you believe that there is a lack of data (along with a nefarious conspiracy by the military, etc.) In many ways, the "debate" over depleted uranium has remarkable parallels to the "debate" over climate science. Depleted uranium is a heavy metal; one can get heavy metal poisoning. Ballistic shrapnel of any kind is also generally not conducive to “good things” when you’re the target. That does not make it an indiscriminate weapon. Anthropogenic climate change is a signal in the noise of natural climate change; the height and width of that signal relative to the noise is the issue (imo). A couple more examples, the “debate” over incineration versus neutralization of the US stockpile of chemical weapons … or the “debate” over the (AVA) anthrax vaccine or the “debate” over smoking causing lung cancer and emphysema. In each of those examples folks who object to policy decisions, invoke a mantle of "contested science" rather than more honestly (imo) addressing the policy & economic decisions. Consensus is one way by which policy is determined, tho'. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #122 June 30, 2008 I think for anyone not intimately involved in the actual research, there is too much propoganda via the media going on to be able to discern the truth - - if the truth can be known. Next to the evolution debate, this has got to be the science topic that generates the most emotions (and also the most armchair experts); and is therefore worthy of the most skepticism as each article in the mainstream press seems to warrant more than anything else a little research into whether or not the author has an agenda for which they need evidence. I have no idea what exactly to believe, but hockey sticks do tend to get your attention. Try this one on: It took approximately 150,000 years for the human population to reach a billion. The most recent billion was added in 15 years. Maybe a connection?" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #123 June 30, 2008 Quote Absolutely! But it is RARELY pointed out that 1850 was in an Ice Age. By whom? Who's ignoring it? For paleoclimatologists, it's kind of a given – like skydivers don’t point out that an Otter is a plane (not a riverine mammal) or that a Sabre’s a canopy (not a historical weapon with an odd spelling). All of the questions that you posed … and more … have been asked, repeatedly, and more stringently. Models have to be validated by known data. Otherwise they're not valid. Quote The whole global warming issue comes down to human comfort. Have they any idea of the suffering that will cause? Largely I agree. The planet will survive. Humans will survive. Humans are amazingly resilient: 70,000 years ago, the human population decreased to ~2000. What is to be done or not is not purely a science question; it's a policy question. Science can inform the decisions … & I would argue *should* inform decisions … but in the end, it's a lot more than just a science question. It's an issue of how comfortable it will be for humans. How much it will cost? And for whom? For some it will likely be a boon – like growing crops in parts of Canada. How much "suffering" is what some folks try to estimate in order to inform policymakers. Humans have decimated their local environments historically, that's not new, e.g., the Cahokia Indians in the area that's now East St. Louis, the Anasazi of the US "Four Corners" region, Easter Island, the Polynesians on Pitcairn Island. Will we humans ever learn from the past or are we destined to repeat Santayana's precept ad infinitum? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,476 #124 June 30, 2008 >this is a lie "I don't understand" is not equivalent to "it's not true." >Those after pro global warming rearch money have this down dont they Can't parse that one, sorry. If you mean that Scripps, NCAR, NOAA and NASA scientists make millions - then you have never met any. >Thank you Al Gore You're welcome, Fred Seitz! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jenfly00 0 #125 June 30, 2008 QuoteI think for anyone not intimately involved in the actual research, there is too much propoganda via the media going on to be able to discern the truth - - if the truth can be known. Next to the evolution debate, this has got to be the science topic that generates the most emotions (and also the most armchair experts); and is therefore worthy of the most skepticism as each article in the mainstream press seems to warrant more than anything else a little research into whether or not the author has an agenda for which they need evidence. Agreed, and you have shown sound judgment in by not diving in with limited understanding of the science (me too) paraphrasing google searches that agree with your political predisposition. Why some people seem compelled to repetitively embarass themselves in this manner is puzzling.----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
