Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 35

Thread: Another Global Warming Article

  1. #1
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    453
    Post Thanks / Like

    Another Global Warming Article

    A very good article on Global Warming:

    [url]http://www.fee.org/in_brief/default.asp?id=966[/url]

    [QUOTE]The Goal Is Freedom: Global Warming and the Layman
    December 8, 2006

    by Sheldon Richman

    Sheldon Richman is the editor of The Freeman and "In brief."

    Global warming is a divisive issue. People are either believers or skeptics, with each side viewing the other with apprehension. I've sided firmly with the skeptics, but lately I have had a nagging concern. Like most people, I am not an atmospheric scientist. I have no firsthand way to evaluate a scientific claim for or against the existence of global warming. So what grounds have I for believing what one scientist says against the thesis over what another one says in favor of it?

    No good grounds at all.

    I know why I have preferred the skeptical scientists and science writers, but the reasons aren't good ones because they aren't scientific. Instead they are based on extraneous things, such as the environmentalists' previous faulty record of predictions, or the typical statist approach to dealing with global warming, or the respective sides' presumed attitudes about industrialism.

    It is true that many environmental nightmare scenarios are of doubtful worth because they are based more on bad economics than on science. The overpopulation hysteria is one that thankfully has subsided. Likewise, predictions about the depletion of resources are refuted by sound economic theory and the "ultimate resource" arguments deployed by the late Julian Simon.

    But a series of bad predictions doesn't mean the latest environmental prediction is necessarily wrong. For one thing, atmospheric scientists who warn about climate change are not necessarily the same people who warned about overpopulation and resource depletion. Moreover, even someone who has made bad predictions in the past may get the next one right.

    More than a few reputable scientists see potential problems in the climate change that is occurring. Thus the issue needs to be evaluated on its merits. I know of no a priori reason to rule out the possibility that human activity is producing enough greenhouse gases to warm the atmosphere to an extent that will have bad consequences. That doesn't mean it's happening, just that it's not impossible.

    For every factoid about ice sheets or sea levels or sun spots I can pull from the skeptics' literature, someone else can produce a counter-factoid. How is a nonscientist to decide which is accurate?

    This is not to say the skeptics don't raise apparently compelling points. They do, and the believers should address them. But that still leaves the problem of how a layman is to sort the wheat from the chaff.

    For advocates of individual liberty it is tempting to believe the skeptics are right because the other side is associated with statist solutions to climate change. Most solutions call for government control over the burning of fossil fuels. No advocate of free markets can be comfortable with a position that entails substantial taxes and subsidies to achieve a political objective -- reduction of carbon emissions -- especially when the solutions promise no more than negligible reductions in temperature. (Temperature, not emissions per se, is supposed to be the believers' cause for concern.)

    But picking sides in a scientific debate on the basis of proposed remedies is the wrong way to go about things. A believer in global warming could get the science right but the remedy wrong. That government shouldn't ban smoking doesn't mean smoking isn't bad for you. There is nothing incoherent about favoring free markets and thinking that global warming is a problem.

    Liberals should be careful about accepting the environmentalists' package deal. Do we really want to concede up front that there are only statist solutions to the possible threat from climate change? That would betray a lack of confidence in the freedom philosophy and the market process.

    Skeptics often portray believers in global warming as anti-industrial, anti-free-market zealots who shelve objectivity because they want to usher in a era of primitivism and totalitarian control. Maybe some of them are and do. But all of them? That's hard to believe.


    The Corruption of Politics

    Skeptics often attribute the preponderance of research supporting the believers' thesis to the corrupting influence of government finance. I have no trouble believing that the politicization of scientific research creates an advantage for doomsayers. Power isn't likely to flow from benign findings. But does that in itself mean all gloomy forecasts about climate change must be wrong? I don't think so. It strains credulity to think that every scientist who believes hazardous manmade global warming is happening has prostituted himself for a government grant. To prove that unlikely charge you need more than abstract arguments about perverse incentives. Assuming good faith in one's opponents seems a more fruitful approach.

    So we're back to my question. How can someone without a great deal of atmospheric knowledge cherry-pick from the reams of positive and negative claims about global warming?

    Some things seem reasonable to accept: first, that the earth is warming and, second, that human activity is partly responsible. Most scientists associated with skepticism acknowledge these points. The open question in both cases is: how much? Another question is whether the effects of climate change will be good, bad, or a mixture of good and bad. On both questions I am in no position to say. Maybe no one is -- not even eminent climatologists -- at least not today.

    This much I know: these are highly complex empirical questions. They are not a political, ethical, or ideological questions. Thus the answers must be left to the scientific process, preferably untainted by government control.

    In the meantime, laymen committed to individual freedom have their own question to attend to: If potentially harmful manmade climate change is occurring, how can it be addressed without violating liberty? Our energy should be invested in answering that question. A good start is made in this series of articles by Shikha Dalmia, Donald Boudreaux, and Julian Morris, published by the Reason Foundation. I also recommend this thought-provoking paper (pdf) by Edwin Dolan, published in The Cato Journal.

    The free-market literature is filled with reasons to lack confidence in government solutions to environmental problems. Those reasons include the perverse incentives and inadequate knowledge that pervade all political processes. Any bureaucratic program will be corrupted by power, privilege, and incompetence. So now is the time for us libertarians to direct our unique philosophy toward grappling with potential climate hazards in a manner consistent with freedom and the requirements for prosperity.

    Why freedom? Because being able to lead a self-directed life is too important to trade away for the faint promise of a cooler climate (assuming we even want that).

    And why prosperity? Because poverty kills -- we can be certain of that -- and wealth makes us resilient.
    [/QUOTE]

  2. #2
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    2,651
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    142
    At first, this article appears very centrist and thoughtful. And then, in one soft-selling phrase, it goes right into the arms of the Global Warmists:

    [QUOTE][I]Some things seem reasonable to accept: first, that the earth is warming and, second, that human activity is partly responsible. Most scientists associated with skepticism acknowledge these points. [/I] [/QUOTE]

    "Most scientiests"...when you hear or read that, your radar should immediately go up.

    "Most scientists" agree that climate change happens. Period.

    "Most scientists" cannot agree on whether or not humans are "partly" responsible.

  3. #3
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    468
    Post Thanks / Like
    It's late and I had a number of beers tonight... so excuse me for some of the vagueness of my responses. Overall... this article sucked. My response to his arguments are below.

    "Global warming is a divisive issue. People are either believers or skeptics, with each side viewing the other with apprehension."
    -- That's because the issue has become politicized and obscured by the media and lobbyists.

    "I've sided firmly with the skeptics, but lately I have had a nagging concern. Like most people, I am not an atmospheric scientist. I have no firsthand way to evaluate a scientific claim for or against the existence of global warming. So what grounds have I for believing what one scientist says against the thesis over what another one says in favor of it?
    No good grounds at all."
    -First of all, you side with the skeptics because you are employed by a libertarian conservative think tank group. Secondly, don't be stupid... you have all the necessary means of evaluating the scientific claims for global warming and the non-scientific claims of lobbyist groups against it. It takes several steps. Just a few:
    1. Check whether it is a peered-reviewed article. However, make sure you understand what a peer- reviewed article is and what it entails to get published.
    2. Check the authors credentials. Does he have the background and training to be an authority on the topic.
    3. Check funding sources. Are the grants from the NASA, NSF, EPA, NOAA, and other legitimate unbiased areas of funding for scientific studies or is the money coming from for-profit corporations and/or associated think-tank groups.
    4. Review past publications from the author(s). Is the author deviating from his/her previous research? Does the conclusions in the paper differ much from past conclusions and if so, does the author explain?
    5. Check the citations section. Does the author get his/her information and data from reputable and accurate sources.


    "I know why I have preferred the skeptical scientists and science writers, but the reasons aren't good ones because they aren't scientific."
    --Because you're a libertarian conservative.

    "Instead they are based on extraneous things, such as the environmentalist's previous faulty record of predictions, or the typical statist approach to dealing with global warming, or the respective sides' presumed attitudes about industrialism."
    --Oh, please. Previous faulty record? I'm sure you're lumping your typical research scientist with popular science writers here. Additionally, plenty of environmental policies have been implemented to mitigate many of these concerns.

    --Statist approach? How else are concern citizens able to ex cerise their inalienable rights through popular sovereignty...customer service?

    --Attitudes about industrialism? Once again... the typical black and white attitude conservatives, liberals, and the media take when dealing with complex political, social, economic, and environmental issues.

    "It is true that many environmental nightmare scenarios are of doubtful worth because they are based more on bad economics than on science. The overpopulation hysteria is one that thankfully has subsided. Likewise, predictions about the depletion of resources are refuted by sound economic theory and the "ultimate resource" arguments deployed by the late Julian Simon. "
    --Huh? Many environmental nightmare scenarios are of doubtful worth because they are based on bad economics? So, all economic practices are perfect? Everybody is comes out a winner? Externalities are a myth?

    --Overpopulation hysteria has resided? That's a new one for me. I'll have to check with China, India and many other developing nations on that one. I guess we should stop worrying about that nice J-shaped exponential human growth curve because this finite world with it's limited and finite resources can handle infinite and exponential growth of the human population along with its consumption.

    --The processes of our abiotic and biotic natural resources can be explained by a soft science like economics. Well, hell, why are we wasting time teaching physics, biology, chemistry, and so on when people can learn all that good knowledge about the natural world in macro and micro-economic classes.

    "But a series of bad predictions doesn't mean the latest environmental prediction is necessarily wrong. For one thing, atmospheric scientists who warn about climate change are not necessarily the same people who warned about overpopulation and resource depletion. Moreover, even someone who has made bad predictions in the past may get the next one right."
    --Atmospheric scientists who warn about climate change are usually quick to point out overpopulation and resource depletion as problems. Scientists who usually point out overpopulation and resource depletion as problems are quick at warning people of climate change. There is no current ecological problem that has such a strong consensus among the scientific community than global warming, resource depletion, and overpopulation. Check the scientific literature.

    "More than a few reputable scientists see potential problems in the climate change that is occurring. The presence of shrill alarmists shouldn't overshadow them. Thus the issue needs to be evaluated on its merits. I know of no a priori reason to rule out the possibility that human activity is producing enough greenhouse gases to warm the atmosphere to an extent that will have bad consequences. That doesn't mean it's happening, just that it's not impossible."
    --It is happening. Pub med (which is a fraction of the peer-reviewed journals) shows 2003 papers on a global warming search and 3260 papers on a climate change search (check it yourself... [url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?DB=pubmed)[/url]. I would challenge anybody to read the abstracts and quantify how many scientists object to the claim of global warming. Ditto with a google.scholar search. See NOAA at [url]http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html[/url]. Here they state:


    'Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point. Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide (prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution) were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and current levels are about 370 ppmv. The concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere today, has not been exceeded in the last 420,000 years, and likely not in the last 20 million years. According to the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES), by the end of the 21st century, we could expect to see carbon dioxide concentrations of anywhere from 490 to 1260 ppm (75-350% above the pre-industrial concentration).'


    "For every factoid about ice sheets or sea levels or sun spots I can pull from the skeptics' literature, someone else can produce a counter-factoid. How is a nonscientist to decide which is accurate?"
    --See the steps I mentioned above.

    "This is not to say the skeptics don't raise apparently compelling points."
    --They don't. They try to obscure the picture and discredit and mitigate meaningful and accurate science.

    "They do, and the believers should address them."
    --They don't and skeptics don't have to address our data and arguments. The scientific literature is overwhelming in acknowledgment of global warming and the anthropogenic causes of it. Perhaps skeptics should get off their asses and do the research and submit it through the same rigorous and pain-in-the-ass process research scientists go through on a daily basis instead of shouting loud enough to grab the media's attention.

    "But that still leaves the problem of how a layman is to sort the wheat from the chaff."
    --See comments above on evaluating sources. If people spent 1% of the time they do entertaining themselves on these issues, then problems like this wouldn't exist. How much time has a JetInsider poster spent discussing Chad's arm strength vs. global warming or campaign finance reform?

    "For advocates of individual liberty it is tempting to believe the skeptics are right because the other side is associated with statist solutions to climate change."
    --Huh? How do you protect individual liberty without government? Do you think it comes on a warranty on every purchase? China is opening up to a free market, but it's not like they're giving up their authoritarian government.

    "Most solutions call for government control over the burning of fossil fuels."
    --No **** Sherlock... I don't see corporations rushing to pay for their externalities.

    "No advocate of free markets can be comfortable with a position that entails substantial taxes and subsidies to achieve a political objective -- reduction of carbon emissions -- especially when the solutions promise no more than negligible reductions in temperature. (Temperature, not emissions per se, is supposed to be the believers' cause for concern.)"
    --Huh? and WTF? Isn't the point of industries having lobbyists all over D.C. and state capitals to get substantial tax breaks and subsidies to maximize profits for shareholders via political objectives. How are these and governmental bailouts capitalistic and in accordance to the free market theory?

    --Emissions are raising temperatures. This is a obvious distortion of scientific facts. It's easy. Emissions are the independent variable and temperature is the dependent variable. Plot them and look at the results. Rise in temperature is the consequence of increased emissions. Hell, I taught my 8 year old niece how to properly read and use a scatter plot. Amazing, this guy writes for the Foundation for Economic Education and doesn't know how read scatter plot data or understand correlative statistics. Thank God journalists don't have to deal with multicollinearity.

    "But picking sides in a scientific debate on the basis of proposed remedies is the wrong way to go about things. A believer in global warming could get the science right but the remedy wrong. That government shouldn't ban smoking doesn't mean smoking isn't bad for you. There is nothing incoherent about favoring free markets and thinking that global warming is a problem."
    --Environmentalists believe free markets and resolving economic issues are the solution, however, we would like to see the liberalization of the market from current regulations that favor large monopolistic control of industries.

    "Liberals should be careful about accepting the environmentalist's package deal. Do we really want to concede up front that there are only statist solutions to the possible threat from climate change? That would betray a lack of confidence in the freedom philosophy and the market process."
    --Well, you should practice what you preach. Have corporations pull their lobbyists out of the political arena and have our courts recognize them for what they are (artificial entities with no protection under the Constitution) and maybe environmentalists wouldn't be looking for a statist solution.

    "Skeptics often portray believers in global warming as anti-industrial, anti-free-market zealots who shelve objectivity because they want to usher in a era of primitivism and totalitarian control. Maybe some of them are and do. But all of them? That's hard to believe."
    --You're retarded.

    "The Corruption of Politics
    Skeptics often attribute the preponderance of research supporting the believers' thesis to the corrupting influence of government finance."
    --This reads as, "Real world facts quantified and analyzed via research is unfair! We believe that whoever throws larger sums of money thrown at politicians should win!"

    "I have no trouble believing that the politicization of scientific research creates an advantage for doomsayers."
    --Yeah, that's obvious when Exxon-Mobile is bringing in record breaking profits.

    "Power isn't likely to flow from benign findings. But does that in itself mean all gloomy forecasts about climate change must be wrong? I don't think so. It strains credulity to think that every scientist who believes hazardous manmade global warming is happening has prostituted himself for a government grant. To prove that unlikely charge you need more than abstract arguments about perverse incentives. Assuming good faith in one's opponents seems a more fruitful approach."
    --None of this makes sense. Sounds like somebody had his ass handed to him by a global warming "believer."

    "So we're back to my question. How can someone without a great deal of atmospheric knowledge cherry-pick from the reams of positive and negative claims about global warming?"
    --So I'm back with my reply to your question.

    "Some things seem reasonable to accept: first, that the earth is warming and, second, that human activity is partly responsible. Most scientists associated with skepticism acknowledge these points. The open question in both cases is: how much? Another question is whether the effects of climate change will be good, bad, or a mixture of good and bad. On both questions I am in no position to say. Maybe no one is -- not even eminent climatologists -- at least not today."
    --Read peer-reviewed literature and not the for-profit media.

    "This much I know: these are highly complex empirical questions. They are not a political, ethical, or ideological questions. Thus the answers must be left to the scientific process, preferably untainted by government control."
    --Government needs to fund scientific research. The public has every right to have access to all of it. Both the poor and high quality research. See spending by corporate think tanks and corporations. Very little funding goes to R&D (most spend less than 10%) and most funding goes to PR and advertisement.

    "In the meantime, laymen committed to individual freedom have their own question to attend to: If potentially harmful manmade climate change is occurring, how can it be addressed without violating liberty?"
    --Restrict corporations from overwhelming the political process and hiding behind our Constitutional rights.

    "Our energy should be invested in answering that question. A good start is made in this series of articles by Shikha Dalmia, Donald Boudreaux, and Julian Morris, published by the Reason Foundation. I also recommend this thought-provoking paper (pdf) by Edwin Dolan, published in The Cato Journal."
    --Please, more libertarian conservative journalists. Go to the journals and government agencies who are not funded by for-profit corporations and their little jester think-tanks.

    "The free-market literature is filled with reasons to lack confidence in government solutions to environmental problems."
    -But don't go to the scientific literature...

    "Those reasons include the perverse incentives and inadequate knowledge that pervade all political processes."
    --However, our so-called "free market" is immune to this.

    "Any bureaucratic program will be corrupted by power, privilege, and incompetence."
    --But the bureaucratic processes in the private sector are immune to this.

    "So now is the time for us libertarians to direct our unique philosophy toward grappling with potential climate hazards in a manner consistent with freedom and the requirements for prosperity."
    --Ride ideology into utopia!

    "Why freedom? Because being able to lead a self-directed life is too important to trade away for the faint promise of a cooler climate (assuming we even want that)."
    --Because being obsessed with materialism, consumerism, and self-indulgences feels so much better than citizenry and popular sovereignty.

    "And why prosperity? Because poverty kills -- we can be certain of that -- and wealth makes us resilient."
    --That's right! Wealth is unlimited... everybody can have as much of it as long as they believe and follow the libertarian conservative ideology.

  4. #4
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    2,651
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    142
    [QUOTE]Emissions are the independent variable and temperature is the dependent variable. Plot them and look at the results. Rise in temperature is the consequence of increased emissions. [/QUOTE]

    Finlee, how are you accounting for variables such as changes in solar radiant energy and atmospheric water vapor in your highly simpliefied view of this complex equation? How do you square atmospheric temperature records with surface temperature records? What error factors do you allow for data inaccuracy and anthropoligic/geopgraphic change in temperature gathering methodology over a 100 year span?

  5. #5
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,476
    Post Thanks / Like
    Global warming...fact...fiction...whatever. Does anyone actually think that pollution is good? Can we afford to be wrong on this? Its funny that the same "err on the side of caution" bull**** Iraq war crowd are the same people who think the threat of an over polluted planet is complete and utter bull. Why don't we "err on the side of caution" when it comes to our home planet?

    Conservatives who love to debunk global warming as a myth also claim to be religious. I wonder how God feels about us sh*tting where we eat?

  6. #6
    flushingjet
    Guest
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan]Conservatives who love to debunk global warming as a myth also claim to be religious. I wonder how God feels about us sh*tting where we eat?[/QUOTE]

    ?

    If you don't believe in Gd, why should you care how He feels?

    Are combustion engine emissions sinful?
    Against the 10 Commandments?

    Maybe He is, or knows,
    a good plumber who can deal with all the sh*t in the world.

    Gd knows, a skilled plumber is hard to find...

    If one agrees with your premise that we,
    the USA, pollute the world and by doing so we "cause" global warming

    I suggest you translate your question into Chinese and Hindu,
    & see if you get a good answer from the largest # of
    people doing the most polluting.

    They wouldnt know Kyoto from Kyoko Ono.

  7. #7
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    2,651
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    142
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan]Global warming...fact...fiction...whatever. Does anyone actually think that pollution is good? Can we afford to be wrong on this? Its funny that the same "err on the side of caution" bull**** Iraq war crowd are the same people who think the threat of an over polluted planet is complete and utter bull. Why don't we "err on the side of caution" when it comes to our home planet?

    Conservatives who love to debunk global warming as a myth also claim to be religious. I wonder how God feels about us sh*tting where we eat?[/QUOTE]

    PK, of course we shouldn't foul up the planet. But that's a misprepresentation of what we are dealing with in the Global Warming political campaign.

    The issue is CO2 emmissions. CO2 is not a pollutant. It's plant food. You exhale it every time you open your pie hole. The ficus tree in your office, the grass in the park down the street, and the trees in the Amazon rain forrest are happy to have you emit CO2 in whatever quantity you can spare. The more you spew, the better they grow. Does that sound like pollution to you?

    The United Nations and various governments want to tax CO2, and give the money to nations who don't produce as much CO2, to "balance" the inequities of energy usage. This is a politically inspired and environmentally marketed method of wealth redistribution. Call it socialism, metered by a spectragraph.

    The earth was warmer 1000 years ago than it is today. How do we know this? Because we have written historical testimony from Vikings who were farming in Greenland. I don't think the Viking were able to farm in Greenland due to the miles they logged in their Chevy Suburbans in the preceeding centuries. Since human burning of carbon based fuels in 1000 A.D. basically amounted to fireplace wood burning and oil lamps, it's probably safe to say human CO2 emissions were low and could not have been responsible for the warming trend that resulted in arable land in Greenland. And yet the earth warmed enough for that to be possible. So, if the earth can warm in the absence of significant human CO2 emmissions, why do we assume that the current, mild warming trend is based on CO2? We have historical evidence that indicates human generated CO2 is not necessary for warming.

    I'm not suggesting you accept any side as gospel. Listen to the predictions and the justifications, and judge based on the results and/or intended consequences.

    Remember the dire predictions for this year's hurricane season? Two dozen named storms predicted, with intensity greater than that of years past. The enviornmentalists love to latch onto natural disasters as reinforcement of their message. Al Gore played up this aspect in his movie (scenes of destruction). This year, the hurricanes don't show up. Fluke? Overstatement? What are we to be believe, particularly when the leading spokesperson of this crusade is a politician?

    No religion with this messenger. Just a truth seeker.

    Global warming is a new religion. It's peddlers would have you believe in it or be damned to burn in their new, super-computer-model-predicted hell. Climatolgists: The new priesthood, with Al Gore as the Supreme Pontiff.

    Seesh.

  8. #8
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    468
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=rbstern]Finlee, how are you accounting for variables such as changes in solar radiant energy and atmospheric water vapor in your highly simpliefied view of this complex equation? How do you square atmospheric temperature records with surface temperature records? What error factors do you allow for data inaccuracy and anthropoligic/geopgraphic change in temperature gathering methodology over a 100 year span?[/QUOTE]


    What complex equation? The author mentioned only two variables... emissions and temperature and claimed them to be independent of one another. It's well documented they are not independent of one another.

    My comments were directed at his extremely poor comprehension of factors that account for global rises in temperature. Because I offered a simply scatter plot explanation, my equation is Y = a+bX; where X is the explanatory variable (emissions), Y is my response variable (temperature), b is the slope of the regression line, and a is the intercept of the line on Y when X is equal to 0.

    So, no... I didn't include solar radiation or atmospheric water vapor. Those are also response variables to emissions also but at the same time can be explanotary variables to global temperatures - these can be multicollinearity or multivariance. That is why I made a comment about how lucky the journalist is in not having to deal with multicollinearity.

    And error factors?

    Are you speaking about standard error and standard deviation? Those are accounted for in statistical tests and modeling.

    Are you referring to data that fails normality? Transformation, among other things, can fix this.

    Or are you referring to errors made within methods applied? Meta-analysis of studies is a good way of getting around this to see if results are influenced by the methods.

    All of these are commonly used by scientists when we develop, quantify, and present our data.

    As I mentioned, and was not clear about, people need to stop relying on lobbyists groups and think tanks for their scientific information. If you want to know how scientists who work hands on with these issues on a daily basis, then go to their literature. Becuase the studies are publically funded, the data belongs to you. You paid for it. You have complete access to it. By law, if you wanted, researches funded by NSF, EPA, NOAA, NPS, FWS, and other governement agencies have turn their raw data over when requested. Try it... send an author an email. He might be a bit of an ass and refer you to his publication, but by law, he has to make his raw data public and reveal all funding sources.

    Then try it with the CEI...

  9. #9
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    468
    Post Thanks / Like
    PK, of course we shouldn't foul up the planet. But that's a misprepresentation of what we are dealing with in the Global Warming political campaign.

    The issue is CO2 emmissions. CO2 is not a pollutant. It's plant food. You exhale it every time you open your pie hole. The ficus tree in your office, the grass in the park down the street, and the trees in the Amazon rain forrest are happy to have you emit CO2 in whatever quantity you can spare. The more you spew, the better they grow. Does that sound like pollution to you?

    --Excess CO2 is a pollutant. Read up the basic concepts of pollution. You're made up of around 70% of H2O, but let me add about a liter of it to your lungs... I'm sure that would be real refreshing. With this attitude... tumors are okay. It's just extra cell growth... you know the kind responsible for making 10lb infants into a 150lb+ adult.


    The United Nations and various governments want to tax CO2, and give the money to nations who don't produce as much CO2, to "balance" the inequities of energy usage. This is a politically inspired and environmentally marketed method of wealth redistribution. Call it socialism, metered by a spectragraph.

    --Yeah are our track history of interferring with the market via industry bailouts is not socialism.


    The earth was warmer 1000 years ago than it is today. How do we know this? Because we have written historical testimony from Vikings who were farming in Greenland. I don't think the Viking were able to farm in Greenland due to the miles they logged in their Chevy Suburbans in the preceeding centuries. Since human burning of carbon based fuels in 1000 A.D. basically amounted to fireplace wood burning and oil lamps, it's probably safe to say human CO2 emissions were low and could not have been responsible for the warming trend that resulted in arable land in Greenland. And yet the earth warmed enough for that to be possible. So, if the earth can warm in the absence of significant human CO2 emmissions, why do we assume that the current, mild warming trend is based on CO2? We have historical evidence that indicates human generated CO2 is not necessary for warming.

    --The earth is warmer now than 1000 A.D. because a little cold age occurred. Historians believe that's why beer became so popular with northern Europeans. Too cold to grow some vitas.


    I'm not suggesting you accept any side as gospel. Listen to the predictions and the justifications, and judge based on the results and/or intended consequences.

    --Just don't rely on the scientific literature... damn renegade scientists!

    Remember the dire predictions for this year's hurricane season? Two dozen named storms predicted, with intensity greater than that of years past. The enviornmentalists love to latch onto natural disasters as reinforcement of their message. Al Gore played up this aspect in his movie (scenes of destruction). This year, the hurricanes don't show up. Fluke? Overstatement? What are we to be believe, particularly when the leading spokesperson of this crusade is a politician?

    --Yes, because Al Gore is a scientist and wouldn't dare think of misusing scientific information to push for political gains. This stuff never happens in D.C.

    No religion with this messenger. Just a truth seeker.

    Global warming is a new religion. It's peddlers would have you believe in it or be damned to burn in their new, super-computer-model-predicted hell. Climatolgists: The new priesthood, with Al Gore as the Supreme Pontiff.

    --Well, at least our "religion" is based on real world facts.

    Seesh.

    --Seesh^2

  10. #10
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    2,651
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    142
    [QUOTE=finlee17]PK, of course we shouldn't foul up the planet. But that's a misprepresentation of what we are dealing with in the Global Warming political campaign.

    The issue is CO2 emmissions. CO2 is not a pollutant. It's plant food. You exhale it every time you open your pie hole. The ficus tree in your office, the grass in the park down the street, and the trees in the Amazon rain forrest are happy to have you emit CO2 in whatever quantity you can spare. The more you spew, the better they grow. Does that sound like pollution to you?

    --Excess CO2 is a pollutant. Read up the basic concepts of pollution. You're made up of around 70% of H2O, but let me add about a liter of it to your lungs... I'm sure that would be real refreshing. With this attitude... tumors are okay. It's just extra cell growth... you know the kind responsible for making 10lb infants into a 150lb+ adult.[/QUOTE]

    Sure, anything in too much quantity can be termed toxic for a specific scenario. But there is circular error in your logic: "CO2 is causing global warming, therefore CO2 is a pollutant." First, you have to accept global warming as established theory, when in fact, it is not. Second, you have to accept that current human activity and climate is the "normal state of the planet" and the only receiver of CO2 impact (postive or negative). Neither of those conditions is valid.

    [QUOTE]The United Nations and various governments want to tax CO2, and give the money to nations who don't produce as much CO2, to "balance" the inequities of energy usage. This is a politically inspired and environmentally marketed method of wealth redistribution. Call it socialism, metered by a spectragraph.

    --Yeah are our track history of interferring with the market via industry bailouts is not socialism.[/QUOTE]

    I'm not defending other methods of social engineering, so why widen the debate? Let's stick to the issue at hand.

    [QUOTE]The earth was warmer 1000 years ago than it is today. How do we know this? Because we have written historical testimony from Vikings who were farming in Greenland. I don't think the Viking were able to farm in Greenland due to the miles they logged in their Chevy Suburbans in the preceeding centuries. Since human burning of carbon based fuels in 1000 A.D. basically amounted to fireplace wood burning and oil lamps, it's probably safe to say human CO2 emissions were low and could not have been responsible for the warming trend that resulted in arable land in Greenland. And yet the earth warmed enough for that to be possible. So, if the earth can warm in the absence of significant human CO2 emmissions, why do we assume that the current, mild warming trend is based on CO2? We have historical evidence that indicates human generated CO2 is not necessary for warming.

    --The earth is warmer now than 1000 A.D. because a little cold age occurred. Historians believe that's why beer became so popular with northern Europeans. Too cold to grow some vitas.[/QUOTE]

    The little ice age followed a warming period. This is widely accepted in peer review literature and widely supressed in global warming PR rhetoric, including the IPCC work.

    [QUOTE]I'm not suggesting you accept any side as gospel. Listen to the predictions and the justifications, and judge based on the results and/or intended consequences.

    --Just don't rely on the scientific literature... damn renegade scientists![/QUOTE]

    Unfortunatle, we are in an unprecedented era of scientific fraud, in part due to modern politics, media, and modern communications. Discerning the truth is a difficult task.


    [QUOTE]Remember the dire predictions for this year's hurricane season? Two dozen named storms predicted, with intensity greater than that of years past. The enviornmentalists love to latch onto natural disasters as reinforcement of their message. Al Gore played up this aspect in his movie (scenes of destruction). This year, the hurricanes don't show up. Fluke? Overstatement? What are we to be believe, particularly when the leading spokesperson of this crusade is a politician?

    --Yes, because Al Gore is a scientist and wouldn't dare think of misusing scientific information to push for political gains. This stuff never happens in D.C.[/QUOTE]

    I have yet to hear one global warming skeptic stand up and say (or write) that the lack of 2006 hurricane activity is proof that anthropogenic global warming claims are false. What I have heard and read, is criticism of natural disaster imagery being used by politicians, alarmists, and yes, even peer reviewed scientists to promote a global warming political agenda.

    [QUOTE]No religion with this messenger. Just a truth seeker.

    Global warming is a new religion. It's peddlers would have you believe in it or be damned to burn in their new, super-computer-model-predicted hell. Climatolgists: The new priesthood, with Al Gore as the Supreme Pontiff.

    --Well, at least our "religion" is based on real world facts.[/QUOTE]

    Yes. That's how most priests sell their brand of religion.

    [QUOTE]
    Seesh.

    --Seesh^2[/QUOTE]

    Seesh^[IMG]http://www.eas.asu.edu/~holbert/images/math_infty.gif[/IMG]

    P.S. Since you are a scientific prodigy, do you think you could learn to use the quoting feature of this software so that we can appropriately attribute comments?

  11. #11
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    2,651
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    142
    Finlee, since you seem to understand the scientific method, I wonder if you have read McKitrik and McIntyres analysis of the Mann 98 paper and IPCC reliance and promotion of the conclusions of that work?

    Thoughts?

  12. #12
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,476
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=FlushholeJet]If you don't believe in Gd, why should you care how He feels?[/QUOTE]

    I don't believe in God? Really? Huh....

    [QUOTE=flushingjet]If one agrees with your premise that we,
    the USA, pollute the world and by doing so we "cause" global warming
    [/QUOTE]


    Where in my post did I say that, Einstein?

    That was my premise? I do, however, think its cool that you are crazy enough to just make sh*t up.


    But I did notice that you didn't argue with me on the fact that the same retards who tell us to "err on the side of caution" when it comes to terrrrror could give two Dick Cheneys about "erring on the side of caution" when it comes our planet, the water we drink and the air we breath. Very interesting indeed.




    [QUOTE=rbstern]CO2 is not a pollutant. It's plant food. You exhale it every time you open your pie hole. The ficus tree in your office, the grass in the park down the street, and the trees in the Amazon rainforest ([B]I guess...while they are still here...right?[/B] ) are happy to have you emit CO2 in whatever quantity you can spare. The more you spew, the better they grow. Does that sound like pollution to you?[/QUOTE]

    Its like you are repeating back that commercial I saw on TV from Exxon Mobil.

    I suppose if the CO2 that comes from your exhaust pipe is sooooo harmless, then it shouldn't be a problem for you to run it in your garage tonight with the door closed? Invite the kids! Throw a party in there! Run the generator too! F*ck it!

    "Daddy? Why am I so sleepy?"

    "Thats because of all the great CO2...Trees love it!!"

    Is this cool?
    [IMG]http://vincenze.com/wp-content/0,1020,675978,00-1.jpg[/IMG]

    How about this?
    [IMG]http://ap.lbl.gov/Education/HGP-images/air-pollution.jpg[/IMG]

    Or this?
    [IMG]http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/images/miscellaneous_float.gif[/IMG]

    Sometimes it isn't just about global warming. Its about how we, as a species, make it a habit out of crapping all over gods good green earth. Maybe if we were smart enough about change what fuels we consume we would be smarter about actually being caretakers of the world we live in instead of planetary rapists.
    Last edited by PlumberKhan; 12-09-2006 at 05:37 PM.

  13. #13
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=finlee17]What complex equation? The author mentioned only two variables... emissions and temperature and claimed them to be independent of one another. It's well documented they are not independent of one another.

    My comments were directed at his extremely poor comprehension of factors that account for global rises in temperature. Because I offered a simply scatter plot explanation, my equation is Y = a+bX; where X is the explanatory variable (emissions), Y is my response variable (temperature), b is the slope of the regression line, and a is the intercept of the line on Y when X is equal to 0.

    So, no... I didn't include solar radiation or atmospheric water vapor. Those are also response variables to emissions also but at the same time can be explanotary variables to global temperatures - these can be multicollinearity or multivariance. That is why I made a comment about how lucky the journalist is in not having to deal with multicollinearity.

    And error factors?

    Are you speaking about standard error and standard deviation? Those are accounted for in statistical tests and modeling.

    Are you referring to data that fails normality? Transformation, among other things, can fix this.

    Or are you referring to errors made within methods applied? Meta-analysis of studies is a good way of getting around this to see if results are influenced by the methods.

    All of these are commonly used by scientists when we develop, quantify, and present our data.

    As I mentioned, and was not clear about, people need to stop relying on lobbyists groups and think tanks for their scientific information. If you want to know how scientists who work hands on with these issues on a daily basis, then go to their literature. Becuase the studies are publically funded, the data belongs to you. You paid for it. You have complete access to it. By law, if you wanted, researches funded by NSF, EPA, NOAA, NPS, FWS, and other governement agencies have turn their raw data over when requested. Try it... send an author an email. He might be a bit of an ass and refer you to his publication, but by law, he has to make his raw data public and reveal all funding sources.

    Then try it with the CEI...[/QUOTE]

    Your assertion that solar radiation and water vapor are response variables to emissions can be found where, exactly? You honestly think we know exactly all of the factors that account for global rises in tempurature and precisely how they interact with anything close to a high confidence level? Please! Moreover, you (or the journialist) don't even include those other 'response' variables in your model, so how can they have multicollinearity or multivariance when they aren't part of the regression? Eliminating variables because of multicollinearity is simply elevating ignorance to arrogance. You elimate them (or the author does) simply because you know (somehow) that they aren't significant and you don't prove it to anyone because you arrogantly think you shouldn't have to. Saying that they shouldn't be included because there would be multicollinearity is a ridiculously unscientific method of analysis. Multicollinearity is a [I]data set[/I] problem. "Solutions" like applying the feasible least squares method or eliminating variables to make remaining variables more significant is just mishmash and trial and error nonsense, it ain't science. If there is multicollinearity or multivariance, you probably have a mis-specification problem with your data set. Can these results be replicated? What are the unstated assumptions? People do all sorts of things to lower their standard error and thereby increase the R-squared of their model. That's what it's all about, right? Having a high R-squared. Scientists essentially force the data set fit their model all the time... you KNOW this. Is that what is happening here? Who knows? We certainly can't tell with the given information, can we?

    You are an environmentalist and that's fine. Surely you acknowledge the limitations in their studies and their track record (as a whole) of being spectacularly wrong with essentially every single catastrophic prediction they've ever made, right? Also, surely you see that the same people who so strenuously advocate the GLOBAL WARMING AHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!! agenda are the same ones who have been pushing for greater State control for a long time, as well as pretty much having been anti-capitalism in general fopr quite a long time. "Science" is not some field dominated by disspassionate, objective truth-seekers whose methods and integrity are beyond reproach. There is MORE bias in "science" than in almost any other field and people like to use techincal language to confuse others and appeal to their own authority, as if we should accept a study because its authors have a high degree of academic acheivement or something.

    We have hard climate data going back what.. a couple hundred years? You know as well as I do that extrapolating current trends far into the future is ridiculous. We siomply don't have enough reliable data to claim that our models are nearly as significant as most claim. It's a joke...honestly.
    Last edited by jets5ever; 12-09-2006 at 07:10 PM.

  14. #14
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    2,651
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    142
    [QUOTE]Quote:
    Originally Posted by rbstern
    [QUOTE]CO2 is not a pollutant. It's plant food. You exhale it every time you open your pie hole. The ficus tree in your office, the grass in the park down the street, and the trees in the Amazon rainforest (I guess...while they are still here...right? ) are happy to have you emit CO2 in whatever quantity you can spare. The more you spew, the better they grow. Does that sound like pollution to you? [/QUOTE]

    Its like you are repeating back that commercial I saw on TV from Exxon Mobil.[/QUOTE]

    Regardless of what Exxon says (I'm not familiar with the commercial, I don't own any oil stocks, etc.), the truth is, the current climate, with other factors, is responsible for the most robust ecosystem in recorded history. There currently are more regions of arable land than at any other time in modern history.

    [QUOTE]I suppose if the CO2 that comes from your exhaust pipe is sooooo harmless, then it shouldn't be a problem for you to run it in your garage tonight with the door closed? Invite the kids! Throw a party in there! Run the generator too! F*ck it!

    "Daddy? Why am I so sleepy?"

    "Thats because of all the great CO2...Trees love it!!"

    Is this cool?[/QUOTE]

    Dude, that would be carbon [I]monoxide[/I]. We're talking about carbon [I]dioxide[/I]. I realize the difference is only a single oxygen atom, but one is poisonous to humans in small quantity, while the other is produced by humans in large quantities.

    [QUOTE]Sometimes it isn't just about global warming. Its about how we, as a species, make it a habit out of crapping all over gods good green earth. Maybe if we were smart enough about change what fuels we consume we would be smarter about actually being caretakers of the world we live in instead of planetary rapists.[/QUOTE]

    Fine. Let's not crap all over the earth. Well...actually, crapping (literally) is ok, but I think you mean other stuff.

    But let's not confused nuclear meltdowns and acid rain with controversial theories about how naturally occuring gases impact the HUGE climate change phenomenon. They are not equivalent.

  15. #15
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    468
    Post Thanks / Like
    "Sure, anything in too much quantity can be termed toxic for a specific scenario. But there is circular error in your logic: "CO2 is causing global warming, therefore CO2 is a pollutant." First, you have to accept global warming as established theory, when in fact, it is not. Second, you have to accept that current human activity and climate is the "normal state of the planet" and the only receiver of CO2 impact (postive or negative). Neither of those conditions is valid."

    -That's usually a pollutant... too much of something. What you need to realize is that words used in science to define phenomena should be measurable and accurate. The problem was that you offered PlumberKhan with a vague and non-operational term. That's not acceptable because their is a need for effective communication within and among different scientific fields.

    "I'm not defending other methods of social engineering, so why widen the debate? Let's stick to the issue at hand."

    -I'm not widening the debate. If it was up to me, I'd stick precisely to the science but you called solutions socialistic/statist and then called Al Gore my pontiff.

    "The little ice age followed a warming period. This is widely accepted in peer review literature and widely supressed in global warming PR rhetoric, including the IPCC work."

    -Let me get this straight. Scientists accept the little ice age in their work and then these same scientists ignore it in their PR rhetoric, including their major international collaborative work?

    "Unfortunatle, we are in an unprecedented era of scientific fraud, in part due to modern politics, media, and modern communications. Discerning the truth is a difficult task."

    -Oh, bullsh*t... you can't debate the evidence so you resort to this type of crap. Thousands of renegade scientists have hijacked the sciences. It's corrupt. Do me a favor. Go through the literature and quantify and present how often scientists have conducted fraud and led the public astray. Or at least present the data backing up your declaration. Where are you getting this from?


    "I have yet to hear one global warming skeptic stand up and say (or write) that the lack of 2006 hurricane activity is proof that anthropogenic global warming claims are false. What I have heard and read, is criticism of natural disaster imagery being used by politicians, alarmists, and yes, even peer reviewed scientists to promote a global warming political agenda."

    -Name the peer-reviewed scientists. Do me the favor and cite what you are reading.
    As for your skeptics spouting on the 2006 hurricane activities... the National Center for Public Policy Research ([url]http://www.nationalcenter.org/PRHurricanesClimateScience1106.html[/url]) and CEI ([url]http://www.cei.org/gencon/003,05640.cfm[/url]) among others.


    "Yes. That's how most priests sell their brand of religion."

    -That's right... tens of thousands of independent scientists from all over the world collect and quantify empirical data and find common ground to explain natural patterns and processes and that makes it a religion.

    "Seesh^[IMG]http://www.eas.asu.edu/~holbert/images/math_infty.gif[/IMG]"

    - :eek:

    "P.S. Since you are a scientific prodigy, do you think you could learn to use the quoting feature of this software so that we can appropriately attribute comments?"

    -No... why should a scientific prodigy lower himself to such a thing.

  16. #16
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    468
    Post Thanks / Like
    "Finlee, since you seem to understand the scientific method, I wonder if you have read McKitrik and McIntyres analysis of the Mann 98 paper and IPCC reliance and promotion of the conclusions of that work?

    Thoughts?"

    Yeah... A whole industry has been created to criticize this analysis. Unfortunately, it remains in the non-peered-reviewed literature. However, Mann is not the only scientist to produce similar results. Other teams have produced similar reconstructions of past temperatures.

    Most importantly, after McKitrick and McIntyres work was rejected by Nature and got into a non-peered-reviewed journal (Energy and Environment), Mann et al. produced a rebuttal to McKitrick and McIntyres shortly after. Have you seen the McKitrick and McIntyres response rebuttal? Nobody else has.

  17. #17
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    468
    Post Thanks / Like
    Response to Jets5ever:

    "Your assertion that solar radiation and water vapor are response variables to emissions can be found where, exactly?"

    -First, I claimed they could be used as both response and explanatory variables. Second, I make that assertion on physics. CO2 does not absorb short-wave radiation; it absorbs long-wave radiation (thermal radiation). H2O vapors also trap thermal energy. Hence, increased levels in CO2 and H2O increase temperature levels. See Houghton 1997, Kattenberg et al. 1996, Held and Soden 2000, Soden et al. 2002, Meehl and Tebaldi 2004, and Ramanathan et al. 2001 studies. Or just look up this stuff in google scholar, pub med, or ISI. Third, CH4, CFCs, HCFCs, N2O, O3, and SO2 are other emissions responsible for trapping thermal radiation. However, sulfate particles are known to do the opposite... Mitchell et al. 1995.


    "You honestly think we know exactly all of the factors that account for global rises in temperature and precisely how they interact with anything close to a high confidence level?"

    -We might not know explicitly every little factor... if we did we wouldn't have this problem. However, results now are done with high confidence levels... see studies listed above or feel free to go through the literature search engines. I do it for other fields... like economics. Here's a question... what field has instantaneous and perfect knowledge of its system of study?

    "Please!"

    -You're welcome.

    "Moreover, you (or the journialist) don't even include those other 'response' variables in your model, so how can they have multicollinearity or multivariance when they aren't part of the regression?"

    -You need to re-read what I wrote. I criticized the journalist for his obvious deficiencies in statistics and offered an example showing temperature and emissions in a scatter plot. I also say the journalist is lucky his doesn't have to deal with multicollinearity. Rstern mentions solar radiation and H2O in a response and about my simplification of a complex problem. I explained my position and stated multivariance and multicollinearity as potential problems for doing this type of studies. I never claimed it to be part of a simple linear regression model.

    "Eliminating variables because of multicollinearity is simply elevating ignorance to arrogance."

    -Nobody is eliminating any variables, nor does eliminating explanatory variables in multiple regression a means of ignorance and/or arrogance. See stepwise regression methods.

    "You elimate them (or the author does) simply because you know (somehow) that they aren't significant and you don't prove it to anyone because you arrogantly think you shouldn't have to."

    -Huh... this doesn't make sense. Why incorporate insignificant and negligible variables into a study or analysis? How does eliminating poor/low explanatory variables to have a parsimonious model equate to arrogance?

    "Saying that they shouldn't be included because there would be multicollinearity is a ridiculously unscientific method of analysis."

    -Nobody claims to eliminate anything because of multicollinearity. Multicollinearity is a problem to be avoided and when encountered to be mitigated. Nor do I make any claims of such.

    "Multicollinearity is a data set problem."

    -What problem in statistics isn't typically a data set problem?

    ""Solutions" like applying the feasible least squares method or eliminating variables to make remaining variables more significant is just mishmash and trial and error nonsense, it ain't science."

    -Applying feasible least squares method goes to all regression models, by doing so in the first place one can avoid multicollinearity. And you're right... "it ain't science." It's statistics.

    "If there is multicollinearity or multivariance, you probably have a mis-specification problem with your data set."

    -Yeah... could be that or several other problems.

    "Can these results be replicated?"

    -Sure, keep doing what your doing and don't change a thing.

    "What are the unstated assumptions?"

    -How am I to know... they're unstated.

    "People do all sorts of things to lower their standard error and thereby increase the R-squared of their model."

    -Yeah... physicists, economists, biologists, psychologists, chemists, and especially statisticians.

    "That's what it's all about, right? Having a high R-squared."

    -No... P-value, independence among samples, replication, control, sample size, power, etc...

    "Scientists essentially force the data set fit their model all the time... you KNOW this."

    -Yes... scientists force their data to fit their models all the time. That's why we don't ever have important theoretical and applied advances in human endeavors related to the sciences. Also, economists, psychologists, statisticians, and other non-environmental researchers who use identical statistical procedures are immune to this.

    "Is that what is happening here? Who knows? We certainly can't tell with the given information, can we?"

    -Huh... what information? Seems like you're just looking for an argument.

    "You are an environmentalist and that's fine."

    -Well thank you.

    "Surely you acknowledge the limitations in their studies and their track record (as a whole) of being spectacularly wrong with essentially every single catastrophic prediction they've ever made, right?"

    -Huh... cite the peer-reviewed studies that claim this. There is a remarkable difference between the quality and tone of peer-reviewed work and popular science writings. Also, don't forget every day laws and policy are put forth to mitigate against these warnings. Endangered Species Act, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act along with government, private, and non-profit groups actively engaging these issues to mitigate them.

    "Also, surely you see that the same people who so strenuously advocate the GLOBAL WARMING AHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!! agenda are the same ones who have been pushing for greater State control for a long time, as well as pretty much having been anti-capitalism in general fopr quite a long time."

    -This is a typical opposition claim that is false. I have no problem discussing this issue with you on another thread at another time because I know you really enjoy discussing economics from previous reads and it's an area that I have recently begun looking at to help assist in some of my research in ecology. We could easily go off on a tangent here.

    ""Science" is not some field dominated by disspassionate, objective truth-seekers whose methods and integrity are beyond reproach."

    -And all other fields are? However, we do have checks and balances that keep science objective and honest.

    "There is MORE bias in "science" than in almost any other field and people like to use techincal language to confuse others and appeal to their own authority, as if we should accept a study because its authors have a high degree of academic acheivement or something."

    -Bullsh*t... put this data supporting this claim forth because this is hell of a declarative statement. Tough sh*t to those who can't stomach the results. And yes, you should be inclined to take experts serious... after all, you don't go to your accountant with a broken hand or to your doctor to file your taxes. If your concerned that experts are being biased there are checks to do. I mention some of the my original reply in the thread.

    "We have hard climate data going back what.. a couple hundred years?"

    -No, much further back. We can dig up fossils from billions of years ago and get an idea of what was going on, then it shouldn't be too far-fetched to the same with atmospheric data.

    "You know as well as I do that extrapolating current trends far into the future is ridiculous."

    -Depends what "far" means... 5 years, 50 years, 100 years. I agree to a certain extent, but it doesn't mean we don't do it to help guide us.

    "We siomply don't have enough reliable data to claim that our models are nearly as significant as most claim. It's a joke...honestly."

    -These are the same statistical models used in all other fields. Why is it a joke when it is used to understand environmental processes? Unfortunately, not many people are laughing.
    Last edited by finlee17; 12-10-2006 at 12:29 AM.

  18. #18
    flushingjet
    Guest
    So you learned the truth about global warming from a commercial,
    brilliant.

    Next you'll tell me an old American Indian cried on the side of the road when
    you threw your White Castle refuse out the window near him and now
    you want to Keep America Beautiful.

    Talk about mental defectives-I love the "logic"
    of

    global warming ~ real (especially when its wintertime)
    terrorism ~ fake

    I think people who rape people are more dangerous
    than people who "rape the earth", but thats just me.

  19. #19
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    2,651
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    142
    [QUOTE=finlee17]"Sure, anything in too much quantity can be termed toxic for a specific scenario. But there is circular error in your logic: "CO2 is causing global warming, therefore CO2 is a pollutant." First, you have to accept global warming as established theory, when in fact, it is not. Second, you have to accept that current human activity and climate is the "normal state of the planet" and the only receiver of CO2 impact (postive or negative). Neither of those conditions is valid."

    -That's usually a pollutant... too much of something. What you need to realize is that words used in science to define phenomena should be measurable and accurate. The problem was that you offered PlumberKhan with a vague and non-operational term. That's not acceptable because their is a need for effective communication within and among different scientific fields.[/quote]
    The good news is, this is a football web site and I don't have to adhere to scientifically accepted rules of communication.

    [QUOTE]"I'm not defending other methods of social engineering, so why widen the debate? Let's stick to the issue at hand."

    -I'm not widening the debate. If it was up to me, I'd stick precisely to the science but you called solutions socialistic/statist and then called Al Gore my pontiff.[/QUOTE]
    OK. Maybe pontiff was unfair. "Swami." Better?

    [QUOTE]"The little ice age followed a warming period. This is widely accepted in peer review literature and widely supressed in global warming PR rhetoric, including the IPCC work."

    -Let me get this straight. Scientists accept the little ice age in their work and then these same scientists ignore it in their PR rhetoric, including their major international collaborative work?[/QUOTE]
    You are familiar with the fact that the IPCC is a political organization, yes? You do understand that political organizations pursue political solutions, yes? Or are you suggesting that the wellspring of moral fiber that comes from the great search for scientific truth lifts ordinary politicians above unseamly political behavior?
    [QUOTE]"Unfortunatle, we are in an unprecedented era of scientific fraud, in part due to modern politics, media, and modern communications. Discerning the truth is a difficult task."

    -Oh, bullsh*t... you can't debate the evidence so you resort to this type of crap. Thousands of renegade scientists have hijacked the sciences. It's corrupt. Do me a favor. Go through the literature and quantify and present how often scientists have conducted fraud and led the public astray. Or at least present the data backing up your declaration. Where are you getting this from?[/QUOTE]
    Let me sum up for you in two words, a recent scientific undertaking which precisely demonstrates how even well-meaning scientists are easily co-opted once they enter the world of high level politics: "Cold fusion."

    [QUOTE]"I have yet to hear one global warming skeptic stand up and say (or write) that the lack of 2006 hurricane activity is proof that anthropogenic global warming claims are false. What I have heard and read, is criticism of natural disaster imagery being used by politicians, alarmists, and yes, even peer reviewed scientists to promote a global warming political agenda."

    -Name the peer-reviewed scientists. Do me the favor and cite what you are reading. [/QUOTE]
    Well, how about James Hansen, who stated on 60 Minutes that we are "10 years from a global warming tipping point, which if reached, may cause ocean levels to rise 10 feet by 2100." I cannot find any reference to peer reviewed work that supports that conclusion. I can find peer reviewed scientists who think there is no basis in fact for this claim.

    [QUOTE]As for your skeptics spouting on the 2006 hurricane activities... the National Center for Public Policy Research ([url]http://www.nationalcenter.org/PRHurricanesClimateScience1106.html[/url]) and CEI ([url]http://www.cei.org/gencon/003,05640.cfm[/url]) among others.[/QUOTE]
    Those referenced documents both support my statement. Neither attacks claims of anthropogenic global warming. What they attack is the ridiculous practice employed by anthropogenic global warming proponents, using natural disaster imagery as a key sales pitch to spur political action on reduction of fossil fuel emissions.
    [QUOTE]"Yes. That's how most priests sell their brand of religion."

    -That's right... tens of thousands of independent scientists from all over the world collect and quantify empirical data and find common ground to explain natural patterns and processes and that makes it a religion.[/QUOTE]

    What makes it a religion is Al Gore saying "the debate is over," thereby suggesting that science has reached a conclusion that supports his worldview and call to action. And demonizing the skeptics doesn't help, either.

    By the way, which tens of thousands of scientists and which data are you referring to? If you are going to be persnickety about sighting references...own up.

    [QUOTE]"P.S. Since you are a scientific prodigy, do you think you could learn to use the quoting feature of this software so that we can appropriately attribute comments?"

    -No... why should a scientific prodigy lower himself to such a thing.[/QUOTE]
    Yes. You're right of course. Never question the priesthood.

  20. #20
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=finlee17]"Finlee, since you seem to understand the scientific method, I wonder if you have read McKitrik and McIntyres analysis of the Mann 98 paper and IPCC reliance and promotion of the conclusions of that work?

    Thoughts?"

    Yeah... A whole industry has been created to criticize this analysis. Unfortunately, it remains in the non-peered-reviewed literature. However, Mann is not the only scientist to produce similar results. Other teams have produced similar reconstructions of past temperatures.

    Most importantly, after McKitrick and McIntyres work was rejected by Nature and got into a non-peered-reviewed journal (Energy and Environment), Mann et al. produced a rebuttal to McKitrick and McIntyres shortly after. Have you seen the McKitrick and McIntyres response rebuttal? Nobody else has.[/QUOTE]

    If you don't accept that Mann's work was deeply flawed, you are certainly a true believer.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us