Playing to the ignorant or actually that ignorant? [Archive]

View Full Version : Playing to the ignorant or actually that ignorant?

Skeptic Ginger

10th February 2010, 11:31 PM

The right wing talking points have been echoing the stupidity that because it is snowing more than usual in DC and the surrounding areas, that proves global warming is not occurring.

I don't want to argue with the agw deniers in this thread. Please go away if you want to argue against the overwhelming science. I want instead to gloat over the ignorance of the current barrage of stupid comments in the media coming from all the right wing talking heads.

Do these guys know how dumb they sound? Even if you wanted to argue the science against agw, the fact it is snowing in DC is not supporting evidence. Are they really that dumb or are they just faking it for their target market audience?

And I only did a cursory look for duplicate threads so Mods should feel free to merge this one if I missed a similar thread already started.

kerikiwi

11th February 2010, 01:14 AM

To be fair, single weather events are also wrongly touted as evidence of global warming.
Both positions are wrong.

MikeMangum

11th February 2010, 02:36 AM

The right wing talking points have been echoing the stupidity that because it is snowing more than usual in DC and the surrounding areas, that proves global warming is not occurring.

I don't want to argue with the agw deniers in this thread. Please go away if you want to argue against the overwhelming science. I want instead to gloat over the ignorance of the current barrage of stupid comments in the media coming from all the right wing talking heads.

Do these guys know how dumb they sound? Even if you wanted to argue the science against agw, the fact it is snowing in DC is not supporting evidence. Are they really that dumb or are they just faking it for their target market audience?

And I only did a cursory look for duplicate threads so Mods should feel free to merge this one if I missed a similar thread already started.

Was it ignorant to say that Katrina was caused by global warming? Or was it ignorant to say that Haiti earthquake was caused by global warming? There are tons of assertions along those lines in media on an almost constant basis.

Oh, and my favorite is when there is a massive snowstorm like the one that hit the east coast, and that is evidence of global warming.

DJW

11th February 2010, 05:05 AM

You want to gloat over ignorance. You believe that the science is overwhelming.

You should have changed the other part of your name.

Francesca R

11th February 2010, 05:42 AM

theprestige

11th February 2010, 05:54 AM

When the OP's entire argument is based on blatantly begging the question, it is entirely on-topic to discuss the question being begged. Indeed, to do otherwise would be... unskeptical.

Upchurch

11th February 2010, 06:04 AM

To be fair, single weather events are also wrongly touted as evidence of global warming.
I've not heard that. To what are you referring?

Francesca R

11th February 2010, 06:07 AM

Perhaps there's a "Posturing" sub-forum this could be moved to . . .

leftysergeant

11th February 2010, 07:25 AM

Some of them actually are that stupid. Some of them are evil.

daredelvis

11th February 2010, 08:06 AM

The science about AGW is not overwhelming. Silly to state that it is and then claim not to want any argument about it. Better to not take a position on it on your own OP. I think you've rather made it on topic.
While I am not defending the tone of the OP, the science is pretty much settled amongst the vast majority of climate scientist (not funded by the oil industry).

Daredelvis

Cynic

11th February 2010, 08:20 AM

While the recent blizzards aren't evidence of anything in particular, suggesting that they're evidence against global warming is particularly amusing because blizzards require an influx of warmer air to occur.

Careyp74

11th February 2010, 08:23 AM

I've not heard that. To what are you referring?

Haiti
http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/hurricane-ike-47090901

And Katrina
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1099102,00.html

This is just one example of each, but searching brings up much more.

daenku32

11th February 2010, 08:32 AM

Some of them actually are that stupid. Some of them are evil.

They would have to be to put forward such ridiculous arguments.

Paulhoff

11th February 2010, 08:44 AM

El Niño, it helped kill a lot of hurricanes last summer by blowing the tops off the systems, and our weather man said last summber that it would cause a wetter winter and cooler winter for us in Florida and it has been, and it seems to be causing more snow up north. El Niño are caused by warming.

Paul

:) :) :)

leftysergeant

11th February 2010, 08:52 AM

Was it ignorant to say that Katrina was caused by global warming?

One hundred percent correct to say that the storm was caused by global warming.

The catastrophe that followed was caused by Ronald Reagan.

Or was it ignorant to say that Haiti earthquake was caused by global warming?

Can you link me to someplace where somebody made that dirt dumb statement? I shall probably encopunter him trolling some other board and may need that to rub in his face. Obviously, it was not made by a rational person or a qualified scientist. (Well,, least ways not very rational if you have cited him in proper context.)

Oh, and my favorite is when there is a massive snowstorm like the one that hit the east coast, and that is evidence of global warming.

Well, DUH! Of course it is. Something pushed a bunch of cold air out of the Artic when the jet stream bobbled. Where I live, we are now getting weather far warmer than we are supposed to get.

One bloody great deal warmer.

So, yes, the blizzard is totally consistant with AGW.

Do learn the difference between climate and weather.

Meadmaker

11th February 2010, 08:55 AM

Are they really that dumb or are they just faking it for their target market audience?

I'm voting really that dumb for some of them.

The rest, neither one, quite. I think some of them are echoing the stupid from the other side, without sufficient thought to be called truly stupid. In other words, someone claims a heat wave or a hurricane (or an earthquake? seriously?) is caused by global warming. AGW denier finds this funny, but turns around and says blizzard is proof of no global warming. In other words, they aren't intending to actually make a sound argument, but merely to rebut an unsound one.

Their method isn't exactly on solid intellectual ground. It's more of a "Yeah, well what about Katrina?" "Yeah, well what about the blizzard?" It's about as intellectually sound as, say, some yapping on an internet forum.

ETA: For example, Vancouver has had a warm, dry, January, which will mean lots of discussion of Olympics with no snow coming up. Undoubtedly, such a high profile event will be touted as proof of global warming. It isn't, but that won't stop people from saying it.

Upchurch

11th February 2010, 09:05 AM

leftysergeant

11th February 2010, 09:08 AM

Twenty years ago, huge schools of makeral appeared in the Straits of Juan de Fuca and started ambushinbg salmon fingerlings on their way oput to sea. They wrought havoc with several runs since then. There is less time now between appearances of the makeral. Herring stocks are also declining, partly from over-fishing and predatation, partly from spawning failures due to over-heated waters.

Ten years ago, sardines appeared off the coast of British Columbia. The three reported catches of marlin off the coast of Washington occurred during this time frame.

Now the Humboldt squid are moving north. I have heard confirmed reports of their appearing on the coast of Washington and unconfirmed reports that they have reached Vancouver.

This is climate, not weather.

Snide

11th February 2010, 09:10 AM

[QUOTE=Careyp74;5607280]Haiti
http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/hurricane-ike-47090901

And Katrina
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1099102,00.html

Nevermind. Upchurch beat me to it.

leftysergeant

11th February 2010, 09:12 AM

Francesca R

11th February 2010, 09:35 AM

While I am not defending the tone of the OP, the science is pretty much settled amongst the vast majority of climate scientist (not funded by the oil industry).The science of AGW is not overwhelming.

steve s

11th February 2010, 10:28 AM

Oh, and my favorite is when there is a massive snowstorm like the one that hit the east coast, and that is evidence of global warming.

Warmer air is capable of holding more moisture than colder air, hence there's a greater chance of snow the warmer it is. This is why St. Louis gets 18 times as much snowfall each year (on average) than the South Pole.

Steve S

INRM

11th February 2010, 10:30 AM

I don't believe global warming doesn't exist, and I don't believe people can't cause it. I just believe that a number of climate-research scientists fudged a lot of data so as to downplay or ignore circumstances in the past where the planet got warmer, and exaggerating the severity of global warming in the modern day.

theprestige

11th February 2010, 10:33 AM

er... both articles relate the individual events as part of larger patterns that are evidence for global warming rather than saying the events, themselves, prove global warming.

Juxtapose that against those who claim that a single cold day or cold winter disproves global warming.
Is anybody really claiming that? Or are they simply claiming that reports of cold days and cold winters justfies questioning the "settled science" of global warming?

I mean, how "settled science" is it, exactly, that the Haitian earthquake is linked to global warming? How "settled science" is it, exactly, that hurricane activity is linked to global warming?

And how dishonest is it, exactly, for you to imply that any crackpot idea about earthquakes or hurricanes is legitimate cause to be more confident in the "settled science" of global warming, but any doubt based on anything as simple and obvious as actual daily temperature readings or seasonal weather patterns is totally illegitimate and unscientific?

Paulhoff

11th February 2010, 10:35 AM

Cynic

11th February 2010, 10:38 AM

And how dishonest is it, exactly, for you to imply that any crackpot idea about earthquakes or hurricanes is legitimate cause to be more confident in the "settled science" of global warming, but any doubt based on anything as simple and obvious as actual daily temperature readings or seasonal weather patterns is totally illegitimate and unscientific?

Wait -- how did hurricane get excepted from the category of seasonal weather patterns?

daredelvis

11th February 2010, 11:25 AM

The science of AGW is not overwhelming.
Overwhelming may be an overstatement, but there is no question that AGW is the scientific consensus.

From a 2004 Science mag article.
IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise"
The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.link (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686)
To not agree that it is the consensus (I am not claiming you don't) requires a real misunderstanding of how the peer review process works, or buying into some pretty hefty conspiracy theories. I personally have a very difficult time not pigeonholing AGW deniers with people who don't believe in evolution.

Daredelvis

Francesca R

11th February 2010, 11:26 AM

Overwhelming may be an overstatementIndeed. Thanks.

Sporanox

11th February 2010, 11:42 AM

One hundred percent correct to say that the storm was caused by global warming.

The catastrophe that followed was caused by Ronald Reagan.

...

Juxtapose that against those who claim that a single cold day or cold winter disproves global warming.

Here's another one for you.

Yes. Chris, it's been 21 days of brutal heat, a coast-to-coast double heat wave leaving at least 186 people dead, massive damage to crops and livestock. And yes, it's got folks everywhere asking if it's part of global warming, and thus a sign that Earth will keep getting hotter. The scientists say yes, global warming is involved. First, it fits the pattern predicted 30 years ago, more frequent and intense heat waves. More than 50 cities just broke records.

http://newsbusters.org/node/9135

Now Chicago has its earliest snowfall, ABC decided to go with the line "weather is not climate"...not really a surprise, but they could at least try to be consistent.

daredelvis

11th February 2010, 11:46 AM

Indeed. Thanks.

Yes, it is just the consensus that is overwhelming.

Daredelvis

Beerina

11th February 2010, 11:47 AM

To be fair, single weather events are also wrongly touted as evidence of global warming.
Both positions are wrong.

This. And think about it -- an average rise of, say, 1 degree? You would never even notice it, and only long-term statistical measurements of things would even be able to discern it.

Even when I hear studies about this or that plant coming back to life a month earlier than normal, I have to wonder, as a few degrees should only shift that a few days or a week maybe. Winter-to-summer is what, 80 degrees F swing over, say, 4 months? That's 2 degrees every 3 days, so yeah, a few days to a week sounds about right. So what percent of that is cyclic and what percent is not? One month, if truly global warming (AGW or not) thus represents a 20 degree swing. And that's why this must be averaged over long periods of time.

leftysergeant

11th February 2010, 11:47 AM

Is anybody really claiming that? Or are they simply claiming that reports of cold days and cold winters justfies questioning the "settled science" of global warming?Whatever. That the east coast is buried under snow does not mean that the climate is not changing in a way consistant with AGW.

Not when I am sitting here looking at mosquitoes breeding in the middle of winter.

[QUOTE]I mean, how "settled science" is it, exactly, that the Haitian earthquake is linked to global warming?

I haven't heard anybody with a low enough IQ to be a right-wing talk-show host suggest that it was.

How "settled science" is it, exactly, that hurricane activity is linked to global warming?

100%. They are getting worse and they are tied to the El Nino, La Nina cycles.

And how dishonest is it, exactly, for you to imply that any crackpot idea about earthquakes or hurricanes is legitimate cause to be more confident in the "settled science" of global warming, but any doubt based on anything as simple and obvious as actual daily temperature readings or seasonal weather patterns is totally illegitimate and unscientific?

The only dishonesty I see here is the insertion of the idiotic idea that theHaiti quake is tied to AGW. No scientist or left-wing journalist is making that claim.

Sporanox

11th February 2010, 11:50 AM

The only dishonesty I see here is the insertion of the idiotic idea that theHaiti quake is tied to AGW. No scientist or left-wing journalist is making that claim.

Oh come on, you didn't think ABC was a bit dishonest?

Brainster

11th February 2010, 11:51 AM

leftysergeant

11th February 2010, 11:54 AM

This. And think about it -- an average rise of, say, 1 degree? You would never even notice it, and only long-term statistical measurements of things would even be able to discern it.

It only has to occassionally hit a high enough temperature to make the jet streams bobble to wipe out a year's agricultural production. Your raw numbers mean far less than you think they do.

Even when I hear studies about this or that plant coming back to life a month earlier than normal, I have to wonder, as a few degrees should only shift that a few days or a week maybe.

That accounts for one season.

But when species start showing up in new ranges and disappear from the old, something more than a seasonal variation is going on.

There are flowers and yellow jackets showing up in places in Canada where the local language does not even have a word for them. That is a change of climate, not of weather.

Francesca R

11th February 2010, 11:55 AM

Yes, it is just the consensus that is overwhelming.Whoops. False. You blew it :)

leftysergeant

11th February 2010, 11:56 AM

Cynic

11th February 2010, 11:56 AM

http://newsbusters.org/node/9135

Now Chicago has its earliest snowfall, ABC decided to go with the line "weather is not climate"...not really a surprise, but they could at least try to be consistent.

I'm not going to defend what ABC was saying because I don't know what was going on in their heads. But it's worth noting a few things:

1. AGW and GW are not the same concepts. GW is a trend. AGW is a trend with a cause attached.

2. We're talking about trends. By definition, if there is a warming trend and there's a string of unusually hot days, then those days are part of that trend. Unusually cold days are by definition exceptions to that trend. If you want to dispute that there hasn't been a warming trend, good luck with that.

3. Given the above, they're being perfectly consistent.

Sword_Of_Truth

11th February 2010, 12:03 PM

What bothers me is that AGW is rapidly becoming unfalsifiable. An extremely hot day? Global warming must be to blame. Lots of snowfall? AGW must be the culprit. Normal weather? AGW predicted it.

This strikes me as profoundly unscientific, as did the emails exposed in the ClimateGate scandal, the refusals to share data, etc. I'm not yet ready to move back into the AGW skeptic crowd, but I am troubled by the actions of the proponents of AGW.

I was an AGW skeptic back in my pre-9/11 truther days. Somewhere on the path from skeptic/denier to accepting "the reality", I stopped my migration. Why? Because we already have the energy source of the future. One that will solve both peak oil and carbon release, if that is a problem, and will pave our way to the stars and will give our inheritors the ability to waste 10 times the energy that our generation has and keep doing so for tens of thousands of years.

We just need to overcome the political inertia and ignorance of its opponents.

Sporanox

11th February 2010, 12:08 PM

[QUOTE=Sporanox;5608034]Oh come on, you didn't think ABC was a bit dishonest?[/QUOTE

What ABC bit? I haven't been able to find any such dumb-az assertion by anyone other than known tin-foilers that are clearly not of right or left or believers in AGW.

It's in the earlier post.

2. We're talking about trends. By definition, if there is a warming trend and there's a string of unusually hot days, then those days are part of that trend. Unusually cold days are by definition exceptions to that trend. If you want to dispute that there hasn't been a warming trend, good luck with that.

When someone's reply to a year inconsistent with their personal beliefs is "weather is not climate," they've said something wrong.

leftysergeant

11th February 2010, 12:15 PM

Oh come on, you didn't think ABC was a bit dishonest?

Oh, I see how I missed that. It was buried under the droppings from some dancing right-wing monkey.

There is nothing wrong with ABC's piece.

I have just added Noel Sheppard to my list of right-wing bloviating apes without a clue.

leftysergeant

11th February 2010, 12:19 PM

When someone's reply to a year inconsistent with their personal beliefs is "weather is not climate," they've said something wrong.

You clearly have still not gotten the differencer between weather and climate.

The snow to a tall man's eyeballs in D.C. is weather. The fact that the snow pack on Kilimanjaro has been less than twenty-five percent of normal for over five years is climate.

Cynic

11th February 2010, 12:23 PM

When someone's reply to a year inconsistent with their personal beliefs is "weather is not climate," they've said something wrong.

Well, again, I'm not necessarily sticking up for them because I'm not them and for all I know, they're actually as mistaken as you say. But the concept of "weather is not climate" is a kin to "a data point is not a trend". Because weather really is climate, long term, and that analogy holds. Temperature drives air and water currents, influences gases, etc -- climate drives weather.

Because of this, I think it's not only reasonable but also likely correct to say that "ABC" was saying what I pointed out -- that a string of unusually hot days is part of the warming trend (by definition) and that an unusually cold day doesn't signify anything on its own. Nothing in what you quoted suggests that the previous statement -- that the warm days were part of the trend -- implies that those warm days suggest a warming trend. The warming trend is assumed in that instance (from other data and scientific consensus) and the connecting is, again, by definition. Saying, later on, that a single data point -- the cold days -- refutes the trend is nonsense, and that was pointed out in the statement "weather is not climate" (a data point is not a trend).

ETA: Man, I need to stop digressing so much! Sorry for the clarity issues above.

JoeTheJuggler

11th February 2010, 12:31 PM

Back to the gloating. . .

There was an exchange between Lisa and Homer Simpson on a recent episode that has been repeated in similar terms here on the JREF forum.

Homer: See, Lisa, looks like tomorrow I'll be shoveling ten feet of global warming.
Lisa: Global warming can cause weather at both extremes, hot and cold.
Homer: I see, so you're saying warming makes it colder. Well aren't you the queen of crazy land. Everything the's opposite of everything.

Seriously. Check out this thread. Especially where the OP responds to the challenge that he doesn't seem to know the difference between climate and weather with, "I can tell the difference between hot and cold. Can you?" Repeatedly.

At least Homer is lovable!

dudalb

11th February 2010, 12:46 PM

JoeTheJuggler

11th February 2010, 01:04 PM

The real problem is the Global Warming issue has been politicised beyond belief by Both Sides. A lot of the Anti AGW people seem to be motivated by a basic hatred of Any Government Regulations, and a lot of the pro AGW people seem to not like Capitalism much in the first place and are happy to find a new club to beat it with.

This may well be true, but it's basically an argument based on motivations and not on the content of the arguments proffered.

For example, if I point out that since capitalism requires continuous growth, it is by definition unsustainable (at least as long as we're confined to the planet), it really doesn't matter if I was opposed to capitalism prior to making this argument.

However, as has been pointed out, it's just as wrong to point to a single weather event as evidence of global warming as it is to point to it as evidence against global warming. Best I can tell, this is an erroneous argument that is not made equally by both sides. And even those who I've heard using a heat wave to support global warming quickly back off when I point out that they're mixing up weather and climate.

Not so with those on the other side. (But then again, this is just based on my own subjective judgment of how these arguments typically go.)

daredelvis

11th February 2010, 01:30 PM

Whoops. False. You blew it :)

Your logic and evidence runs circles around me, and the National Academy of Science, and The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the >900 peer reviewed studies outlined in my previous post.... The scientific consensus is overwhelming.

Daredelvis

Newtons Bit

11th February 2010, 01:35 PM

Your logic and evidence runs circles around me, and the National Academy of Science, and The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the >900 peer reviewed studies outlined in my previous post.... The scientific consensus is overwhelming.

Daredelvis

Actually, that's can only be a described as a large amount of information supporting. You can't call it a consensus unless you show that the number of disagreeing institutions and peer reviewed studies are insignificant in comparison.

Thus ends my rhetorical quibble.

MikeMangum

11th February 2010, 01:37 PM

For example, if I point out that since capitalism requires continuous growth, it is by definition unsustainable (at least as long as we're confined to the planet), it really doesn't matter if I was opposed to capitalism prior to making this argument.

I'm curious where you get the idea that capitalism requires continuous growth.

daredelvis

11th February 2010, 01:42 PM

The real problem is the Global Warming issue has been politicised beyond belief by Both Sides. A lot of the Anti AGW people seem to be motivated by a basic hatred of Any Government Regulations, and a lot of the pro AGW people seem to not like Capitalism much in the first place and are happy to find a new club to beat it with.
I disagree. I think a more accurate statement would be...

A lot of the Anti AGW people seem to be motivated by a basic hatred of Any Government Regulations and/or an economic interest in the status quo that is presumed to outweigh the economic consequences of addressing the issue. This does not address the political panderers. (That is not to say the people who believe the scientist are not also concerned about the economic impact of action.)

Very few of the pro AGW people seem to not like Capitalism much in the first place and are happy to find a new club to beat it with. Most are concerned that the consequences of inaction outweigh the consequences of action, and many like me, are disgusted by the discredited canards repeatedly trotted out by many of the far right AGW deniers.

Daredelvis

Cynic

11th February 2010, 01:43 PM

I'm curious where you get the idea that capitalism requires continuous growth.

Consider the rationale behind the "spend our way out of a sagging economy" strategy.

daredelvis

11th February 2010, 01:46 PM

Actually, that's can only be a described as a large amount of information supporting. You can't call it a consensus unless you show that the number of disagreeing institutions and peer reviewed studies are insignificant in comparison.

Thus ends my rhetorical quibble.

They are insignificant in comparison. From wiki.
With the release of the revised statement[78] by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.[2][79]
link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Statements_by _dissenting_organizations)
Daredelvis

Sporanox

11th February 2010, 01:52 PM

You clearly have still not gotten the differencer between weather and climate.

The snow to a tall man's eyeballs in D.C. is weather. The fact that the snow pack on Kilimanjaro has been less than twenty-five percent of normal for over five years is climate.

The problem is that to believe as ABC does requires a prediction of future weather patterns.

Well, again, I'm not necessarily sticking up for them because I'm not them and for all I know, they're actually as mistaken as you say. But the concept of "weather is not climate" is a kin to "a data point is not a trend". Because weather really is climate, long term, and that analogy holds. Temperature drives air and water currents, influences gases, etc -- climate drives weather.

Because of this, I think it's not only reasonable but also likely correct to say that "ABC" was saying what I pointed out -- that a string of unusually hot days is part of the warming trend (by definition) and that an unusually cold day doesn't signify anything on its own. Nothing in what you quoted suggests that the previous statement -- that the warm days were part of the trend -- implies that those warm days suggest a warming trend. The warming trend is assumed in that instance (from other data and scientific consensus) and the connecting is, again, by definition. Saying, later on, that a single data point -- the cold days -- refutes the trend is nonsense, and that was pointed out in the statement "weather is not climate" (a data point is not a trend).

ETA: Man, I need to stop digressing so much! Sorry for the clarity issues above.

No problem. Where I believe ABC went wrong is explicitly tying a heat wave to global warming. Just as with the analysis of the current spate of cold weather, temperature spikes may be due to fluctuations in weather rather than a trend either way. Do you see what I mean? To paraphrase, I dispute your statement that a spike of very hot days is "by definition" part of the overall trend.

dudalb

11th February 2010, 02:00 PM

I disagree. I think a more accurate statement would be...

A lot of the Anti AGW people seem to be motivated by a basic hatred of Any Government Regulations and/or an economic interest in the status quo that is presumed to outweigh the economic consequences of addressing the issue. This does not address the political panderers. (That is not to say the people who believe the scientist are not also concerned about the economic impact of action.)

Very few of the pro AGW people seem to not like Capitalism much in the first place and are happy to find a new club to beat it with. Most are concerned that the consequences of inaction outweigh the consequences of action, and many like me, are disgusted by the discredited canards repeatedly trotted out by many of the far right AGW deniers.

Daredelvis

My Irony meter just exploded.

Sporanox

11th February 2010, 02:00 PM

They are insignificant in comparison. From wiki.

link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Statements_by _dissenting_organizations)
Daredelvis

That misses actions like this:

It shouldn't be surprising that members around Will Happer, a renowned Princeton physicist (see the picture), wrote an

Open Letter to the American Physical Society (click)

where they mention that the climate has always been changing and warming and trace gases have many positive effects, according to scientific literature. The proposed new statement also discusses the unreliability of the existing climate models and urges the scientists to investigate all these effects objectively, and to study technological options related to the climate that are independent of the cause.

http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/07/aps-is-reviewing-its-statements-on.html

daredelvis

11th February 2010, 02:44 PM

That misses actions like this:

http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/07/aps-is-reviewing-its-statements-on.html

So out of 47,189 members of the APS 50 have written a letter disagreeing with the APS statement. "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."

I remained unconvinced.

Daredelvis

daredelvis

11th February 2010, 02:53 PM

My Irony meter just exploded.

Oh please. You suggest that "a lot" those who agree with the scientific consensus are "seem to not like Capitalism much in the first place and are happy to find a new club to beat it with" and my position that the AGW deniers on the far right trot out "discredited canards" is ironic?

Go back and reread what I wrote. You will see that I gave a far more charitable explanation for the motivations of a majority of AGW deniers than you did in your initial post.

Daredelvis

Cynic

11th February 2010, 03:15 PM

The problem is that to believe as ABC does requires a prediction of future weather patterns.

No problem. Where I believe ABC went wrong is explicitly tying a heat wave to global warming. Just as with the analysis of the current spate of cold weather, temperature spikes may be due to fluctuations in weather rather than a trend either way. Do you see what I mean? To paraphrase, I dispute your statement that a spike of very hot days is "by definition" part of the overall trend.

Let's look at their quote again then:

Yes. Chris, it's been 21 days of brutal heat, a coast-to-coast double heat wave leaving at least 186 people dead, massive damage to crops and livestock. And yes, it's got folks everywhere asking if it's part of global warming, and thus a sign that Earth will keep getting hotter. The scientists say yes, global warming is involved. First, it fits the pattern predicted 30 years ago, more frequent and intense heat waves. More than 50 cities just broke records.

First, it's not dishonest to quote what scientists say, especially if you qualify it by saying that scientists say it. Second, according to what scientists say, they've got a future prediction model, have had it for 30 years, and the current trends match it -- namely that increases in both number and intensity of such hot spells would occur and that is what's happening.

If nothing else, all they're doing is reporting what scientists have told them. Disputing the scientists is one thing, but why shoot the messenger?

This all comes down to what a trend is. In any given set of data, a trend is anything that follows a pattern. Let's say were looking at body temperature stats in a group correlated to the severity of viral illness and identify a trend in which fevers are highest in accordance with severity. You seem to be indicating that you feel that it would be foolish to suggest that an infected patient with a high fever fits that trend.

There are going to be noise and fluctuation in any dataset. Of course you're right in that you can't point to any given point and declare it to be part of a trend -- trends are necessarily about multiple data points. But that's not what ABC did. They said that the hot spell was consistent with the predicted pattern. A cold spell is consistent with expectations but not the pattern, just as there are plenty of people who endure viral infections who do not get fevers.

theprestige

11th February 2010, 03:32 PM

Wait -- how did hurricane get excepted from the category of seasonal weather patterns?
Read better: they didn't. I take it you missed my point not out of any failure of intellect, but rather because you have no coherent response.

Cynic

11th February 2010, 04:02 PM

Read better: they didn't. I take it you missed my point not out of any failure of intellect, but rather because you have no coherent response.

And how dishonest is it, exactly, for you to imply that any crackpot idea about earthquakes or hurricanes is legitimate cause to be more confident in the "settled science" of global warming, but any doubt based on anything as simple and obvious as actual daily temperature readings or seasonal weather patterns is totally illegitimate and unscientific?

I admit that incoherency might be part of the problem, though it remains to be seen whose it is. To be sure, you didn't say that hurricanes weren't normal. Rather, you took their very normalcy to mean that any theory involving them relating to global warming was therefore crackpot. But whatever. Clarify that if you want to, or not. I don't like having my honesty challenged.

Skeptic Ginger

11th February 2010, 04:13 PM

To be fair, single weather events are also wrongly touted as evidence of global warming.
Both positions are wrong.No doubt but the rightwingers made the big deal of it with one after the other of them going on and on about this proves Al Gore wrong.

Skeptic Ginger

11th February 2010, 04:16 PM

The science of AGW is not overwhelming.Please take this to another thread unless you have something pertinent to tie in to the OP. The OP issue is claiming the latest snow storm in DC is proof Al Gore is wrong. There are many other threads on AGW.

Skeptic Ginger

11th February 2010, 04:21 PM

Is anybody really claiming that? Or are they simply claiming that reports of cold days and cold winters justfies questioning the "settled science" of global warming?In the last couple days Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck and a couple Republic Congressmen said the snowstorm proved Al Gore's climate change was wrong. They've been quoted on Hardball, Maddow and Olbermann and the Daily Show and then made fun of. Chris Matthew's comment was, "These guys need to go back to high school!"

... how dishonest is it, exactly, for you to imply that any crackpot idea about earthquakes or hurricanes is legitimate cause to be more confident in the "settled science" of global warming, but any doubt based on anything as simple and obvious as actual daily temperature readings or seasonal weather patterns is totally illegitimate and unscientific?This thread is about my HONEST reaction to the specific ignorant statements I've referred to here.

Skeptic Ginger

11th February 2010, 04:29 PM

The real problem is the Global Warming issue has been politicised beyond belief by Both Sides. A lot of the Anti AGW people seem to be motivated by a basic hatred of Any Government Regulations, and a lot of the pro AGW people seem to not like Capitalism much in the first place and are happy to find a new club to beat it with.Or another version of the latter is the left is well aware of the millions of dollars Exxon has paid to squelch and distort the science. The left was sensitized by 8 years of the GW Bush administration supporting the Big Oil companies by suppressing our own government sponsored science research.

It's not about the corporate culture any more than the fight for evolution science is about religion. Both of these issues for most left leaning folks in the skeptic community are about the science and suppressing science. In this thread it is about the lack of critical thinking interfering with a valid assessment of the science.

Skeptic Ginger

11th February 2010, 04:40 PM

This ~8 minute segment on MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31510813/#35354694) on the topic had a good summary of the problem. But the reason I post it is for the excellent reply by Bill Nye (the skeptic science guy) in the last half of the piece.

Cynic

11th February 2010, 04:57 PM

Good video. It was also fun watching Bill Nye restrain himself from being more blunt about it. :)

FarmallMTA

11th February 2010, 05:03 PM

Shadowdweller

11th February 2010, 05:15 PM

Sporanox

11th February 2010, 05:29 PM

Let's look at their quote again then:

First, it's not dishonest to quote what scientists say, especially if you qualify it by saying that scientists say it. Second, according to what scientists say, they've got a future prediction model, have had it for 30 years, and the current trends match it -- namely that increases in both number and intensity of such hot spells would occur and that is what's happening.

If nothing else, all they're doing is reporting what scientists have told them. Disputing the scientists is one thing, but why shoot the messenger?

This all comes down to what a trend is. In any given set of data, a trend is anything that follows a pattern. Let's say were looking at body temperature stats in a group correlated to the severity of viral illness and identify a trend in which fevers are highest in accordance with severity. You seem to be indicating that you feel that it would be foolish to suggest that an infected patient with a high fever fits that trend.

There are going to be noise and fluctuation in any dataset. Of course you're right in that you can't point to any given point and declare it to be part of a trend -- trends are necessarily about multiple data points. But that's not what ABC did. They said that the hot spell was consistent with the predicted pattern. A cold spell is consistent with expectations but not the pattern, just as there are plenty of people who endure viral infections who do not get fevers.

Well, you're right, ABC was acting as a climatologist mouthpiece. I didn't say it would be "foolish" to come to that particular conclusion, though, only that the evidence cannot point by default to that concusion.

Cynic

11th February 2010, 05:51 PM

Well, you're right, ABC was acting as a climatologist mouthpiece. I didn't say it would be "foolish" to come to that particular conclusion, though, only that the evidence cannot point by default to that conclusion.

That's true enough -- just saying that it's not what ABC was saying, so the two quotes presented were entirely consistent. But who should the news be "mouthpieces" for if not the consensus of scientists? Yes, science isn't about consensus, but also, news organizations aren't science journals. After at certain point, explicitly stating that "some people disagree with this assessment" stops being good journalism and starting revealing an agenda in its own right.

For instance, Asperger's and autism are in the news right now because of an upcoming DSM 5 revision to the psychologist's diagnostic manual in which Asperger's is formally aligned as part of the autism spectrum. At the moment it's fitting to discuss that not everyone agrees with this and all the emotional and political baggage associated with it. But after the newness of it blows over, annotating any reports about Asperger's and autism with "while many scientists think it's a form of autism, Scientologists disagree that it's a mental disorder at all" is pointless and further suggests that they're being deferential to Scientologists.

It's perfectly normal for the news to cover science news from the perspective of what is commonly agreed on. They do this all the time and are under no particular obligation to mention every exception every time it comes up. There are always exceptions. No one calls the press a "mouthpiece for NASA" when discussing the moon landings because some people think it was faked on a soundstage. So why call them a mouthpiece here?

I understand that something like half the country thinks all those scientists are wrong, but that proportion isn't even remotely represented within the relevant scientific community itself. Like evolution versus creationism, this isn't a "teach the controversy" moment. At all.

dudalb

11th February 2010, 05:54 PM

Newtons Bit

11th February 2010, 06:16 PM

They are insignificant in comparison. From wiki.

link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Statements_by _dissenting_organizations)
Daredelvis

I would be more prone to look at this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scienti fic_assessment_of_global_warming).

I came up with an arbitrary number of 10:1 in my head. If that list is near to complete then the word "consensus" isn't unwarranted.

Sporanox

11th February 2010, 06:22 PM

That's true enough -- just saying that it's not what ABC was saying, so the two quotes presented were entirely consistent. But who should the news be "mouthpieces" for if not the consensus of scientists? Yes, science isn't about consensus, but also, news organizations aren't science journals. After at certain point, explicitly stating that "some people disagree with this assessment" stops being good journalism and starting revealing an agenda in its own right.

For instance, Asperger's and autism are in the news right now because of an upcoming DSM 5 revision to the psychologist's diagnostic manual in which Asperger's is formally aligned as part of the autism spectrum. At the moment it's fitting to discuss that not everyone agrees with this and all the emotional and political baggage associated with it. But after the newness of it blows over, annotating any reports about Asperger's and autism with "while many scientists think it's a form of autism, Scientologists disagree that it's a mental disorder at all" is pointless and further suggests that they're being deferential to Scientologists.

It's perfectly normal for the news to cover science news from the perspective of what is commonly agreed on. They do this all the time and are under no particular obligation to mention every exception every time it comes up. There are always exceptions. No one calls the press a "mouthpiece for NASA" when discussing the moon landings because some people think it was faked on a soundstage. So why call them a mouthpiece here?

I understand that something like half the country thinks all those scientists are wrong, but that proportion isn't even remotely represented within the relevant scientific community itself. Like evolution versus creationism, this isn't a "teach the controversy" moment. At all.

I take your point, of course, but the disputes over AGW are not really comparable to the controversies wrt evolution. And that's chump change compared to inserting Scientology and moon conspiracies in there. In short, you seem to be hard at work trying to make the opposition look like basket cases.

If we may avoid discussing ridiculous comparisons, your post highlights a critical problem with science journalism - it's done by people who chose to go down a literary path but, quite often, seem to crave the respect that "objective" researchers are endowed with. They want in on the science clubroom. As a result, they play up the lines they like - the lines that will make them look "rational," perhaps, or conclusions that lend themselves to sensationalism. This happens with coverage of emergent therapies, studies that show a correlation between cancer and anything, and global warming. (There are scientists at Princeton and MIT, among other institutions, who break with the IPCC in significant areas. But until recently I was unaware that anybody else other than the Bush Administration and other Republican pols objected to it.)

I don't see any way of solving this problem. It happens when journalism intersects with the military, too. Most likely, it can only be alleviated, since the Internet Age has brought the advent of blogging.

Sporanox

11th February 2010, 06:27 PM

JoeTheJuggler

11th February 2010, 07:06 PM

I'm curious where you get the idea that capitalism requires continuous growth.

Because when there isn't growth, we have recession. The function of capitalism is to grow the economy--to create (and concentrate) wealth. That's precisely what a return on investment is supposed to be.

And there is no such thing as sustainable growth. Even if it grows very little, it can't do that indefinitely--again, not as long as we're confined to the planet and still abiding by the laws of thermodynamics. (A perpetual motion machine could make almost *anything* sustainable--what with the limitless free energy!)

ETA: And I'm sorry ran off topic with this. The point I was making was that if I made the statement that capitalism is unsustainable, it shouldn't matter what my motives for making that statement. It stands or fails on its own merits.

JoeTheJuggler

11th February 2010, 07:07 PM

Cynic

11th February 2010, 11:02 PM

Addendum: there is no way to find out what's going on in journalist's heads, but I think incidents like this (http://hotair.com/archives/2010/02/10/video-ms-nbcs-brewer-claims-heavy-snowfall-proves-global-warming/) are interesting enough to warrant suspicion, for starters.

You're right -- there are a number of suspicious news sources out there. Take your own link for instance:

It [the recent snowstorms] might prove it except that the world isn’t actually warming. The theory about creating more precipitation is one hypothesis in AGW, but it’s supposed to come down as rain because, well, the Earth is supposed to get warmer, not colder. Seasoned skeptics will recall the dire warnings of more violent hurricane and tornado seasons after 2005’s dual hits of Katrina and Rita, which have gone utterly unfulfilled.

Is that where we are now as a nation? Not long ago the argument (not necessarily yours) was that yes, global temperatures are rising, but it's not man -- it's just a natural heating and cooling cycle. Now it seems that we've advanced so far we're actually suggesting that global temperatures aren't going up at all. Really? We've got 200 years of temperature data that says otherwise.

But then it goes further, suggesting that all that precipitation has to be rain because "it's supposed to be getting warmer, not cooler". Turns out, moist air isn't that snobbish. If it hits a cold front, it'll freeze! I could talk about their great victory over those alleged boobs at MSNBC, but what's the point? This source of yours flunked basic science twice in just one of its paragraphs.

Cynic

11th February 2010, 11:29 PM

If we may avoid discussing ridiculous comparisons, your post highlights a critical problem with science journalism - it's done by people who chose to go down a literary path but, quite often, seem to crave the respect that "objective" researchers are endowed with. They want in on the science clubroom. As a result, they play up the lines they like - the lines that will make them look "rational," perhaps, or conclusions that lend themselves to sensationalism. This happens with coverage of emergent therapies, studies that show a correlation between cancer and anything, and global warming.

Fair enough, though it should be noted that since these sources are notoriously unreliable, they shouldn't therefore be relied upon for accurate understanding of science. You've just made a cogent argument for sticking with the genuine experts. So... why aren't you? Why are you getting your science from sources with obvious agendas whose understanding of the topics they expound on is clearly limited (as I've just posted about before this) and who often plainly are seeking to get in on a different sort of clubroom? I agree -- we should figure out what real scientists think and why, not listen to a bunch of pundits on political blogs and cable news segments about it.

As it turns out, most of the real scientists disagree with you on this. Why would we give those few with contrary opinions more credit than their own peers give them? If they're right, they'll be able to show it. If they're not, they won't. Either way, we've established that listening to biased news sources on the matter is a bad idea. Those sources are up against some pretty long odds and using "common sense" arguments ("I thought it was supposed to be getting warmer -- harararrarar!") to try to fool people into seeing why all those poor deluded experts are wrong, casting the dissenters (as usual) in the role of David versus Goliath. And my, how convenient it is that everybody in this battle happens to have lined up along political lines. How convenient it is that the scientists who refute the science also "happen" to be conservative.

Remember, this isn't about who's causing what anymore. It's about whether anything is even happening now. That's the level of the room, apparently, in the ol' blogosphere. All of these convenient facts ought to be sending up red flags. Why don't you see them?

Skeptic Ginger

12th February 2010, 12:06 AM

Settled science. Now that's an entirely non-scientific statement.

Are you aware that no science is ever considered settled? This includes the theory of gravity. All science is open to skepticism, inquiry, and examination. All science is always in a state of discovery.

When influencers speak of "settled science" we can immediately know that hands are reaching for the wallets in our pockets.There is a problem framing controversial science subjects when the science is overwhelming (despite the fervor against that conclusion on this board by many fairly skeptical people).

Do you call evolution a fact? Or do you stick with the pedantic endless discussions of what a scientific theory is and in doing so lose any number of lay persons to the slicker framing of the evolution discussion by the deniers?

You can worry about purist scientific language of uncertainty, or you can address the problem of a large section of the human race who don't get science and don't understand critical thinking. Ideally, you'd teach critical thinking to that section of the human race. But reality gets in the way of that ideal solution, at least in the short term.

Climate change science is overwhelming. Yet even among skeptics you see the influence of the massive campaign to instill doubt among the masses about the science. The thing about Nye's comments that I found most valuable was his observation that people have absorbed the science through their political philosophy filters.

I get disgusted every time I hear the attacks on Al Gore, as if Gore is the only person who has drawn a conclusion about the science. Gore made a movie. That's it. You can complain the movie showed the extreme end of the outcome continuum, I haven't seen it, I don't know how accurate it is. But just as the couple errors in the IPCC data is not significant, Gore's personal position is not significant. But these political information filters are a serious problem to promoting science based decisions about our planet and something as important as AGW.

This thread is about highlighting that political filter which is preventing the valid science from rising to the top.

Sporanox

12th February 2010, 01:56 AM

You're right -- there are a number of suspicious news sources out there. Take your own link for instance:

Is that where we are now as a nation? Not long ago the argument (not necessarily yours) was that yes, global temperatures are rising, but it's not man -- it's just a natural heating and cooling cycle. Now it seems that we've advanced so far we're actually suggesting that global temperatures aren't going up at all. Really? We've got 200 years of temperature data that says otherwise.

But then it goes further, suggesting that all that precipitation has to be rain because "it's supposed to be getting warmer, not cooler". Turns out, moist air isn't that snobbish. If it hits a cold front, it'll freeze! I could talk about their great victory over those alleged boobs at MSNBC, but what's the point? This source of yours flunked basic science twice in just one of its paragraphs.

Yes, Ed looks at the issue too simply. The point was the video - unscientific reporter trying to muddy what someone with actual training wrt weather has to say.

So... why aren't you? Why are you getting your science from sources with obvious agendas whose understanding of the topics they expound on is clearly limited (as I've just posted about before this) and who often plainly are seeking to get in on a different sort of clubroom? I agree -- we should figure out what real scientists think and why, not listen to a bunch of pundits on political blogs and cable news segments about it.

You must have missed the part about actual experts disagreeing with the IPCC. I'm not sure if that was a slip up or an attempt to construct a strawman. I'm guessing this aside is because you thought I placed faith in Ed's analysis. My fault, I should have added that caveat.

As it turns out, most of the real scientists disagree with you on this. Why would we give those few with contrary opinions more credit than their own peers give them? If they're right, they'll be able to show it. If they're not, they won't.

There are two problems with this line of thinking. One of them is that it buys into the illusion of science as an objective process pliable to cold, hard rationality. In many ways this is true, but in several others it is false. Grant money, personal credibility, and career opportunities are all priorities scientists juggle, and coincidentally all of them have come into the light over the last few months in the climate field. The emails revealed how bigwig scientists tried to nip dissent in the bud and how they pumped hot air into outrageous predictions in order to keep their millions in grant money.

Say you're an upcoming Phd in this field. Prior to Climategate, without even considering which side is scientifically accurate, which side would you rather be on? If you publish evidence slightly contrary to AGW or even express any doubts, you will be lambasted in the press by top scientists in your field and denied even a fraction of the lavish grants accorded to your peers. (Some of these guys have secured up to $20 million over the course of their careers, IIRC.)

The other problem is that you are still trying to use suggestive language to position yourself. Everyone does this, of course, but in matters such as this it crops up more IMO. What do you mean by "real scientists?" Climate scientists, scientists in general, or engineers? Curiously, the current head of the IPCC is a railway engineer. One of the major faces of the AGW PR in America is Bill Nye, a mechanical engineer. Much of the IPCC's predictions now being torn apart were made by advocacy groups like the WWF. This is a serious problem. Now on the other side, we have people like statistical mathematicians who try to tease out what they believe are tricks in the data. That's comparable to engineering. (Yes, we also have our pundits and pols.) But there are also people like this guy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen) Yes, we have real scientists too.

The Painter

12th February 2010, 03:12 AM

No doubt but the rightwingers made the big deal of it with one after the other of them going on and on about this proves Al Gore wrong.

Puffery. Pure puffery.

leftysergeant

12th February 2010, 10:50 AM

I take your point, of course, but the disputes over AGW are not really comparable to the controversies wrt evolution. And that's chump change compared to inserting Scientology and moon conspiracies in there. In short, you seem to be hard at work trying to make the opposition [/B]look like basket cases.[/B]

Given that most of the deniers are from Faux News,the administrations of the last three Republican presidents and from industry lobbying groups, displaying their inanities is not "making them look like basket cases," but rather pointing out what they are.

Beck, Hannity , Wiener, and the fat deaf eunuch are all several bricks short of an arch. Quite that simple.

Sporanox

12th February 2010, 10:53 AM

Given that most of the deniers are from Faux News,the administrations of the last three Republican presidents and from industry lobbying groups, displaying their inanities is not "making them look like basket cases," but rather pointing out what they are.

Beck, Hannity , Wiener, and the fat deaf eunuch are all several bricks short of an arch. Quite that simple.

Please, stop.

GreyICE

12th February 2010, 11:21 AM

This. And think about it -- an average rise of, say, 1 degree? You would never even notice it, and only long-term statistical measurements of things would even be able to discern it.

Even when I hear studies about this or that plant coming back to life a month earlier than normal, I have to wonder, as a few degrees should only shift that a few days or a week maybe. Winter-to-summer is what, 80 degrees F swing over, say, 4 months? That's 2 degrees every 3 days, so yeah, a few days to a week sounds about right. So what percent of that is cyclic and what percent is not? One month, if truly global warming (AGW or not) thus represents a 20 degree swing. And that's why this must be averaged over long periods of time.

HAHAHAHAHAHA.

The atmosphere of the earth ways 5.1*10^18 kg. The specific heat capacity is 1.0035 J/g*C.

Raising it 1 degree is the energy of one thousand megatons - a gigaton of TNT.

There's HUGE effects from injecting that much energy into the system.

Oh and the major difference between creationists and climate change deniers is that climate change deniers have better PR, which is logical given how well funded they are until even Exxon realized that there was no fighting science because the science was correct.

Sporanox

12th February 2010, 11:25 AM

Oh and the major difference between creationists and climate change deniers is that climate change deniers have better PR, which is logical given how well funded they are until even Exxon realized that there was no fighting science because the science was correct.

Creationists have representation at MIT?

GreyICE

12th February 2010, 11:29 AM

Creationists have representation at MIT?

http://www.creationinfo.com/list.htm

They give out things like this all the time.

Sporanox

12th February 2010, 11:35 AM

http://www.creationinfo.com/list.htm

They give out things like this all the time.

So, not really (especially considering Lindzen is in a prestigious meteorology position). I take your point, though.

leftysergeant

12th February 2010, 12:30 PM

Please, stop.

Okay, I'll be more specific, then. On one rant the pig man was going on about how the melting of polar ice could not raise the sea level. He pointed out that even though ice floats above the surface of a drink, the cup does not over-flow when the ice melts. He is, of course, too stupid to realize that the floating sea ice is only one part of the ice within the Arctic or Antarctic circles. He discounts all the surging glaciers and melting glaciers in Greenland, Alsaka and the various islands in the Canadian Arctic. This is a tremendous volumn of water and it is all aobve sea level. Mostof the ice in Antarctica is above sea level.

There is less snow staying on the mountain tops world-wide.

The idiot uses only one source of water to draw his conclusions. The last place to get an opinion on actual science is on conservative squawk radio.

GreyICE

12th February 2010, 12:37 PM

So, not really (especially considering Lindzen is in a prestigious meteorology position). I take your point, though.

I don't think its fair to characterize Lindzen as a denier. The IRIS hypothesis is not that the effects of CO2 are negligible/nonexistent, it's that a feedback effect from the tropics would generate cloud cover that would mostly remove the warming effect of CO2. Contrast that with AA, Beerina, or MHaze who think that human emitted CO2 has no effect on the climate, and you can see the difference.

Anyway, the Iris hypothesis is that sea surface warming would reduce Cirrus cloud formation, thus reducing trapped infrared radiation. Consensus is, at the moment, nonexistent on that subject.

http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/1/221/2001/acpd-1-221-2001-print.pdf

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL029698.shtml

You will note in all cases that the hypothesis requires warming to even get off the ground (no warming = no IRIS feedback).

(By the way, it's ironic to contrast the "persecution and marginalization of people who don't agree with the 'orthodoxy of the warming description'" as described by AA, Mhaze, et al, with Lindzen, who authored Chapter 7 of the IPCC Third Assessment, and who has received numerous awards despite predicting an extreme low end of sensitivity from his Iris hypothesis - least effective persecution ever, amright? )

Sporanox

12th February 2010, 02:31 PM

I don't think its fair to characterize Lindzen as a denier. The IRIS hypothesis is not that the effects of CO2 are negligible/nonexistent, it's that a feedback effect from the tropics would generate cloud cover that would mostly remove the warming effect of CO2. Contrast that with AA, Beerina, or MHaze who think that human emitted CO2 has no effect on the climate, and you can see the difference.

Anyway, the Iris hypothesis is that sea surface warming would reduce Cirrus cloud formation, thus reducing trapped infrared radiation. Consensus is, at the moment, nonexistent on that subject.

http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/1/221/2001/acpd-1-221-2001-print.pdf

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL029698.shtml

You will note in all cases that the hypothesis requires warming to even get off the ground (no warming = no IRIS feedback).

This is in some ways a game of semantics. The Iris hypothesis was proposed in conjunction with Lindzen's observation that there is no cause for concern from CO2.

That said, the main greenhouse substances in the earth's atmosphere are water vapor and high clouds. Let's refer to these as major greenhouse substances to distinguish them from the anthropogenic minor substances. Even a doubling of CO2 would only upset the original balance between incoming and outgoing radiation by about 2%. This is essentially what is called "climate forcing."

There is general agreement on the above findings. At this point there is no basis for alarm regardless of whether any relation between the observed warming and the observed increase in minor greenhouse gases can be established. Nevertheless, the most publicized claims of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) deal exactly with whether any relation can be discerned. The failure of the attempts to link the two over the past 20 years bespeaks the weakness of any case for concern.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html

I'm not sure if you call that "denying" or not (too bad people still use that label; it's pretty much an appeal to ridicule at this point).

(By the way, it's ironic to contrast the "persecution and marginalization of people who don't agree with the 'orthodoxy of the warming description'" as described by AA, Mhaze, et al, with Lindzen, who authored Chapter 7 of the IPCC Third Assessment, and who has received numerous awards despite predicting an extreme low end of sensitivity from his Iris hypothesis - least effective persecution ever, amright? )

It is indeed fortunate for Lindzen that he has largely escaped censure. Other subjects named in the hacked emails were not as fortunate.

leftysergeant

12th February 2010, 02:48 PM

It is indeed fortunate for Lindzen that he has largely escaped censure. Other subjects named in the hacked emails were not as fortunate.

Which of them do you feel are being persecuted?

Sporanox

12th February 2010, 03:09 PM

Which of them do you feel are being persecuted?

Were - nobody's in much of a position to persecute now.

fuelair

12th February 2010, 03:35 PM

leftysergeant

12th February 2010, 03:43 PM

Were ...

Okay, who were being persecuted.

...- nobody's in much of a position to persecute now.

So what changed?

INRM

12th February 2010, 03:47 PM

Paul Hoff,

Really, I have heard about that stuff. But to think that 6 billion people don't change anything is, well, nuts.

I never said I didn't think 6,000,000,000+ people didn't have any effect on anything. What I'm saying is that they exaggerated the degree of warming produced by human beings, and downplayed the degree of circumstances where the temperature of the Earth in the past went up via manipulation of data.

INRM

leftysergeant

12th February 2010, 03:51 PM

What I'm saying is that they exaggerated the degree of warming produced by human beings, and downplayed the degree of circumstances where the temperature of the Earth in the past went up via manipulation of data.

I still have not seen the evidence to suport the claim that the scientists distorted or manipulated the data.

Bean counters, such as the Shrub liked to put in charge of scientific, projects are another matter.

JoeTheJuggler

12th February 2010, 03:52 PM

My bolding:

I never said I didn't think 6,000,000,000+ people didn't have any effect on anything. What I'm saying is that they exaggerated the degree of warming produced by human beings, and downplayed the degree of circumstances where the temperature of the Earth in the past went up via manipulation of data.

Even if something about your conspiracy theory were true, it would be irrelevant.

Let's say there was worse global warming some millions of years ago. There was also a time when the Earth's atmosphere contained very little oxygen. Would you be cool if that happened too?

At any rate, Ginger said this thread is not for debating AGW. And I agree there are plenty of threads on that debate already. This is for the very narrow topic of people who claim that the recent large snow storms somehow disproves global warming (of any cause).

And of course the people who say that are either ignorant or playing to the ignorant. I think it's the former, except maybe for a few of them (like Rush Limbaugh).

Skeptic Ginger

12th February 2010, 06:16 PM

... Yes, we have real scientists too.Maybe we should start a list of scientists named Richard. ;)

In any science field you can find the odd man out. Look at Michael Behe and his concept of trying to disprove evolution science by finding Irreducible Complexity. Over time such hypotheses either result in paradigm shifts in science like the theory of Plate Tectonics, or they fall by the wayside like Irreducible Complexity.

Lindzen's hypotheses have not panned out and the IPCC has had a decade since Lindzen began speaking out against their "concensus". In that decade, Lindzen's hypotheses have failed to pan out and the climate change science has strengthened.

Lindzen's Discarded Global Warming Arguments (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_S._Lindzen)An internal document (pdf) of the Global Climate Coalition (GCC) -- an industry front group that disbanded in 2002 -- reviewed some of the "contrarian" arguments used by Lindzen and other climate change skeptics that they later discarded. The document, which was obtained as part of a court action against the automobile industry[13].
In a section on the "Role of Water Vapor", the GCC's Science and Technical Advisory Committee wrote that "In 1990, Prof Richard Lindzen of MIT argued that the models which were being used to predict greenhouse warming were incorrect because they predicted an increase in water vapor at all levels of the troposphere. Since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, the models predict warming at all levels of the troposphere. However, warming should create convective turbulence, which would lead to more condensation of water vapor (i.e. more rain) and both drying and cooling of the troposphere above 5 km. This negative feedback would act as, a "thermostat" keeping temperatures from rising significantly."
However, the GCC's science advisers noted that this argument had been disproven to the point that Lindzen himself had ceased to use it. "Lindzen's 1990 theory predicted that warmer conditions at.the surface would lead to cooler, drier conditions at the top ofthe troposphere. Studies of the behavior of the troposphere in the tropics fail to find the cooling and drying Lindzen predicted. More recent publications have indicated the possibility that Lindzen's hypothesis may be correct, but the evidence is still weak. While Lindzen remains a critic of climate modeling efforts, his latest publications do not include the convective turbulence argument."[14]
In conclusion the GCC's science advisers was that "Lindzen's hypothesis that any warming would create more rain which would cool and dry the upper troposphere did offer a mechanism for balancing the effect of increased greenhouse gases. However, the data supporting this hypothesis is weak, and even Lindzen has stopped presenting it as an alternative to the conventional model of climate change."[15]Now can we get back to the thread topic please and move this another of the dozen threads on the subject?

So on that note, Lindzen has at least one relevant point to the thread.

Testimony of Richard S. Lindzen before the Senate Commerce Committee on 1 May 2001. (http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/climate-policy/science-and-policy/Lindzen_McCain.pdf)Those who insist that the science is settled should be required to state exactly what science they feel is settled. In all likelihood, it will turn out to be something trivial and without policy implications except to those who bizarrely subscribe to the so-called precautionary principle – a matter I will return to later. (Ian Bowles, former senior science advisor on environmental issues at the NSC, published such a remark on 22 April in the Boston Globe: “the basic link between carbon emissions, accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and the phenomenon of climate change is not seriously disputed in the scientific community.” I think it is fair to say that statements concerning matters of such complexity that are not disputed are also likely to be lacking in policy relevant content. However, some policymakers apparently think otherwise in a cultural split that may be worthy of the late C.P. Snow’s attention.)(emphasis mine)(note the last bolded section quotes the Boston Globe, not Lindzen)

If only we could get rid of the filters. God believers could actually see the evolution science without the fear of science challenging those god beliefs and the public who should be concerned about the environment might be able to see the science of climate change without all the political filters currently distorting that actual science.

Skeptic Ginger

12th February 2010, 06:17 PM

Puffery. Pure puffery.Who, them or me?

Skeptic Ginger

12th February 2010, 06:19 PM

....
Oh and the major difference between creationists and climate change deniers is that climate change deniers have better PR, which is logical given how well funded they are until even Exxon realized that there was no fighting science because the science was correct.Actually, they are both very well funded, though big oil probably does have a tad more than Christian fundies.

Skeptic Ginger

12th February 2010, 06:22 PM

Creationists have representation at MIT?Not MIT but there are credible scientists with incredible hypotheses.

Michael BeheEducation and academics

Behe grew up in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, where he attended grade school at St. Margaret Mary's Parochial School and later graduated from Bishop McDevitt High School.[10][11] He graduated from Drexel University in 1974 with a Bachelor of Science in chemistry. He got his PhD in biochemistry at the University of Pennsylvania in 1978 for his dissertation research on sickle-cell disease. From 1978 to 1982, he did postdoctoral work on DNA structure at the National Institutes of Health. From 1982 to 1985, he was assistant professor of chemistry at Queens College in New York City, where he met his wife, Celeste. In 1985 he moved to Lehigh University and is currently a Professor of Biochemistry. Due to Behe's views on evolution, Lehigh University exhibits the following disclaimer on its website:

Skeptic Ginger

12th February 2010, 06:30 PM

....
The idiot uses only one source of water to draw his conclusions. The last place to get an opinion on actual science is on conservative squawk radio.The promotion and bragging about their own culture of ignorance is a bizarre theme among some right wingers.

Some left wing fundies (the more extreme) are ignorantly unrealistic about the evils of capitalism and denigrate rich people despite the fact there are many decent rich people and many unethical poor people. Here we have the right wing fundies (which while they are also more extreme there seems to be more of them in the mainstream Republic Party) ignorantly demonizing science and educated people of all things.

Sporanox

12th February 2010, 06:43 PM

Maybe we should start a list of scientists named Richard. ;)

In any science field you can find the odd man out. Look at Michael Behe and his concept of trying to disprove evolution science by finding Irreducible Complexity. Over time such hypotheses either result in paradigm shifts in science like the theory of Plate Tectonics, or they fall by the wayside like Irreducible Complexity.

Right on.

Lindzen's hypotheses have not panned out and the IPCC has had a decade since Lindzen began speaking out against their "concensus". In that decade, Lindzen's hypotheses have failed to pan out and the climate change science has strengthened.

In the last few months, the case for AGW has weakened.

Lindzen's Discarded Global Warming Arguments (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_S._Lindzen)Now can we get back to the thread topic please and move this another of the dozen threads on the subject?

Posting discarded hypotheses is not relevant to this discussion unless new evidence has emerged in support of such hypotheses.

So on that note, Lindzen has at least one relevant point to the thread.

Testimony of Richard S. Lindzen before the Senate Commerce Committee on 1 May 2001. (http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/climate-policy/science-and-policy/Lindzen_McCain.pdf)(emphasis mine)(note the last bolded section quotes the Boston Globe, not Lindzen)

If only we could get rid of the filters. God believers could actually see the evolution science without the fear of science challenging those god beliefs and the public who should be concerned about the environment might be able to see the science of climate change without all the political filters currently distorting that actual science.

Amen. The pro-AGW filters, particularly in Britain, the United States, and the IPCC, should be set aside. And Inhofe or whoever keeps bringing up snowstorms should quiet down too.

leftysergeant

12th February 2010, 07:19 PM

In the last few months, the case for AGW has weakened.

I have not seen any proof of that. Was there some actual evidence brought out that I missed?

Dorian Gray

12th February 2010, 07:49 PM

My bolding:

Even if something about your conspiracy theory were true, it would be irrelevant.

Let's say there was worse global warming some millions of years ago. There was also a time when the Earth's atmosphere contained very little oxygen. Would you be cool if that happened too?

At any rate, Ginger said this thread is not for debating AGW. And I agree there are plenty of threads on that debate already. This is for the very narrow topic of people who claim that the recent large snow storms somehow disproves global warming (of any cause).

And of course the people who say that are either ignorant or playing to the ignorant. I think it's the former, except maybe for a few of them (like Rush Limbaugh).The counter to the bolded part above is that since there was global warming way before humans ever existed, this warming trend could be just as natural as that one. It's not that we want it to happen now, it's that the fact that it has happened before points to natural warming.

That's what makes a determination of Anthropogenic Global Warming so difficult - even if everyone on earth agreed that the world was getting warmer, it does not necessarily follow that mankind caused that warming.

applecorped

12th February 2010, 08:19 PM

even if everyone on earth agreed that the world was getting warmer, it does not necessarily follow that mankind caused that warming.

What? Correlation not necessarily causation! Oh noes!!!!!!

applecorped

12th February 2010, 08:25 PM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/12/utah-climate-alarmists

"Carbon dioxide is "essentially harmless" to human beings and good for plants. So now will you stop worrying about global warming?
Utah's House of Representatives apparently has at least. Officially the most Republican state in America, its political masters have adopted a resolution condemning "climate alarmists", and disputing any scientific basis for global warming.
The measure, which passed by 56-17, has no legal force, though it was predictably claimed by climate change (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/scienceofclimatechange) sceptics as a great victory in the wake of the controversy caused by a mistake over Himalayan glaciers in the UN's landmark report on global warming (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/08/climate-scientists-melting-glaciers)."

Utah! Who needs them.

GreyICE

12th February 2010, 09:48 PM

[This is in some ways a game of semantics. The Iris hypothesis was proposed in conjunction with Lindzen's observation that there is no cause for concern from CO2. Actually, it is far more than semantics. Lindzen's position is completely incompatible with arguments put forth in this forum by many of the people you are defending.

To claim it is semantics is to claim that the distinction between 'the twin towers were brought down by explosives' and 'the twin towers were brought down by plane-shaped missiles' is semantics. I use this example not because I want to compare the arguments in this thread to the truthers, but because that is the only place where one can find logic that asinine.

If Lindzen is right, then all the positions put forth by MHaze, AA, Beerina, et al are completely, utterly, wrong. You cannot point to Lindzen and say 'well, he's wrong about 98% of the things he says, but hey, his conclusion roughly agrees with mine if I squint a lot, so he's totally right.' To call this distinction semantic is to display a complete and total lack of understanding of the meaning of that word.

I repeat - the difference between the Iris hypothesis put forth by Lindzen and the 'conventional' global warming hypothesis is whether, in Cirrus Clouds, the ratio of infrared energy reflected to earth versus the solar energy reflected to space, and whether increased heat in the oceans will increase the number of clouds or reduce them (Lindzen's hypothesis is they are a net warming effect, and the warming in the oceans will reduce them). This is the difference.

You cannot seriously tell me that this is the same thing as Beerina's question on whether manmade CO2 is even significant. I dare you to tell me they're the same thing, and that the difference is semantic.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html

I'm not sure if you call that "denying" or not (too bad people still use that label; it's pretty much an appeal to ridicule at this point). It's hard to appeal to ridicule when deniers work so hard to make themselves ridiculous. To see them jump from hypothesis to hypothesis, embracing things like Lindzen when he disagrees with 98% of the crap they spout, how can one ridicule this? It surpasses ridicule, and moves into farce.

It is indeed fortunate for Lindzen that he has largely escaped censure. Other subjects named in the hacked emails were not as fortunate.
:rolleyes:

The NWO will get to him eventually, amright?

JoeTheJuggler

12th February 2010, 10:20 PM

The counter to the bolded part above is that since there was global warming way before humans ever existed, this warming trend could be just as natural as that one. It's not that we want it to happen now, it's that the fact that it has happened before points to natural warming.

You've missed my point. It really doesn't matter if it's "natural" or man-made global warming. What matters is that now that we're here, it could be disastrous for us.

Again, some very important climate changes had to happen for oxygen breathers to evolve and flourish. From our point of view, we wouldn't want to go back to an atmosphere without this oxygen pollution.

Nature doesn't have any preference or intention.

But we humans do.

ETA: Consider this analogy: it might be "natural" for a large extraterrestrial chunk of rock and ice to slam into the Earth every 50 millions years or so pressing the ecological "reset" button. (It's certainly not man-made.) But that doesn't mean we ought not do whatever we can to prevent that from happening simply because it's "natural" and has indeed occurred in the past.

Skeptic Ginger

12th February 2010, 10:27 PM

...In the last few months, the case for AGW has weakened.That's just not true. A tiny fraction of the evidence which came under question has been exaggerated by the political interests.

..Amen. The pro-AGW filters, particularly in Britain, the United States, and the IPCC, should be set aside. And Inhofe or whoever keeps bringing up snowstorms should quiet down too.Have you examined your own filters recently?

JoeTheJuggler

12th February 2010, 10:50 PM

...In the last few months, the case for AGW has weakened.
That's just not true. A tiny fraction of the evidence which came under question has been exaggerated by the political interests.

To return to your topic, it's at least certain that the case for AGW hasn't weakened because of "snowmageddon".

Skeptic Ginger

12th February 2010, 11:56 PM

To return to your topic, it's at least certain that the case for AGW hasn't weakened because of "snowmageddon".The latest now is Glenn Beck denies he said the DC snowstorm was evidence against AGW.

It would appear the accusations of ignorance may have actually threatened to embarrass him.

Francesca R

13th February 2010, 01:19 AM

Please take this to another thread unless you have something pertinent to tie in to the OP. The OP issue is claiming the latest snow storm in DC is proof Al Gore is wrong. There are many other threads on AGW.The OP said the science was overwhelming. The OP was in error. I am unwilling to let your error stand.

Francesca R

13th February 2010, 01:21 AM

A lot of the Anti AGW people seem to be motivated by a basic hatred of Any Government Regulations and/or an economic interest in the status quo that is presumed to outweigh the economic consequences of addressing the issue. This does not address the political panderers. (That is not to say the people who believe the scientist are not also concerned about the economic impact of action.)

Very few of the pro AGW people seem to not like Capitalism much in the first place and are happy to find a new club to beat it with. Most are concerned that the consequences of inaction outweigh the consequences of action, and many like me, are disgusted by the discredited canards repeatedly trotted out by many of the far right AGW deniers.The posturing is overwhelming . . . . :D

daredelvis

13th February 2010, 05:49 AM

The posturing is overwhelming . . . . :D
dudalb's, I agree...

Daredelvis

Shadowdweller

13th February 2010, 06:54 AM

The OP said the science was overwhelming. The OP was in error. I am unwilling to let your error stand.
You've not the slightest clue what you're talking about. Familiarize yourself with the research - elsewhere - before making inane pronouncements.

Francesca R

13th February 2010, 07:31 AM

How would you know what I know? You wouldn't. Dogmatic posturing on your part.

The OP false statement really should have been left out of this topic.

GreyICE

13th February 2010, 10:09 AM

How would you know what I know? You wouldn't. Dogmatic posturing on your part.

The OP false statement really should have been left out of this topic.

Begging the question of course.

You really should stick to economics, you're much better at it than you are at understanding science.

Skeptic Ginger

13th February 2010, 10:28 AM

The OP said the science was overwhelming. The OP was in error. I am unwilling to let your error stand.You've stated your belief. How many more off topic posts do you need now that you've done that?

Francesca R

13th February 2010, 10:53 AM

Begging the question of course.

You really should stick to economics, you're much better at it than you are at understanding science.The statement "The science of AGW is overwhelming" is not a scientific statement. It is not about understanding science. It is borne of an agenda that seeks to subvert scientific enquiry. Rejecting it as pure posturing is the opposite.

Cynic

13th February 2010, 11:05 AM

The statement "The science of AGW is overwhelming" is not a scientific statement. It is not about understanding science. It is borne of an agenda that seeks to subvert scientific enquiry. Rejecting it as pure posturing is the opposite.

I'm not sure if the argument for AWG is overwhelming or not. Skeptic Ginger's point, however, is that it's very specifically not what this thread is about. I don't mind a little drift in conversation, but I do believe that we should defer to the wishes of the thread poster if they wish to impose it.

More apropos is the fact that global warming itself, regardless of cause, is happening and the topic brought up here suggests that there are people arguing that because of the snowstorms, it isn't.

Sporanox

13th February 2010, 04:09 PM

It's hard to appeal to ridicule when deniers work so hard to make themselves ridiculous. To see them jump from hypothesis to hypothesis, embracing things like Lindzen when he disagrees with 98% of the crap they spout, how can one ridicule this? It surpasses ridicule, and moves into farce.

:rolleyes:

The NWO will get to him eventually, amright?

I don't especially care about the fine points of others on this forum, you know.

More apropos is the fact that global warming itself, regardless of cause, is happening and the topic brought up here suggests that there are people arguing that because of the snowstorms, it isn't.

Well, the pundits in question are ignorant and not simply pretending. What else should we discuss?

Cynic

13th February 2010, 04:31 PM

Well, the pundits in question are ignorant and not simply pretending. What else should we discuss?

How do you know this? This issue isn't new and many of the bigger-named pundits in question have access to world-class research departments. Whether or not they're ignorant, doesn't that go to laziness and honesty regardless?

Skeptic Ginger

13th February 2010, 06:21 PM

I'm not sure if the argument for AWG is overwhelming or not. Skeptic Ginger's point, however, is that it's very specifically not what this thread is about. I don't mind a little drift in conversation, but I do believe that we should defer to the wishes of the thread poster if they wish to impose it.

More apropos is the fact that global warming itself, regardless of cause, is happening and the topic brought up here suggests that there are people arguing that because of the snowstorms, it isn't.Thankyou.

The problem is one cannot have any other discussion related to AGW without it deteriorating into the same old arguments that have been addressed ad nauseum on multiple other threads. I don't care if there is a little drift, it is almost impossible not to discuss this issue without some crossover.

But once someone has posted their issue, it's time to move on. Shifting this thread to the pro-con discussion is a waste of everyone's time.

Cynic

14th February 2010, 02:32 AM

Yes, Ed looks at the issue too simply. The point was the video - unscientific reporter trying to muddy what someone with actual training with weather has to say.

Trying to? Why assume that? He's could be just "looking at the issue too simply", right?

I'm not sure if that was a slip up or an attempt to construct a strawman. I'm guessing this aside is because you thought I placed faith in Ed's analysis. My fault, I should have added that caveat.

I'm not sure if you're genuinely not sure, or if you just like to let people know you think the person you're talking to might be dishonest. Because really, how else could statements like that be interpreted? The aside is because your link contained an even more extreme example of the very phenomenon you were trying to point out. The fact that you posted it hoping to show the trend in the "opposition" gives the impression that you're less critical of your own side. I'm not sure of that, naturally.

There are two problems with this line of thinking. One of them is that it buys into the illusion of science as an objective process pliable to cold, hard rationality. In many ways this is true, but in several others it is false. Grant money, personal credibility, and career opportunities are all priorities scientists juggle, and coincidentally all of them have come into the light over the last few months in the climate field. The emails revealed how bigwig scientists tried to nip dissent in the bud and how they pumped hot air into outrageous predictions in order to keep their millions in grant money.

The consensus on this could have evolved in any number of ways, but this is where we are. Science is an objective process, for the most part. When there hundreds and thousands of people all around the world looking at the same data and collecting their own independently, frauds will be found out. To suggest otherwise is to invoke a conspiracy theory. Of course, nothing like this can influence mere opinion, right?

Pew did some interesting surveys last year. Here's a link:

http://people-press.org/report/528/

http://people-press.org/reports/images/528-52.gif

As we can see above, a mere 12% of scientists in general identified as Republican or leaning Republican.

http://people-press.org/reports/images/528-62.gif

Above, we see that at least 85% of the general population feels there is a global warming phenomenon versus at least 94% of scientists. Only 4% of scientists indicated that they felt the Earth was not getting warmer.

http://people-press.org/reports/images/528-63.gif

Finally, this shows us that of the breakdown by party affiliation of people in the general public who feel that the Earth is not getting warmer -- 24% for Republicans versus 4% for Democrats versus 9% for Independents.

Unfortunately, there isn't enough information here to determine what percentage of actual climate scientists who are active in climate research feel that the Earth isn't warming, although this article here...

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/

... suggests that 97% of them agree that humans are causing it, thereby implying that only 3% of them are left to break down into categories of "the Earth isn't warming", "I don't know", and "piss off".

Want to guess what percentage of them are Republican? I wouldn't dare, but we can crunch some numbers to provide context. Let's assume that there is no bias at all. This is a laughable assumption (4% versus 24% in the general population, remember), but please bear with me. If 4% of scientists believe there is no global warming and 12% of scientists are Republican or lean Republican and there is no bias, that means fewer than 0.5% of Republican or Republican-leaning scientists think the Earth is not warming. Remember, this number would be even lower among active climate scientists.

So, let's say you're one of the conservative media members of which the topic of this thread speaks of who are trying to deny that the Earth is warming by pointing out the recent blizzards. As part of your extensive research on the topic, you go to a science convention where there are two hundred scientists in attendance and interview the scientists who agree with your opinion. There are eight of them. You gather them them in a room and to break the ice you show them the Obama/Joker button you had made and quickly discover that only one of them voted for McCain. One guy -- out of 200. Weird, huh? What are the chances that you've got the only eight guys at the convention who don't believe that global warming is a real phenomenon and seven of them voted Democrat? Pretty damned slim if you ask me.

Where I'm going with all this is that the primary forces acting against scientific objectivity are political and corporate -- not necessarily in that order, but certainly intertwined. In that CNN article above reporting on the 2008 survey of climate scientists, 82% of them thought that human activity contributed to global warming yet only 47% of petroleum industry scientists thought so, a difference of 35%! Bias? I think so. The academic and government world has no particular vested interest in helping to wreck the economy and put people out of jobs. But petroleum scientists are probably somewhat focused on theirs and like to sleep better at night. This kind of bias is far, far more powerful and evident than anything you mentioned.

Those "bigwig scientists" have many people working for them, peer review, and multiple institutional and governmental agencies actively working to keep them honest. There really isn't much incentive for them to lie and lose their careers because the institutions they represent don't have a vested interest in seeing them come up with one result or another. Even if we wanted to suggest that the US government -- where most of that sort of grant money comes from -- was pushing them for particular results, consider that since 1980, 20 out of 28 years were under Republican administrations, and under the last one, scientists operating under government grants were actively discouraged from reporting results that differed from the party line:

http://people-press.org/reports/images/528-49.gif

The other problem is that you are still trying to use suggestive language to position yourself. Everyone does this, of course, but in matters such as this it crops up more IMO.

And you're still trying suggest that I'm not honest and resort to rhetorical parlor tricks. I'm not using "suggestive language", I'm differentiating between political pundits wearing silly scientist costumes they bought at Toys-R-Us and scientists with, like, degrees and stuff.

What do you mean by "real scientists?" Climate scientists, scientists in general, or engineers? Curiously, the current head of the IPCC is a railway engineer. One of the major faces of the AGW PR in America is Bill Nye, a mechanical engineer. Much of the IPCC's predictions now being torn apart were made by advocacy groups like the WWF. This is a serious problem. Now on the other side, we have people like statistical mathematicians who try to tease out what they believe are tricks in the data. That's comparable to engineering. (Yes, we also have our pundits and pols.) But there are also people like this guy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen) Yes, we have real scientists too.

Bill Nye's degree and early work experience doesn't quite define what he's gone on to do. He's a science educator, and does so on the gamut of science disciplines. As such, he's able to understand and interpret scientific papers -- something I defy the likes of Glen Beck to do. I also doubt seriously that the current head of the IPCC isn't science literate or uninformed as well. You'll recall a recent head of FEMA was a lawyer turned horse organization commissioner who is now a radio talk show host. That, of course, has nothing to do with anything, except to say that sometimes people are hired for their ability to administrate, not to do the work. No one expected old Brownie to get out and start slinging sand bags himself.

As for statistical tricks in the data, check out this trick:

http://geology.com/news/images/climate-change-graph.jpg

I mean, finding the trend there is like, impossible. ;)

Look, I know you're (probably) not saying that there is no global warming at all, just saying there are possibly legitimate reasons to question that the impact human activity is having on it. As far as I'm concerned, it's a good thing to question, if only because we need to understand it. I can't see how we're not, collectively, what with our emissions, deforestation, run off, etc, but vagueness and assumption are bad science. We need to understand the specifics, even if those specifics tell us we can't impact nature. Of course, even if we can't, even lesser animals don't foul their own nests.

But the thread topic is about whether or not these TV and internet pundits are playing to the ignorant or actually ignorant. Says so right in the title. :) Further, the topic isn't AGW, but just GW. Given the extreme paucity of scientists who don't believe that the Earth is getting warmer, these pundits that we're talking about are either desperately grasping at straws and reporting their doubts as fact, cynically plying their audiences with any old thing that will convince them to remain in-line with their party, or they're well, idiots. With the exception of a lot of bloggers, I tend to think that people savvy enough to become newscasters or get their own commentary show are at least capable of processing basic explanations, which again calls either their honesty or laziness into question -- or both.

Far from mindlessly sucking at the teat of mainstream science and hoping the glow will rub off on them, most journalists report that global warming is real because that's the only responsible thing to report. AGW might be a different thing, but it also a different topic and also really, if you study those Pew Poll results, not that different so far as consensus is concerned, even if the specifics are lacking. As the CNN article notes, the implications of these polls is the more scientists learn about global climate, the more convinced they are of it. By implying that mainstream journalists are remiss at reporting like they do, it is as if you're placing them at that conference with the 200 scientists and mocking them for siding with the 196 of them that agree.

stevea

14th February 2010, 10:06 PM

One hundred percent correct to say that the storm was caused by global warming.

The catastrophe that followed was caused by Ronald Reagan.

Your belief that Reagan, then dead some 15 months, controlled the response to katrina is either mysticism or more Lefty derangement syndrome.

It is not the business of the federal government to bail out or rebuild incompetently managed states. The desert states don't demand federal money to manage droughts, California doesn't generally use federal funds for their very common wildfires, I don't hear the cold weather states from Wyoming to New England begging for a federal bail-out time they get a blizzard. When it comes to the more predictable pattern of the Missisippi and gulf hurricanes, the idea I'm supposed to reach into my pocket and pay for idiots who want to live below sea level on a gulf in a hurricane zone is moronic. It's a stupid paternalistic attitude. When and if the Feds become responsible for managing ALL natural disasters in the US then we can talk about Federal blame. As I read the Constitutiion this is 100% a state/local issue.

I pay a lot of extra local & state taxes to plough snow spread salt, repair roads from the massive winter damage, to heat schools and public buildings. That's b/c *I choose to live in a cold climate. I have no intention of bailing-out the Miss & La residents who choose to live in a zone where hurricane damage is predictable yet refuse to take reasonable precautions and insure against the clear, obvious possibility.

Now I am in favor of using any non-critical government (including fed) resources to pull ppl out of urgent situations, even if cause by their own stupidity, but it is NOT a federal responsibility and never has been. Face it mayor Nagin scr*wed the pooch when he failed to start the New Orleans evac accordng to plan. Complaing that the Fed failed at katrina is just as silly as to say the US fed failed to plan for Haiti - NEWS FLASH - it's not their job

====

WRT the climate shout-down (can hardly be called a debate), the bit that annoys me is that every moron who perhaps passed HS science but nothing more, KNOWS that Global Warming is a settled fact. Like yours Lefty, these opinions are based primarily on hearsay and anecdote.

Where I live, we are now getting weather far warmer than we are supposed to get. Says who ? You, your Grandmoher, some guess based on fishing patterns ? Climatic cycles are vastly longer that you imagine. We may be seeing a temporary blip or we may be seeing a rapid change in the longer pattern. It's impossible to say without further evidence.

Do learn the difference between climate and weather.

Yes you should. Perhaps the most interesting and extreme ice age occurred ~850Million yrs ago. The last ice age started increasing the polar caps ~85M yrs ago. The best real evidence is the ice cores going back <1M yrs. If you think your anecdote about fishing in the past 20yr is relevant to climate you're a candidate for remedial thinking.

The consensus on this could have evolved in any number of ways, but this is where we are. Science is an objective process, for the most part.

Except when it is a highly political process, which climate science certainly is. Look at the scienticists of the mid 20th century supporting pro-NAZI ideology on eugenics or racial characteristics and you'll see that otherwise impressive scientists are just as subject to personal/political bias as any set of bloggers. The correct view is that without a semblence of objectivity it isn't science at all. This is why the East Anglia emails are so disturbing. The CAGW principals had a clear bias not based on evidence, but causing them to "spin" their data presentation.

The argument that we should trust the IPCC head or Bill Nye or some vague consensus of scientists is just another appeal to authority. I would think that on a forum devoted to skeptical thinking that this fallacious form of argument would be immediately rejected, but it seems there are few real skeptical, critical thinkers here.

If you accept the better evidenced parts then CO2 levels have been increasing and temperatures have been warming, but correlation is not causation. Perhaps the most critical point is how do we arrive at the quantitative case for the CO2 vs temp increase except by using the current trend with it's many unique factors and numerous unknowns. Hansen has several times ignored this problem and seems to think that repeatedly sampling the same, recent climate case and coming to the same conclusions affirmations the proposition. His case is about like tasting one corked bottle of wine and concluding the WinemakerX produces plonk. Then he re-affirms this assessment by having the same corked bottle re-tasted. He incorrectly sees all evidence of warming as reinforcing the anthropomorphic assertion. It's a serious question, but there is nothing clear-cut about the quantitative anthropomorphic extent of responsibility. Things like ice cores are certainly better evidence than tree rings, but any data source that peters out after 700k - 900k years isn't really particularly useful to the big question. Many of the data sources also have mechanisms that would naturally reduce and short term anomalies.

As always "anthropomorphic global warming" assertion (or whatever the current PC term is) must be falsifiable to even be considered a scientific theory. In what way is it falsifiable ? It also must make predictions (i.e. explain other, perhaps past observation) in a convincing with minimal new presuppositions to pass occams razor. This is where politics creeps in; is CAGW the best/simplest explanation or is it merely the politically acceptable explanation of the era. Even if correct ppl like Gore have done more to harm the case than help.

Most of the papers I've seen (and I've reviewed the NASA/Hansen code) is based on the creation of software models that are purposely designed to replicate recent past data. As a result they predict the recent past quite nicely. It's the 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' error to consider these as evidence that the models are correct in any other context (like the future). Anyone can make a model to show anything yet still match the data, and certainly the climate modellers are serious and use the imperfect knowledge that is available well, BUT the public seems ignorant of the shortcomings of these models. There were 18% and 17% tweaks to two major factors in the NASA physics model on late 2007. No one has a reasonably verifiable model of water/albedo.

So yes - there are serious gaps in our knowledge and necessarily gaps in our confidence about the CAGW claim. Only the fools are certain. The Tao te Ching says something about the Toa like "those who know do not speak, those who speak do not know". This could just as well apply to anthropomorphic climate contention.

GreyICE

14th February 2010, 10:23 PM

Francesca R

15th February 2010, 12:43 AM

Wow what a scientific post. I am overwhelmed.

How pathetic. Well done for revealing your posturing stance. You help make my point about the error in the op.

Francesca R

15th February 2010, 12:51 AM

GreyICE

15th February 2010, 02:17 AM

Wow what a scientific post. I am overwhelmed.

How pathetic. Well done for revealing your posturing stance. You help make my point about the error in the op.

:rolleyes:

What response do you suppose is valid to this? It's insane. We've had 4 decades of warming. Do you doubt this? The greenhouse effect and the effects of CO2 release as a theory has its origins before the 70s, but was seriously proposed and studied beginning then. Do you doubt this?

Which one of those two points is controversial? I'm stating things that anyone should know. I don't feel the need to give a 'scientific' response to reality denial, any more than I feel the need to post peer reviewed studies on why Bigfoot did not assassinate JFK.

Cynic

15th February 2010, 05:39 AM

The consensus on this could have evolved in any number of ways, but this is where we are. Science is an objective process, for the most part.

Except when it is a highly political process, which climate science certainly is.

What you need to ask yourself is, why is it a highly politicized process? It can certainly be said that opinions on this matter shift to the benefit of those who would suffer from trying to acknowledge it. As noted in my previous post, there's a 35% opinion shift in the direction of petroleum scientists from other scientists and a 62% shift from petroleum scientists from climatologists who actively research climatology. Coincidence or bias? Don't even bother embarrass yourself trying to show that's it's not bias. They think what they do because it is inconvenient of them to think otherwise and they lack the understanding of the data necessary to show otherwise.

And is the 97% confidence on the part of active climatologists coincidence? To properly consider the question of why this is a politicized topic, you want to wonder what's in it for anyone to show that global warming exists. Regardless of how biased the climatologists might be, it's conspiracy-theory level thinking to suggest that they're only coming out with the data and interpretations they do to keep themselves in their jobs. Let me repeat that:
Regardless of how biased the climatologists might be, it's conspiracy-theory level thinking to suggest that they're only coming out with the data and interpretations they do to keep themselves in their jobs.

So what's in it for them? How is it convenient for them to think that it's getting warmer?

As to the rest of your post, this threat is not about AWG and I'm not going to discuss it because the OP explicitly suggests not to. If you agree that global warming is real and disagree on the cause of it, fine. It is warming. You can talk about alternate theories to explain away how greenhouse gases, albedo, surface water area, and the lifeforms that made our atmosphere what it is in the first place have nothing at all to do with climate science if you want. It's insane, but have at it. But none of that explains away the very clear data that shows a warming trend -- otherwise known as global warming.

Ocelot

15th February 2010, 06:24 AM

Haiti
http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/hurricane-ike-47090901

And Katrina
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1099102,00.html

This is just one example of each, but searching brings up much more.

That's the thing about searching, it tends to get results. But to find out if they're really relevant you have to read them. For example say you were looking for an example of someone blaming the Haitian earthquake of 12 January 2010 on Global Warming you might search for

Haiti global warming (http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Haiti+global+warming)

and there right at the top is a link to an article titled "In Haiti, a Disaster for the Global Warming Era - thedailygreen.com"

So of course there's your example.

Except if you continued reading just to the next line You'd see a date. 9 Sep 2008.

You might then suspect that article dated a year and a bit before the earthquake hit might instead be taking about hurricanes.

Hurricanes are a weather phenomenon that might just conceivably bear a link to climate change.

I'm no climate scientist but I do know that there are climate scientists who've suggested that global warming is responsible for the increased number of hurricanes observed as the decades progress.

Of course global warming doesn't get to say whether these hurricanes hit land. And when some of them do hit land it's still down to the lady of fortune whether they hit a densely populated area. However the more hurricanes there are, the more chances blind luck gets to roll snake eyes for a big city. Then it's down to us how well defended the city is against foreseeable flood risks and how well we respond to the event.

So there was far more to Katrina than an increased number of hurricanes in the Atlantic but there is a link

Ocelot

15th February 2010, 06:50 AM

So here instead is what happens if you include earthquake in the search instead.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2010/01/16/actor-danny-glover-blames-global-warming-earthquake-haiti

Close but it's not entirely clear that Danny Glover thinks global warming affects the motions of tectonic plates. He's may be just using the opportunity to get on his hobby horse saying that Global Warming can cause similar disasters, he may be confused or considering this proposed link (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327273.800-climate-change-may-trigger-earthquakes-and-volcanoes.html?full=true) between climate change any plate tectonics or he might be suggesting some sort of Karmic reaction from Gaia due to the lack-luster results of the Copenhagen Summit. Frankly I don't know or care.

Cynic

15th February 2010, 07:29 AM

Close but it's not entirely clear that Danny Glover thinks global warming affects the motions of tectonic plates. He's may be just using the opportunity to get on his hobby horse saying that Global Warming can cause similar disasters, he may be confused or considering this proposed link (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327273.800-climate-change-may-trigger-earthquakes-and-volcanoes.html?full=true) between climate change any plate tectonics or he might be suggesting some sort of Karmic reaction from Gaia due to the lack-luster results of the Copenhagen Summit. Frankly I don't know or care.

I'm not sure either. It's probably a little premature to suggest global warming is causing more earthquakes that usual, or if cooling would do the same thing or if homeostasis of any sort of prevent them either, save the solidification of the mantel. I expect earthquakes would happen regardless, just as all other weather does.

All that said, it's not as if they wouldn't necessarily be affected by what goes on top-side. Earthquakes occur at rift sites and can be precipitated by erosion. The factors causing the plates to move include temperature, which certainly changes with global warming and cooling cycles. Another important factor on plates is weight. Global cooling and warming cycles (whatever their cause!) redistribute that weight, melting it from one area, adding it to the oceans, then also adding it to other lands that aren't used to it in the form of additional rain and snow.

So of course this can cause earthquakes. It might be premature to start crowing about it though.

Skeptic Ginger

15th February 2010, 10:52 AM

Wow what a scientific post. I am overwhelmed.

How pathetic. Well done for revealing your posturing stance. You help make my point about the error in the op.Now that you've said your peace that you object to the premise global warming is well supported by the scientific evidence, how about addressing the actual OP, that of the ignorance of stating the DC snowstorm proves Al Gore wrong?

The problems with unseasonably warm weather at the Canadian winter Olympic game sites is evidence you cannot use any single localized weather event as evidence of global climate.

Skeptic Ginger

15th February 2010, 10:58 AM

I am pretty sure it is an illegitimate appeal for the OP to make an eminently challengable statement only to declare it as immediately not to be discussed. In that case--as I have said--it would be far better not to make it in the first place.

To be clear, I said, "Please go away if you want to argue against the overwhelming science."

It's my opinion, so what? There are multiple threads on AGW. Why insist on making any related discussions a repeat of the arguments one can read elsewhere? How boring!

Skeptic Ginger

15th February 2010, 11:07 AM

That's the thing about searching, it tends to get results. But to find out if they're really relevant you have to read them. For example say you were looking for an example of someone blaming the Haitian earthquake of 12 January 2010 on Global Warming you might search for

Haiti global warming (http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Haiti+global+warming)

and there right at the top is a link to an article titled "In Haiti, a Disaster for the Global Warming Era - thedailygreen.com"

So of course there's your example.

Except if you continued reading just to the next line You'd see a date. 9 Sep 2008.

You might then suspect that article dated a year and a bit before the earthquake hit might instead be taking about hurricanes.

Hurricanes are a weather phenomenon that might just conceivably bear a link to climate change.

I'm no climate scientist but I do know that there are climate scientists who've suggested that global warming is responsible for the increased number of hurricanes observed as the decades progress.

Of course global warming doesn't get to say whether these hurricanes hit land. And when some of them do hit land it's still down to the lady of fortune whether they hit a densely populated area. However the more hurricanes there are, the more chances blind luck gets to roll snake eyes for a big city. Then it's down to us how well defended the city is against foreseeable flood risks and how well we respond to the event.

So there was far more to Katrina than an increased number of hurricanes in the Atlantic but there is a linkI totally agree there's enough ignorance on both sides of the isle to go around. The Huffington Post contains bad medicine ignorance on a regular basis.

But hunting for obscure crazies isn't really analogous. No one took Glover's comments seriously and even though he's a celebrity, he doesn't represent a left wing point of view people follow on a regular basis. I've never heard of TheDailyGreen but it appears to be a commercial site peddling products. Again, that's not analogous to a talking head people go to regularly for left wing view points.

You need quotes from HuffPo, Daily Kos, The Nation, and other left leaning sources which are considered left wing mainstream opinion sources. You could argue Beck and Limbaugh aren't mainstream, but they do represent right wing mainstream.

Skeptic Ginger

15th February 2010, 11:10 AM

Skeptic Ginger

15th February 2010, 11:14 AM

...It's probably a little premature to suggest global warming is causing more earthquakes that usual, ...While I have not yet read that NewScientist article (and don't intend to), melting large glaciers does result in the crust rebounding. This has nothing to do with Haiti, of course, nor with Glover's bizarre statement.

leftysergeant

15th February 2010, 11:15 AM

Your belief that Reagan, then dead some 15 months, controlled the response to katrina is either mysticism or more Lefty derangement syndrome.Reagan was the dimmwit who started dismantling and selling off every government operation he could lay hands on.

The lack of governmental infrastructure in palce todeal with the mess, the lack of government oversight on the emergency preparedness and response is on his rotting head.

[QUOTE]It is not the business of the federal government to bail out or rebuild incompetently managed states. The desert states don't demand federal money to manage droughts, California doesn't generally use federal funds for their very common wildfires,

You couldn't grow lettuce in Arizona without water from federal projects. Get som facts before you spew. Most timberrlands in the USA is managed by the federal government. Reagan turned as much control over these lands back to the states as he could.

Reagan and the Shrub opened the gates to even more development of wetlands, which meant too much water in the river. They can't even duck the bullet on that one.

You sound like a victim of Goals 2000 education, taught to the test. Reading comprehension seems not to be your strong suit. The federal government is charged with creating laws to "promote the general welfare." Farmers in Michigan made the flood in New Orleans worse. Why should they not bear some of the cost of clean-up?

WRT the climate shout-down (can hardly be called a debate), the bit that annoys me is that every moron who perhaps passed HS science but nothing more, KNOWS that Global Warming is a settled fact. Like yours Lefty, these opinions are based primarily on hearsay and anecdote.

My opinion is based on the compiled research and modelling of minds more competant than all of the rightwad squawk radio blathermeisters and corpoorate-owned congress critters put toghether. If it comes out of the mouth of Loofa Boy, Slant-head Hannity, Andrew Breitbart, the Coulter critter or the fat deaf euncuh, I can usually dismiss it as solid BS without fear of contradiction by anyone of any real intelligence.

leftysergeant

15th February 2010, 11:19 AM

While I have not yet read that NewScientist article (and don't intend to), melting large glaciers does result in the crust rebounding. This has nothing to do with Haiti, of course, nor with Glover's bizarre statement.

There is so little ice left on the surface that it will not likely result in the kind of rebounding that occurred at the end of the Pleistocene.

I thought the Glover was referring to how ill-prepared the world is to respond to the effects of global warming, as reflected in the sorry state of emergency operations in Haiti.

Cynic

15th February 2010, 11:23 AM

While I have not yet read that NewScientist article (and don't intend to), melting large glaciers does result in the crust rebounding. This has nothing to do with Haiti, of course, nor with Glover's bizarre statement.

For places like Haiti, I was mainly suggesting that increased rains might affect fault-lines, and that increased water levels in the world's oceans would necessarily result in increased pressure on the portions of the plates underwater, pretty much everywhere. Essentially, anything that allows the crust to rebound in one place will cause it to depress elsewhere -- even if the impact would be considerably distributed. I have no idea how much of a metaphorical drop in the buck those additional stresses are compared to mantel currents and the like.

leftysergeant

15th February 2010, 11:30 AM

Essentially, anything that allows the crust to rebound in one place will cause it to depress elsewhere -- even if the impact would be considerably distributed.

I have heard that El Nino is the result of the cyclical piling=up of sea water in the Indian ocean by the Trade Winds, and their subsequent levelling-out when the pattern of the winds changes. Seems to me even an inch of extra water over a thousand square miles has to weigh a bit.

Maybe someone with better math skills than mine could do a chart of techtonic activity in relation to El Nino/La Nina phenommena, perhaps with high tides data as well.

stevea

15th February 2010, 06:57 PM

Holy crap. Global Warming was codified and explained as a theory in the 1970s. It predicted that the globe would warm.

We have now had four *********** decades of warming, and there's still people who are claiming that there's no observations?

What the hell? I mean seriously, can this claim even be looked at as anything other than utterly delusional? It seems less realistic to me than the claim that antimatter brought down the trade centers, or that Obama was born in Kenya.

Seriously, what planet are some people living on?

You are one of the top three StrawManGenerators on Randi.org. I am trying to critique the form of the argument, not argue the points. This has nothing to do with recent observation. No one here is denying that temps are increasing over recent decades, nor that CO2 levels are increasing, nor that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The question remains are the excess human sources of CO2 sufficient to quantitatively explain the expected amount of warming WITHOUT back referencing the same dataset - that is without the post hoc ergo propter hoc sorts of arguments that the 'models' represent..

The point is that there are many steps which must be evidenced to get to the CAGW conclusions, and you only want to talk about the several that are reasonably certain while ignorig the hard points which are still quite hazy.

:rolleyes:

I don't really care what your very emotional response is, nor do I care what the masses of ignorami believe. It's simply not relevant. The question is how do we corroborate Hansen's quantitative correlation as causal, and show that it is not in part or whole coincidence.

What response do you suppose is valid to this? It's insane. We've had 4 decades of warming. Do you doubt this?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html#ixzz0fWRsdTRR

A theory that correlates for 40 years and then fails for 15 yrs is not the sort that anyone should use as an argument to revise the planet's economies.

The greenhouse effect and the effects of CO2 release as a theory has its origins before the 70s, but was seriously proposed and studied beginning then. Do you doubt this? I don't care if Moses chiselled it onto a tablet 3000 yrs ago - the age of a theory is unrelated to it's validity/invalidity. What illogic !

Which one of those two points is controversial? I'm stating things that anyone should know. I don't feel the need to give a 'scientific' response to reality denial, any more than I feel the need to post peer reviewed studies on why Bigfoot did not assassinate JFK. You are the one "in denial" here. You are forced to create strawmen arguments, and propose illogical arguments from the tiny few decades of correlating data while ignoring non-correlating data to your age_of_theory=venerability concept. Come back when you can point to quantitative evidence that the CO2/temp relationship is reasonably accurate, causal and not coincidental. Evidence is the stuff of science not this woo.

====

What you need to ask yourself is, why is it a highly politicized process? It can certainly be said that opinions on this matter shift to the benefit of those who would suffer from trying to acknowledge it. As noted in my previous post, there's a 35% opinion shift in the direction of petroleum scientists from other scientists and a 62% shift from petroleum scientists from climatologists who actively research climatology. Coincidence or bias? Don't even bother embarrass yourself trying to show that's it's not bias. They think what they do because it is inconvenient of them to think otherwise and they lack the understanding of the data necessary to show otherwise.

You are clearly showing your own bias here, but seem oblivious to it. Yes petro employees may reasonably be suspected of having a bias, but you ignore the equally potent bias the other way by academics. A more accurate statement is that both sides display substantial biases in their arguments (not just those "who would suffer from trying to acknowledge it"). Don't YOU try to deny it.

This was the point of my comment. Truth is the first casualty of war and of political debate. The opportunity to get an unbiased scientific insight has been destroyed by the politicization of the climate issue. Very sad too.

Regardless of how biased the climatologists might be, it's conspiracy-theory level thinking to suggest that they're only coming out with the data and interpretations they do to keep themselves in their jobs.

Wake up ! What we clearly saw in the East Anglia emails was evidence of an actual conspiracy.

"I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't... Our observing system is inadequate"

"Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise."

This is clearly conspiracy (not just a theory) to spin/present the data in a particular way based on a preconceived belief, and to prevent others from publishing contrary thoughts in the more respected journal. Given that there is clear evidence of a conspiracy I'll leave it to you to suss out the motives. I could speculate, but the motives really don't matter.

So what's in it for them? How is it convenient for them to think that it's getting warmer?

Great question - why did four notable academics actually ruin their careers for this political bias ? It's your question to answer, and it's not hypothetical.

As to the rest of your post, this threat is not about AWG and I'm not going to discuss it because the OP explicitly suggests not to. If you agree that global warming is real and disagree on the cause of it, fine. It is warming. You can talk about alternate theories to explain away how greenhouse gases, albedo, surface water area, and the lifeforms that made our atmosphere what it is in the first place have nothing at all to do with climate science if you want. It's insane, but have at it. But none of that explains away the very clear data that shows a warming trend -- otherwise known as global warming.

I suggest a course in reading for comprehension with GreyIce. My arguments were germane to the lack of a complete chain of reasoning. The argument in favor of GW is incomplete but the average person seems smugly satisfied to be told 10% of the issue then they wander off like sheep, nodding yes to complex proposition they do not understand and spouting their proselytyzing Algorims. That is not critical think and is not rational scepticism.

If YOU would care to PM me with YOUR references or evidence that the quantitative CO2/temp relationship of Hansen is causal I will gladly point out your erroneous thinking or else admit my error. I doubt you understand the issue.

===

Your belief that Reagan, then dead some 15 months, controlled the response to katrina is either mysticism or more Lefty derangement syndrome.Reagan was the dimmwit who started dismantling and selling off every government operation he could lay hands on.

The lack of governmental infrastructure in palce todeal with the mess, the lack of government oversight on the emergency preparedness and response is on his rotting head.

Then we both agree you have Lefty derangement syndrome. Obviously the Fed has no responsibility to do many of the things it currently does, including disaster relief. It is sensible then to release this responsibility to the states as rapidly as can be accomplished.

You couldn't grow lettuce in Arizona without water from federal projects. Get som facts before you spew. Most timberrlands in the USA is managed by the federal government.

So you agree the fed government has absolutely no charter to do these things. and that makes me wrong ? NOT ! Why should my/our tax $$ go to growing lettuce in the desert ? Now much timber is on Federal (not state owned) lands and they have a responsibility to manage these, that's a secondary issue. You haven't contradicted any point I have made. Yes I am aware of the water issue. If ppl want to grow lettuce in the desert is should be up to them, not you and I to subsidize this activity. Otherwise we end up with all these insanely un-economical activities at government expense. The fact that the fed should not do these things does not mean that it has not, and I never suggested otherwise. BTW the Salt River Project started as a Fed program under T.Roosevelt, not Reagan or Bush. I am no fan of any of these three, but at least I can see the issue without your devolution into frothing on the floor.

Reagan and the Shrub opened the gates to even more development of wetlands, which meant too much water in the river. They can't even duck the bullet on that one.
Draining swamps, and the various impacts has been going on since ancient Rome. And in the US since pre1800 So what ? If your state wants to drain swamps I don't see any evidence that the fed should have any say in the issue. OUtside of DC, It's YOUR problem to deal with.

You sound like a victim of Goals 2000 education, taught to the test. Reading comprehension seems not to be your strong suit. The federal government is charged with creating laws to "promote the general welfare." Farmers in Michigan made the flood in New Orleans worse. Why should they not bear some of the cost of clean-up?

That causal relationship you suggest (Michigan=N.Orleans_flood) is easy to state and extremely difficult to prove. Yes if they significantly changed the watershed drainage then Michigan should pay. What does that have to do with MY federal tax dollars ? I don't live in MI or LA. It's NOT MY PROBLEM, LIABILITY nor should it be at my EXPENSE. Last time I looked at the watershed maps Michigan drained 100% into the great lakes, making your claim uh urrr stupid..

It's strange that ppl who can only think in lock-step like you continually accuse others of the same (Goals2k). You should try reading the ENTIRE constitution some day from end to end, then spend two afternoons reading the entirely of the federalist papers. Instead you take 4 words out of context and distort their meaning so badly it's absolutely WRONG. The preamble states the purpose of the doc is for the general welfare, and article 8 states that Congress can only raise taxes and excises for the common defense and general welfare. This is clearly a restriction on the things they can raise taxes for, NOT a license to do whatever is in the general welfare.

Madison in federalist #41 made this clear as possible ... [[Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.]].

You Lefty are the stooping mis-constructionist. It is proof of the distress under which you labor for distortions of the Federal powers by attempting to use 4 words out of context for your progressive socialist misinterpretation. You can't even be bothered to read the basis of our government before lecturing others on your (now repeated) erroneous misinterpretation of "general welfare". The Fed is NOT chartered to do whatever is in the "general welfare" and no sane person could read this otherwise in context. The limited powers are succinctly stated in the same Constitutional that you failed to read.

My opinion is based on the compiled research and modelling of minds more competant than all of the rightwad squawk radio blathermeisters and corpoorate-owned congress critters put toghether. If it comes out of the mouth of Loofa Boy, Slant-head Hannity, Andrew Breitbart, the Coulter critter or the fat deaf euncuh, I can usually dismiss it as solid BS without fear of contradiction by anyone of any real intelligence.

Yes your brilliant research at the temples of Rachel Maddow & Keith Olbermann are evident. The lucid intelligence of someone who cannot understand even the very basic mechanisms of our Constitution are clear too. Open a book sometime. Just for the record (sic) I don't listen to Hannity, nor Beck (do the others even have shows ?) nor talk radio - so you are earning an F- this go-round. Your error is that you assume that since I oppose the your old-fashioned liberal/progressive ideas that therefore I am a conventional right winger - so very wrong. I'm certainly far to the left of you when it comes to civil rights, personal liberty and the rights of individuals above the state - you are the one in favor of less freedom and less personal rights in favor of an overbearing federal government; IOW you are a disgusting conservative to me. You are so clueless that you insult republican presidents assuming, incorrectly, that I care. If you want to diss' "Bush Lite" for his many many faults I'll stand shoulder to shoulder, curse to curse with you, but be prepared to hear me diss' "Bush Dark" for continuing many of the same stupid policies, ignoring the constituents and grossly expanding the use of federal power. It seems each bush is progressively worse, tho' bush3 is slightly more articulate and can pronounce nuclear.

FWIW the GW guys like GreyIce make the same mistake. I am not rejecting the GW thesis. I am suggesting the logical moorings have weak points. G'Ice can't read either so he claims I am denying basic warming or actual evidence - Duh !! You two can't get past your preconceived notions long enough to offer a coherent rebuttal to the actual argument. So much for "critical thinking" or thinking at all.

The Central Scrutinizer

15th February 2010, 07:41 PM

Edited for rule 11.

Newtons Bit

15th February 2010, 07:46 PM

Are there people in this thread seriously arguing that global warming has something to do with earthquakes?:eek:

Cynic

15th February 2010, 08:02 PM

Are there people in this thread seriously arguing that global warming has something to do with earthquakes?:eek:

Only to the extent that an earthquake caused by the sudden movement along a fault where the plates had previously been stuck, and that any factor contributing to that unsticking can be considered, by definition, a contributing factor or "cause". Temperature drives an awful lot of things, and many of those things can contribute to plates becoming unstuck. I'd never hazard any guesses at specific culpability -- I don't know that much about it. But it's reasonable enough on the surface that yeah, changes in temperature could definitely "cause" an earthquake. If the Earth froze solid, there would be no more earthquakes. If it roasted, there would be more as the mantel grew and the plates and their contents changed weight. It's still dumb to point to what has been observed and say "oooo, that caused an earthquake in Haiti!", but denying Earth's surface temperature can be a factor in their production is just as dumb.

skeptical

15th February 2010, 08:11 PM

To the OP: most of them are entertainers and probably don't care or understand the science to speak about it intelligently, they just know what their audience wants to hear and that most of their audience is probably more ignorant on the topic than they are and so they can safely make up anything they want. Others are genuinely ignorant and blindly partisan. (Beck comes to mind)

To the rest: as far as "settled" science goes, The basics of AGW is as close to settled as we are likely to get absent new data of earthshaking proportions.

1) All available data indicates the planet is warming and at a rate never before seen (based on temp reconstructions and ice core samples going back hundreds of thousands of years).
2) GW is a prediction based on the expected release of copious amounts of sequestered CO2.
3) Copious amounts of CO2 have been and are being released at amounts greater than the ability of natural carbon sinks to absorb based on all available measurements.
4) The increase in the atmospheric CO2 matches the expected carbon isotope footprint if it had been released by human emissions.
5) CO2 blocks the planets ability to radiate infrared radiation, and the laws of physics requires the global avg temp to increase absent a reduction in incoming solar radiation.
5) All available measurements show that the amount of solar radiation reaching the planets surface has remained stable or increased slightly.
6) All other reasonable causes of the increasing temperature have been examined and eliminated as potential causes of GW.

Draw your own conclusions.

skeptical

15th February 2010, 08:27 PM

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html#ixzz0fWRsdTRR

A theory that correlates for 40 years and then fails for 15 yrs is not the sort that anyone should use as an argument to revise the planet's economies.

I hate to break it to you, but the Daily Mail is pure rubbish.

Here are the actual temp charts for the relevant time periods, the theory has not "failed" for 15 years. I could also point out that NASA just announced a few weeks ago that the last decade was the warmest on record, but that hardly seems necessary.

Charts are taken from here: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/riddle-me-this/
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/giss2.jpg

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/uah2.jpg

GreyICE

15th February 2010, 09:15 PM

You are one of the top three StrawManGenerators on Randi.org. I am trying to critique the form of the argument, not argue the points. This has nothing to do with recent observation. No one here is denying that temps are increasing over recent decades, nor that CO2 levels are increasing, nor that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The question remains are the excess human sources of CO2 sufficient to quantitatively explain the expected amount of warming WITHOUT back referencing the same dataset - that is without the post hoc ergo propter hoc sorts of arguments that the 'models' represent..

By the way, just to put this lie in context:

As always "anthropomorphic global warming" assertion (or whatever the current PC term is) must be falsifiable to even be considered a scientific theory. In what way is it falsifiable ? It also must make predictions (i.e. explain other, perhaps past observation) in a convincing with minimal new presuppositions to pass occams razor. This is where politics creeps in; is CAGW the best/simplest explanation or is it merely the politically acceptable explanation of the era. Even if correct ppl like Gore have done more to harm the case than help.

So right there you absolutely deny that Global Warming predicted warming 4 decades ago and that those predictions came true.

But hey, you almost found a Daily Mail article that might have supported you. Dredging the bottom of the barrel are we?

stevea

15th February 2010, 09:22 PM

I hate to break it to you, but the Daily Mail is pure rubbish.

Then look on the BBC website where the same appears. Are you denying the quote ?

Here are the actual temp charts for the relevant time periods, the theory has not "failed" for 15 years. I could also point out that NASA just announced a few weeks ago that the last decade was the warmest on record, but that hardly seems necessary.
...

Do you even comprehend the issue ? The theory predicts a temp increase with CO2 increase. The CO2 did increase, yet the temps are flat, very slightly decreasing according to Jones. This is NOT supportive evidence, it is perhaps contradictory evidence but we'd need to evaluate that. The fact that is has not been explained leads reasonable people to doubt that the "models" can be sufficiently accurate to rely on. If the theories 3C/doubing specific is not accurate then the catastrophic claims must be discounted too.

Your "hottest decade" comment is exactly the same silly argument the "anti-GW"s make when they point to a new record cold day and claim it disproves GW. Yes we rationally expect that a hottest decade can occur when temps are at a high plateau range. That does not mean the 15 avg is increasing in accordance with the theory. It is not supportive of the specific theory.

Ocelot

16th February 2010, 02:41 AM

Are there people in this thread seriously arguing that global warming has something to do with earthquakes?:eek:

No.

Only the Straw Men propped up by Global Warming Deniers just so they can be knocked down again. One of those straw men did utter "I'm too old for this ******" but he's not in this thread. Another made a tentative treatise on the redistribution of weight associated with the melting of sea ice and it's possible effect on Tectonic stresses but they're not in this thread either.

All I'm doing is laughing a the denier who when propted for evidence that this wasn't a straw man offered up an article written a year and a bit before the earthquake. I tried to show him that if he'd done it propperly he'd have come up with the Danny Glover headlines but I'm in no way suggesting that these healdinhes are representitive of what Glover actually said let alone what he or other activists believe.

leftysergeant

16th February 2010, 06:06 AM

You are one of the top three StrawManGenerators on Randi.org.

Don't even try that. you are entitled to your opinion, but not your own reality.

A theory that correlates for 40 years and then fails for 15 yrs is not the sort that anyone should use as an argument to revise the planet's economies.

You have not shown that it has failed at all. Ecconomics is not relevant. You are just bleating hysterically now. The cost, if AGW is real, of curtailing it is less than the cost of its getting out of hand. Less harm will be done by eating less meat and parking the main battle tanks that we drive for our daily errands would be good for all of us at any rate.

gnoring it and pumping out more dreck in the belief that we will have tome to stop it later is playing Russian roulette with a Tokarov.

This was the point of my comment. Truth is the first casualty of war and of political debate. The opportunity to get an unbiased scientific insight has been destroyed by the politicization of the climate issue. Very sad too.

Right about something for a change. The integrity of the whole process was destroyed when some brain-damaged drunken frat boy and a drooling old nosferatu decided that ecconomists should be given more of a voice in this debate. Nothing of any certain value came out of our government in regard to the issue during that interregnum.

Wake up ! What we clearly saw in the East Anglia emails was evidence of an actual conspiracy.

No,we didn't. The hacker who handed those e-mails to the press is about as trustworthy as Breitbart's trained maggots. Inadmissible in rational debate.

Then we both agree you have Lefty derangement syndrome. Obviously the Fed has no responsibility to do many of the things it currently does, including disaster relief. It is sensible then to release this responsibility to the states as rapidly as can be accomplished.

What part of "promote the general welfare" has failed to penetrate that wall of Libertarian concrete that you have erected between yourself and reality?

So you agree the fed government has absolutely no charter to do these things. and that makes me wrong ? NOT ! Why should my/our tax $$ go to growing lettuce in the desert ? Now much timber is on Federal (not state owned) lands and they have a responsibility to manage these, that's a secondary issue. You haven't contradicted any point I have made. Yes I am aware of the water issue. If ppl want to grow lettuce in the desert is should be up to them, not you and I to subsidize this activity. Otherwise we end up with all these insanely un-economical activities at government expense. The fact that the fed should not do these things does not mean that it has not, and I never suggested otherwise. BTW the Salt River Project started as a Fed program under T.Roosevelt, not Reagan or Bush. I am no fan of any of these three, but at least I can see the issue without your devolution into frothing on the floor.

Draining swamps, and the various impacts has been going on since ancient Rome. And in the US since pre1800 So what ? If your state wants to drain swamps I don't see any evidence that the fed should have any say in the issue. OUtside of DC, It's YOUR problem to deal with.

Go read the constitutiopn again. The federal government has responsibility for the maintainence of navigible water ways. The last several jelly-brained and deranged Republicans in the White House have shrugged that off with disasterous results.

That causal relationship you suggest (Michigan=N.Orleans_flood) is easy to state and extremely difficult to prove.

Not to rational people.

Yes if they significantly changed the watershed drainage then Michigan should pay. What does that have to do with MY federal tax dollars ? I don't live in MI or LA. It's NOT MY PROBLEM, LIABILITY nor should it be at my EXPENSE.

It aint all about you. That is not how the human species was designed to function.
Madison in federalist #41...

...has no force as law.

Libertarian arguments regarding climate change have, as far as I can see, been mostly concocteded from balloon juice.

Skeptic Ginger

16th February 2010, 08:32 PM

... Essentially, anything that allows the crust to rebound in one place will cause it to depress elsewhere -- ....How so?

Glaciers are very heavy. They compress underlying gasses and solids. Release the overlying pressure and you get expansion of the gasses and solids underneath. Nothing need depress for this to occur.

Skeptic Ginger

16th February 2010, 08:33 PM

Edited for response to modded post.

Skeptic Ginger

16th February 2010, 08:41 PM

Beck and Rachel Maddow are going at each other over this. Beck began to argue he never said the DC snow "proved" global warming. His quotes reveal he's full of it, but let's say he's been misquoted and never really implied "proves".

I had to laugh because in defending his position he never said, "proved," he went on to say the snowstorm "shows a trend". He really doesn't get it.

There are two issues here. Does the snowstorm "prove" anything? Apparently Beck gets that it doesn't. But what about trends? Beck is wrong there, plain and simple, since the trend is not toward evidence against global warming. You can argue, (wrongly I believe), that the trend is not evidence of actual climate change. But you cannot argue there is no trend of increasing global temperature.

Cynic

16th February 2010, 08:58 PM

How so?

Glaciers are very heavy. They compress underlying gasses and solids. Release the overlying pressure and you get expansion of the gasses and solids underneath. Nothing need depress for this to occur.

I think I just phrased it badly. What I meant was, water-related weight doesn't just disappear -- it redistributes. Adding to the ocean level causes more pressure to everything under the ocean, more water in the ocean translates to more water in the atmosphere, which then comes down heavier and in perhaps different locations, etc. But primarily, my only point with that statement was that water weight doesn't vanish, and because of that, it will have a consequence. (I don't think we're disagreeing on that.)

peptoabysmal

16th February 2010, 08:59 PM

I am pretty sure it is an illegitimate appeal for the OP to make an eminently challengable statement only to declare it as immediately not to be discussed. In that case--as I have said--it would be far better not to make it in the first place.

Bingo. The OP is only about finding opinions that agree with her/his "scientific" opinion. Anyone who disagrees is encouraged to find another thread. hmmm.. I think I will.

Skeptic Ginger

16th February 2010, 11:36 PM

Bingo. The OP is only about finding opinions that agree with her/his "scientific" opinion. Anyone who disagrees is encouraged to find another thread. hmmm.. I think I will.That's one interpretation, but not the correct one.

'She' wants to discuss scientific ignorance as opposed to discussion of AGW and 'she' knows from forum experience certain thread topics devolve into the same tired discussions if you don't make an effort to prevent the slide.

Discussions based on cited evidence of the ignorance on either side of the political isle are fair game as long as the ignorance comes from equal levels of spokespersons for said political sides.

Skeptic Ginger

16th February 2010, 11:39 PM

I think I just phrased it badly. What I meant was, water-related weight doesn't just disappear -- it redistributes. Adding to the ocean level causes more pressure to everything under the ocean, more water in the ocean translates to more water in the atmosphere, which then comes down heavier and in perhaps different locations, etc. But primarily, my only point with that statement was that water weight doesn't vanish, and because of that, it will have a consequence. (I don't think we're disagreeing on that.)Logical, except spreading out the weight of the dispersed water may not have the same effect as the weight of the water concentrated over a smaller area of crust.

MikeMangum

17th February 2010, 01:17 PM

The right wing talking points have been echoing the stupidity that because it is snowing more than usual in DC and the surrounding areas, that proves global warming is not occurring.

This is simply skeptics playing the availability entreprenuer game that many media outlets (and even the IPCC (http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/ipcc_heatwave_2003.jpg)!) have been playing for years.

Exhibit A, the Boston Globe (http://www.boston.com/news/weather/articles/2005/08/30/katrinas_real_name/):
THE HURRICANE that struck Louisiana yesterday was nicknamed Katrina by the National Weather Service. Its real name is global warming.

When the year began with a two-foot snowfall in Los Angeles, the cause was global warming.

When 124-mile-an-hour winds shut down nuclear plants in Scandinavia and cut power to hundreds of thousands of people in Ireland and the United Kingdom, the driver was global warming.

When a severe drought in the Midwest dropped water levels in the Missouri River to their lowest on record earlier this summer, the reason was global warming.

In July, when the worst drought on record triggered wildfires in Spain and Portugal and left water levels in France at their lowest in 30 years, the explanation was global warming.

When a lethal heat wave in Arizona kept temperatures above 110 degrees and killed more than 20 people in one week, the culprit was global warming.

And when the Indian city of Bombay (Mumbai) received 37 inches of rain in one day -- killing 1,000 people and disrupting the lives of 20 million others -- the villain was global warming.

Exhibit B: Robert F Kennedy, Jr in the Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr/for-they-that-sow-the-win_b_6396.html)

Now we are all learning what it’s like to reap the whirlwind of fossil fuel dependence which Barbour and his cronies have encouraged. Our destructive addiction has given us a catastrophic war in the Middle East and--now--Katrina is giving our nation a glimpse of the climate chaos we are bequeathing our children.

These types of claims have been so ubiquitous in the news media that last year the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that victims of hurricane Katrina have standing (http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/10/19/hurricane-katrina-victims-have-standing-to-sue-over-global-warming/tab/article/) to sue oil and coal companies for damages.

MikeMangum

17th February 2010, 01:23 PM

And this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/01/science/01tier.html?_r=1
I’d like to wish you a happy New Year, but I’m afraid I have a different sort of prediction.

You’re in for very bad weather. In 2008, your television will bring you image after frightening image of natural havoc linked to global warming. You will be told that such bizarre weather must be a sign of dangerous climate change — and that these images are a mere preview of what’s in store unless we act quickly to cool the planet.

Unfortunately, I can’t be more specific. I don’t know if disaster will come by flood or drought, hurricane or blizzard, fire or ice. Nor do I have any idea how much the planet will warm this year or what that means for your local forecast. Long-term climate models cannot explain short-term weather.

But there’s bound to be some weird weather somewhere, and we will react like the sailors in the Book of Jonah. When a storm hit their ship, they didn’t ascribe it to a seasonal weather pattern. They quickly identified the cause (Jonah’s sinfulness) and agreed to an appropriate policy response (throw Jonah overboard).

Today’s interpreters of the weather are what social scientists call availability entrepreneurs: the activists, journalists and publicity-savvy scientists who selectively monitor the globe looking for newsworthy evidence of a new form of sinfulness, burning fossil fuels.

A year ago, British meteorologists made headlines predicting that the buildup of greenhouse gases would help make 2007 the hottest year on record. At year’s end, even though the British scientists reported the global temperature average was not a new record — it was actually lower than any year since 2001 — the BBC confidently proclaimed, “2007 Data Confirms Warming Trend.”

When the Arctic sea ice last year hit the lowest level ever recorded by satellites, it was big news and heralded as a sign that the whole planet was warming. When the Antarctic sea ice last year reached the highest level ever recorded by satellites, it was pretty much ignored. A large part of Antarctica has been cooling recently, but most coverage of that continent has focused on one small part that has warmed.

When Hurricane Katrina flooded New Orleans in 2005, it was supposed to be a harbinger of the stormier world predicted by some climate modelers. When the next two hurricane seasons were fairly calm — by some measures, last season in the Northern Hemisphere was the calmest in three decades — the availability entrepreneurs changed the subject. Droughts in California and Australia became the new harbingers of climate change (never mind that a warmer planet is projected to have more, not less, precipitation over all).

...

When judging risks, we often go wrong by using what’s called the availability heuristic: we gauge a danger according to how many examples of it are readily available in our minds. Thus we overestimate the odds of dying in a terrorist attack or a plane crash because we’ve seen such dramatic deaths so often on television; we underestimate the risks of dying from a stroke because we don’t have so many vivid images readily available.

Slow warming doesn’t make for memorable images on television or in people’s minds, so activists, journalists and scientists have looked to hurricanes, wild fires and starving polar bears instead. They have used these images to start an “availability cascade,” a term coined by Timur Kuran, a professor of economics and law at the University of Southern California, and Cass R. Sunstein, a law professor at the University of Chicago.

...

“Many people concerned about climate change,” Dr. Sunstein says, “want to create an availability cascade by fixing an incident in people’s minds. Hurricane Katrina is just an early example; there will be others. I don’t doubt that climate change is real and that it presents a serious threat, but there’s a danger that any ‘consensus’ on particular events or specific findings is, in part, a cascade.”

MikeMangum

17th February 2010, 01:29 PM

A good example:

SF Chronicle (http://www.sfchroniclemarketplace.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/07/06/DDJT187GK9.DTL) 7 months ago:

The Bay Area just had its foggiest May in 50 years. And thanks to global warming, it's about to get even foggier.

Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/7243579/Fog-over-San-Francisco-thins-by-a-third-due-to-climate-change.html), today:
Fog over San Francisco thins by a third due to climate change

Basically, if it gets warmer, that's due to 'climate change'; if it gets colder, that's due to 'climate change'; it it gets wetter, that's due to 'climate change'; if it gets dryer, that's due to 'climate change'; if it gets foggier, that's due to 'climate change', if there is less fog, that's due to 'climat echange'; and if there are no changes, that's due to 'climate change'. Whatever it is, it must be blamed on 'climate change' and it must be done repeatedly. That is a necessary part of being an availability entrepreneur.

Don't act surprised when "deniers" resort to that technique as well.

JoeTheJuggler

17th February 2010, 01:32 PM

JoeTheJuggler

17th February 2010, 01:36 PM

Basically, if it gets warmer, that's due to 'climate change'; if it gets colder, that's due to 'climate change'; it it gets wetter, that's due to 'climate change'; if it gets dryer, that's due to 'climate change'; if it gets foggier, that's due to 'climate change', if there is less fog, that's due to 'climat echange'; and if there are no changes, that's due to 'climate change'. Whatever it is, it must be blamed on 'climate change' and it must be done repeatedly. That is a necessary part of being an availability entrepreneur.

But the evidence for global warming is not individual weather events. And saying that that's what scientists are doing (setting up a hypothesis such that any measured result confirms the hypothesis) is a straw man argument.

If some people are wrongly saying that, it doesn't undo the case for global warming. (Just as some people's misunderstanding of the theory of evolution by natural selection doesn't disprove it.)

If people are wrongly saying that a weather event disproves global warming, pointing out that it's not so does indeed undo their case against global warming.

MikeMangum

17th February 2010, 03:00 PM

But the evidence for global warming is not individual weather events. And saying that that's what scientists are doing (setting up a hypothesis such that any measured result confirms the hypothesis) is a straw man argument.

No, it generally is not what scientists are doing (although there are exceptions, note the IPCC link above using a single weather event - the heat wave in Europe - as support for AGW), it is what much of the media does, and what some public figures do.

If some people are wrongly saying that, it doesn't undo the case for global warming. (Just as some people's misunderstanding of the theory of evolution by natural selection doesn't disprove it.)

If people are wrongly saying that a weather event disproves global warming, pointing out that it's not so does indeed undo their case against global warming.

Absolutely not, you are right. This argument, and the OP are NOT about the science, it is about how global warming is portrayed in the media by public figures.

From the OP:
The right wing talking points have been echoing the stupidity that because it is snowing more than usual in DC and the surrounding areas, that proves global warming is not occurring.

I don't want to argue with the agw deniers in this thread. Please go away if you want to argue against the overwhelming science. I want instead to gloat over the ignorance of the current barrage of stupid comments in the media coming from all the right wing talking heads.

leftysergeant

17th February 2010, 03:13 PM

Basically, if it gets warmer, that's due to 'climate change'; if it gets colder, that's due to 'climate change'; it it gets wetter, that's due to 'climate change'; if it gets dryer, that's due to 'climate change'; if it gets foggier, that's due to 'climate change', if there is less fog, that's due to 'climat echange'; and if there are no changes, that's due to 'climate change'.

Yes, of course it is. It does not get uniformly colder. nor do the cold snaps meant that an area is cooling down. The termperature gradient just showsa wider range between summer and winter temps.

But the heat is being distributed far and wide, and especially into areas where it is not supposed to get as warm as it does now. The changes in the jet stream, have aslo been messing with rainfall. Not enough falls now where it is needed to water some criops.

The mountain streams are getting warmer, leading to the loss of thousands of salmon and trout yearly.

Forget that fat deaf eunuch and his insistance rthat global warming is a good thing because it increases growing seasons. In case the fat pig has not noticed, crops die expecting to be re-planted, regardless how much longer the season becomes unless the weather becomes warm enough to grwo two crops a year. That aint happening.

Don't act surprised when "deniers" resort to that technique as well.

The denier gurus on rightwing squawk radio do so with less available data and come out far further from the truth, to tje point of looking like idiots to those who have actually done real science on the matter.

Skeptic Ginger

17th February 2010, 04:33 PM

First, I disowned much of Huffington and RK Jr's unscientific banter from the left long ago. You may recall RK Jr's possible appointment to a high level government post overseeing science based decisions caused an instant and successful uproar from the scientific community. Feel free to point out all the ignorance from the left that fits the thread.

I will say you didn't hear a lot of left wing based support during the Kennedy ruckus saying he should indeed be appointed. Then again, I'm not sure the right would support appointing Beck or Limbaugh to any environmental office either.

We also both have our share of woo believing elected officials. I'm not sure anyone tops Michele Bachman for bizarre beliefs at the moment, but the anti-vaxxer lobby has gotten to many Democratic Party elected officials. We should all be working to get more critically thinking politicians elected regardless of their political philosophies. I might be persuaded to vote for a Republic over a Democrat if the latter was a woo promoter.

As for the claims global climate change is likely to result in [X], one has to look at the specific evidence of the claim and the context of the quote. It's not the same as saying the weather here today is the direct result of climate change.

If global warming did occur, surely it's not wrong to conclude that would lead to glacier melt, more heat in the atmosphere and climate zones shifting boundaries. So saying you expect to see [X] because of climate change, isn't always wrong.

If the outcome isn't certain with global warming, then a statement like, we'll see more or less fog, more or less rain here (or there), or something else we really don't have the data to predict, such claims would not be evidence based. So Beck's belief still represents scientific ignorance when he said the snow in DC was part of a trend which disproves global warming. He said that was his claim rather than that the single event proved something. There is no such evidence of any climate cooling trend even if you don't believe there is GW.

Skeptic Ginger

17th February 2010, 04:47 PM

A good example:

SF Chronicle (http://www.sfchroniclemarketplace.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/07/06/DDJT187GK9.DTL) 7 months ago:That's the conclusion of several state researchers, whose soon-to-be-published study predicts that even with average temperatures on the rise, the mercury won't be soaring everywhere.

"There'll be winners and losers," says Robert Bornstein, a meteorology professor at San Jose State University. "Global warming is warming the interior part of California, but it leads to a reverse reaction of more fog along the coast."

Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/7243579/Fog-over-San-Francisco-thins-by-a-third-due-to-climate-change.html), today:"Since 1901, the average number of hours of fog along the coast in summer has dropped from 56 per cent to 42 per cent, which is a loss of about three hours per day," said the study leader Dr James Johnstone at the University of California.
He said that it was unclear whether this is part of a natural cycle of the result of human activity, but the fog is receding because of a reduction in the difference between the temperature of the sea and the land.
"A cool coast and warm interior is one of the defining characteristics of California's coastal climate, but the temperature difference between the coast and interior has declined substantially in the last century, in step with the decline in summer fog," he added.

Basically, if it gets warmer, that's due to 'climate change'; if it gets colder, that's due to 'climate change'; it it gets wetter, that's due to 'climate change'; if it gets dryer, that's due to 'climate change'; if it gets foggier, that's due to 'climate change', if there is less fog, that's due to 'climat echange'; and if there are no changes, that's due to 'climate change'. Whatever it is, it must be blamed on 'climate change' and it must be done repeatedly. That is a necessary part of being an availability entrepreneur.

Don't act surprised when "deniers" resort to that technique as well.Here you have 2 issues: 1) one research conclusion vs another, and, 2) how the reporters framed the reports on the studies.

The second study was based on actual measurements. The first study represents a climate model I would assume. I'll see if I can find the abstracts or the papers. As for the reporters, we know they often get it wrong when they write about research results.

skeptical

17th February 2010, 04:49 PM

Do you even comprehend the issue ? The theory predicts a temp increase with CO2 increase. The CO2 did increase, yet the temps are flat, very slightly decreasing according to Jones.

Actually that's wrong. Theory predicts a temp trend upward as CO2 trends upward in the long term. That is exactly what we are seeing, that is exactly what the graphs show. Its right there in front of you.

This is NOT supportive evidence, it is perhaps contradictory evidence but we'd need to evaluate that. The fact that is has not been explained leads reasonable people to doubt that the "models" can be sufficiently accurate to rely on. If the theories 3C/doubing specific is not accurate then the catastrophic claims must be discounted too.

You cannot select arbitrarily short time intervals and then say "look, a downward trend". Climate is a chaotic system, which is why short term trends are not nearly as relevant as long term trends. The long term trend is up and clearly so, that is what all available data shows. This has nothing to do with models, this is simply the actual temp data.

There is nothing to "explain", the temp is still trending up and clearly so.

Your "hottest decade" comment is exactly the same silly argument the "anti-GW"s make when they point to a new record cold day and claim it disproves GW. Yes we rationally expect that a hottest decade can occur when temps are at a high plateau range. That does not mean the 15 avg is increasing in accordance with the theory. It is not supportive of the specific theory.

That is utter nonsense. Are you seriously trying to compare a decade to a day and say they have the same meaning statistically? What planet are you living on?

The bottom line is the long term trends show an increase. Nothing you have said is contrary to that and the charts are perfectly clear. To say temp increase stopped 15 yrs ago is clearly contradicted by the upward trend. You may not like it, but the data is what the data is.

MikeMangum

17th February 2010, 04:49 PM

What I find hypocritical is how suddenly this sort of availability whoring became a major issue of concern once Glenn Beck (I'm assuming it was Beck) engaged in it when attempting to discredit the theory of AGW, but it never was a major issue when it was done by major public figures, including elected officials and members of the IPCC who used that availability whoring in attempting to further belief in the theory of AGW.

Skeptic Ginger

17th February 2010, 05:16 PM

This site (http://westinstenv.org/about-2/) has a review of the two studies that appears to point out the problems with each of the papers: Redwood Fog Bomfoggery (http://westinstenv.org/sosf/2010/02/16/redwood-fog-bomfoggery/)Johnstone and Dawson evaluated “fog frequency data” from two (count ‘em, two) airports, in Arcata and Monterey (neither of which is within 100 miles of the Golden Gate Bridge). Then they got temperature data from inland sites and built a theoretical temperature inversion model (it’s a model, folks).

Compare and contrast that with Bornstein et al. [here], who used a GCM (Global Climate Model) to hypothesize that global warming would increase the temperature gradient (coast/inland) and cause “increased sea-breeze activity” and hence MORE fog.

I briefly looked at the site and it looks intriguing. I couldn't see if their political agenda was pro, con, some other political agenda or valid science promoting. Maybe someone here is familiar with the group, W.I.S.E.?

Here's one abstract, the article needs a paid subscription: Observed 1970–2005 Cooling of Summer Daytime Temperatures in Coastal California (http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F2008JCLI2111.1)

The second article is open access: Climatic context and ecological implications of summer fog decline in the coast redwood region (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/02/09/0915062107.full.pdf+html)

Skeptic Ginger

17th February 2010, 05:19 PM

MikeMangum

17th February 2010, 05:20 PM

This site (http://westinstenv.org/about-2/) has a review of the two studies that appears to point out the problems with each of the papers: Redwood Fog Bomfoggery (http://westinstenv.org/sosf/2010/02/16/redwood-fog-bomfoggery/)

I briefly looked at the site and it looks intriguing. I couldn't see if their political agenda was pro, con, some other political agenda or valid science promoting. Maybe someone here is familiar with the group, W.I.S.E.?

Here's one abstract, the article needs a paid subscription: Observed 1970–2005 Cooling of Summer Daytime Temperatures in Coastal California (http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F2008JCLI2111.1)

The second article is open access: Climatic context and ecological implications of summer fog decline in the coast redwood region (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/02/09/0915062107.full.pdf+html)

Ah yes, NOW you want to argue the science instead of addressing the availability merchants.

Just in case you missed it, here's one again:
THE HURRICANE that struck Louisiana yesterday was nicknamed Katrina by the National Weather Service. Its real name is global warming.

When the year began with a two-foot snowfall in Los Angeles, the cause was global warming.

When 124-mile-an-hour winds shut down nuclear plants in Scandinavia and cut power to hundreds of thousands of people in Ireland and the United Kingdom, the driver was global warming.

When a severe drought in the Midwest dropped water levels in the Missouri River to their lowest on record earlier this summer, the reason was global warming.

In July, when the worst drought on record triggered wildfires in Spain and Portugal and left water levels in France at their lowest in 30 years, the explanation was global warming.

When a lethal heat wave in Arizona kept temperatures above 110 degrees and killed more than 20 people in one week, the culprit was global warming.

And when the Indian city of Bombay (Mumbai) received 37 inches of rain in one day -- killing 1,000 people and disrupting the lives of 20 million others -- the villain was global warming.

MikeMangum

17th February 2010, 05:23 PM

Could you post examples so we know specifically what you are referring to? I don't know what you mean by, "availability whoring".

Availability_heuristic

Also, read the NYT piece linked in post #162.

Skeptic Ginger

17th February 2010, 05:27 PM

Ah yes, NOW you want to argue the science instead of addressing the availability merchants.No, I want to discuss the critical thinking aspects especially those affected by political beliefs, without getting tied down arguing the conclusions.

Just in case you missed it, here's one again:What am I supposed to do with that?

Skeptic Ginger

17th February 2010, 05:29 PM

Availability_heuristic....I'm not sure how "whoring" meets that concept, but whatever. So did you post examples of the IPCC members committing this error in logic?

MikeMangum

17th February 2010, 06:15 PM

So did you post examples of the IPCC members committing this error in logic?

Post #161.

Cynic

17th February 2010, 06:24 PM

Post #161.

Where in that link to they say the heat wave was caused directly by global warming?

Skeptic Ginger

17th February 2010, 09:04 PM

Post #161.You need to do better than post #161.

The Globe article says nothing about the IPCC so I'm assuming you are referring specifically to this: Your link (http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/ipcc_heatwave_2003.jpg)

That's a screen capture page, or at least I can't go to the content or any other pages. What's on the page is not what you claim it is insofar as being some declaration of some proof or certain evidence. All I see is a couple paragraphs about a specific model and some data.

FarmallMTA

17th February 2010, 09:09 PM

Funny. Observing leftists congratulate and stroke each other for 5 pages is like listening to one hand clap. Very amusing agreement from an utterly idiotic (left wing) mindset.

So this is what Lefty's think skeptical inquiry is all about? Falling for every hoax that comes along and feeling smug about it? Anybody wanna buy some Tulip Bulbs? Anybody, anybody? Get 'em now, before AGW makes tulips extinct! ;)

Cynic

17th February 2010, 10:09 PM

FarmallMTA

17th February 2010, 10:15 PM

Quite a lot of plants and animals are in danger from it climate shifts, actually. For instance, say a certain plant is usually fertilized or has its seed dispersed by a certain insect. After so much co-evolution has made them dependent on each other, it gets warmer and the plant adjusts to the earlier cues and grows sooner and then blooms sooner. Meanwhile, the insect doesn't adjust as quickly -- likely having different cues -- and its larvae remains in the ground. The plants fail to disperse as well, doesn't bode well for it. Worse, the insect finally emerges at its usual time and its food source has already come and gone -- which doesn't bode well for it. This happens again and again until neither species is viable unless something else can step in and fulfill their roles or they manage to adjust to each other again before they're gone.

This is regardless of the cause of climate shifts.

You're so right. :rolleyes: All those plants that take in CO2 through their stomata and fix it via the C3/C4 cycles are in such extreme danger of CO2 overload, too. Don't forget that part.

And all the additional O2 those plants will generate is going to be dangerous for animals. We know, for example, that elevated O2 level causes humans to gamble more when in Vegas.

But since Dr. Phil Jones now assures us that the whole CO2 pollution thing is quite the bunkum, I think you can sleep peacefully about the whole thing tonight.

Cynic

17th February 2010, 10:20 PM

You're so right. :rolleyes: All those plants that take in CO2 through their stomata and fix it via the C3/C4 cycles are in such extreme danger of CO2 overload, too. Don't forget that part.

And all the additional O2 those plants will generate is going to be dangerous for animals. We know, for example, that elevated O2 level causes humans to gamble more when in Vegas.

But since Dr. Phil Jones now assures us that the whole CO2 pollution thing is quite the bunkum, I think you can sleep peacefully about the whole thing tonight.

What part of what I said had anything do to with CO2 or O2?

FarmallMTA

17th February 2010, 10:28 PM

What part of what I said had anything do to with CO2 or O2?

Hey, I'm helping you out, here. I'm just helping you overstate your case that our planet-on-a-hotplate is going to be a desert isle, bereft of plants, animals, and girls in bikinis.

Skeptic Ginger

18th February 2010, 01:11 PM

Skeptic Ginger

18th February 2010, 01:13 PM

Hey, I'm helping you out, here. I'm just helping you overstate your case that our planet-on-a-hotplate is going to be a desert isle, bereft of plants, animals, and girls in bikinis.I'm pretty sure Cynic leans the the right politically. Wondering if you were aware of that?

Cynic

18th February 2010, 02:26 PM

I'm pretty sure Cynic leans the the right politically. Wondering if you were aware of that?

I certainly wasn't. ;)

JoeTheJuggler

18th February 2010, 02:33 PM

I'm pretty sure Cynic leans the the right politically. Wondering if you were aware of that?

It's a matter of relativity. From where Farmall sits, everyone is a leftist.

Skeptic Ginger

18th February 2010, 08:46 PM

I certainly wasn't. ;)Then why was it I had to put you on my ignore list a while back after you were so rude in one if the political threads?

Cynic

18th February 2010, 08:56 PM

Then why was it I had to put you on my ignore list a while back after you were so rude in one if the political threads?

I'm not sure what one has to do with the other, but I don't recall. I was on ignore? Huh. What was the thread? I'm perfectly willing to argue fine points if I think they're correct, even if they don't favor my own preferences.

Skeptic Ginger

18th February 2010, 09:26 PM

I'm not sure what one has to do with the other, but I don't recall. I was on ignore? Huh. What was the thread? I'm perfectly willing to argue fine points if I think they're correct, even if they don't favor my own preferences.I don't put people on ignore for disagreeing, I put them on ignore for rude, uncalled for, unproductive comments. It's only been a small number of right wingers I've ever been that disgusted with.

It's been so long, I've forgotten. I looked and don't see any access to the dates one adds or deletes names from the ignore list. But I took you off a few days ago because you were posting reasonable stuff.

GStan

19th February 2010, 04:54 AM

I don't put people on ignore for disagreeing, I put them on ignore for rude, uncalled for, unproductive comments. It's only been a small number of right wingers I've ever been that disgusted with.

It's been so long, I've forgotten. I looked and don't see any access to the dates one adds or deletes names from the ignore list. But I took you off a few days ago because you were posting reasonable stuff.

Have you ever been sufficiently disgusted with a left winger to put them on your ignore list?

DJW

19th February 2010, 05:13 AM

Have you ever been sufficiently disgusted with a left winger to put them on your ignore list?

I'll bet she does it all the time. She only thinks they're rightwing.:D

Cynic

19th February 2010, 05:20 AM

Skeptic Ginger

19th February 2010, 11:19 AM

Have you ever been sufficiently disgusted with a left winger to put them on your ignore list?Well they don't tend to call me names and such.

Seriously, it doesn't have to do with beliefs, philosophies, positions and so on. But in certain threads certain people get nasty toward those they disagree with. Just peruse the Abandon all hope forum and you'll see more than a few examples.

Sometimes it's best to just shut your eyes (ears) to them for a while.

Skeptic Ginger

19th February 2010, 11:28 AM

Maybe you have me confused with someone else.And yet you were on my ignore list.

I don't know. I looked in AAH but found nothing except the fact my posts are confined to the dungeon waaaay more often than yours are. :o

Whatever it was, it was a long time ago.

novice skeptic

19th February 2010, 02:01 PM

I haven't been keeping up with this thread, but if we're anywhere near the topic of the OP, isn't this stuff all a big tu quoque argument?

It doesn't undo the ignorance of people claiming a snowstorm disproves global warming to point out that some people might wrongly claim other things are due to global warming.

It doesn't undo the ignorance, but it does beg the question: Are the people that MikeMangum quoted playing to the ignorant or actually ignorant? If the OP believes that one cannot make these anecdotal claims to deny climate change (which I agree with) and if she believes these people are either ignorant or evil, isn't it fair to ask her about people who make the OPPOSITE claim using single anecdotes and whether they too are ignorant or evil.

I don't think Mike's point was that the global warming critics are correct because the other side also used flimsy evidence. I think his point was that the OP's righteous indignation might have more to do with the people's opinions than it does with the logic or reasoning they used to form those opinions.

leftysergeant

19th February 2010, 02:35 PM

It is pretty clear that some of the AGW deniers are evil, like Beck and the fat deaf eunuch and a lot of the people in the previous administration, like Noxious Norton.

The only thing I have been able to find wrong with the way that the AGW case was built was that one of the researchers was kind of slopy in dealiong with papers.

The deniers still have to come up with some research to show that AGW is not occurring.

All they have is a bunch of whiners with the bean-counter mentality typical of ecconomists kvetchin about the cost of responding to something they do not think is proven science.

Skeptic Ginger

19th February 2010, 10:54 PM

It doesn't undo the ignorance, but it does beg the question: Are the people that MikeMangum quoted playing to the ignorant or actually ignorant? If the OP believes that one cannot make these anecdotal claims to deny climate change (which I agree with) and if she believes these people are either ignorant or evil, isn't it fair to ask her about people who make the OPPOSITE claim using single anecdotes and whether they too are ignorant or evil.

I don't think Mike's point was that the global warming critics are correct because the other side also used flimsy evidence. I think his point was that the OP's righteous indignation might have more to do with the people's opinions than it does with the logic or reasoning they used to form those opinions.I've never denied, including in this thread, there are no ignorant people on the left. Clearly there are plenty. I see no attempt by these ignorant left leaning folks to drum up a following by playing to the CT believers. At worse a few politicians fake their god beliefs for political gain.

On the right, you have another story. You have the Exxons actually paying to campaign against the science. Who knows where Bush really was on the issue. Beck, Hannity and Limbaugh could believe in their fallacies or could be creating their entire schtick for money. Chances are it's a mix or they believe it.

novice skeptic

20th February 2010, 06:56 AM

I've never denied, including in this thread, there are no ignorant people on the left. Clearly there are plenty. I see no attempt by these ignorant left leaning folks to drum up a following by playing to the CT believers. At worse a few politicians fake their god beliefs for political gain.

On the right, you have another story. You have the Exxons actually paying to campaign against the science. Who knows where Bush really was on the issue. Beck, Hannity and Limbaugh could believe in their fallacies or could be creating their entire schtick for money. Chances are it's a mix or they believe it.

Well I disagree with that being the worst. If they use faulty reasoning to pass bad legislation that affects every single one of us, I'd say that's a bit more damaging than anything some guy on a radio says. Idiots spouting stuff on the radio don't affect me. Politicians passing legislation do.

Cynic

20th February 2010, 07:39 AM

Well I disagree with that being the worst. If they use faulty reasoning to pass bad legislation that affects every single one of us, I'd say that's a bit more damaging than anything some guy on a radio says. Idiots spouting stuff on the radio don't affect me. Politicians passing legislation do.

And then there's the vicious chicken-and-egg cycle it creates, where it becomes impossible to know if politicians are shaping cultural influence to pass bad legislation based on their faulty ideas, or if it's the cultural influence is shaping the minds of politicians. Both, of course, like the scars rent through families by the introduction of a wife beater. Self-reflection doesn't seem very possible for political parties anymore, because even if the politicians themselves manage to rise above it, their careers and ability to get anything done are dependent on the masses of voters who are only interested in "winning".

leftysergeant

20th February 2010, 11:50 AM

Idiots spouting stuff on the radio don't affect me. Politicians passing legislation do.

Idiots spouting idiocy on right-wing squawk radio lead masses of idiots out to events at which legislators appear and create the illusion that there is public support for idiotic programs. This has an effect on what legislation gets passed, or which legislators get elected. If a rational legislator recognizes the shrieking minions of the blathermeisters as astroturf and just votes his conscinece on an issue, the astroturfers then use the numbers they had at the public events as evidence that the legislator is ignoring an out-pouring of public sentiment.

Skeptic Ginger

20th February 2010, 01:16 PM

Well I disagree with that being the worst. If they use faulty reasoning to pass bad legislation that affects every single one of us, I'd say that's a bit more damaging than anything some guy on a radio says. Idiots spouting stuff on the radio don't affect me. Politicians passing legislation do.Well on that front the few laws influenced by the anti-vaxxers are by far outweighed by the anti-science Bush era.

Do you know of other left of the isle examples of bad science legislation recently?

And what Lefty said, the trend toward threatening violence because one fears a leftist government takeover seems to be a recent right wing theme. I think more than a few Republic Party officials have a short memory for the trouble that has caused in the past. Tim McVeigh comes to mind.

novice skeptic

20th February 2010, 02:07 PM

Idiots spouting idiocy on right-wing squawk radio lead masses of idiots out to events at which legislators appear and create the illusion that there is public support for idiotic programs. This has an effect on what legislation gets passed, or which legislators get elected. If a rational legislator recognizes the shrieking minions of the blathermeisters as astroturf and just votes his conscinece on an issue, the astroturfers then use the numbers they had at the public events as evidence that the legislator is ignoring an out-pouring of public sentiment.

I want to be as respectful as possible as to not insult you or incur a moderator's wrath, but seriously, after the things you say about people who you disagree with here on a daily basis, I don't know that if I were you that I'd be throwing those kind of stones.

leftysergeant

20th February 2010, 03:45 PM

I want to be as respectful as possible as to not insult you or incur a moderator's wrath, but seriously, after the things you say about people who you disagree with here on a daily basis, I don't know that if I were you that I'd be throwing those kind of stones.

Are you going to tell me that the shrieking morons who came out to disrupt the Carnahan town hall in St Louis were real concerned citizens and not a bussed-in rent-a-riot?

stevea

20th February 2010, 10:30 PM

No,we didn't. The hacker who handed those e-mails to the press is about as trustworthy as Breitbart's trained maggots. Inadmissible in rational debate.

I might agree if ANY of the four involved had denied the accuracy. The posts are clearly accurate - the silence of the accused as at least one was forcesd to step-dow n is strong testimony to their accuracy, their silence convicts them.

What part of "promote the general welfare" has failed to penetrate that wall of Libertarian concrete that you have erected between yourself and reality?

[Madison/Federalist Papers...] has no force as law.

Your arguments aren't law either dopey - should we ignore these too ? Such incoherent argumentation. Madison writing in the Fed papers is not law and no one said it was. Madison obviously has a clearer view of what the bill of rights means in detail that you do, and the quote provided shows that he rejects your POV with a howl.

No one with 5th grade reading comprehension can possible read article 8 and come away with your looney-tunes view that "promote the general welfare" means "whatever congress wants". It makes no sense in context, but you only want your own ends - you don't care if the constitution is violated to reach your ends.

===========

WRT to climate - I am not espousing any "libertarian" view , nor an I aware that there is one, nor would I be likely to follow it if there was such. Again Lefty has to resort to namecalling as he has no logic to resort to.

You claim that you don't like the source of a quote - but you have no counter what it appears in liberal websites. You claim that the revealed EA posts are inadmissable, yet ppl have resigned positions and not denied their accuracy, but instead attempted to spin parts of these. It is not reasonable to consider these posts inaccurate.

EA posts are completely irrelevant to the GW argument per se, as I've said before. They only serve to show that BOTH sides are perfectly willing to produce biased results for their own ends. IOW it's not "science" any longer, it's politics.

Again the missing arguments for AGW are whether there is another path to arrive at the critical quantitative relationship between CO2 and temps that comes to about the same value. Without this we just have correlation in a sea of potential causes. So far none of you have even addressed this critical issues nor PMed me with a reference.

You have produced a lot of errorous strawmen, tons of politically biased misreadings, and lots of ad hominem. This seems to be a forum about illogical arguments and lack of critical thinking and scepticism. This forum is filled with ppl so silly, misinformed and unable to think ..

Toodles ... Have nice closed-minded life.

Cobalt

20th February 2010, 10:57 PM

This seems to be a forum about illogical arguments and lack of critical thinking and scepticism. This forum is filled with ppl so silly, misinformed and unable to think ..

Toodles ... Have nice closed-minded life.

You must be new to the politics sub-forum.

Shadowdweller

21st February 2010, 03:57 AM

I might agree if ANY of the four involved had denied the accuracy. The posts are clearly accurate - the silence of the accused as at least one was forcesd to step-dow n is strong testimony to their accuracy, their silence convicts them.
1) While some of the e-mails have been verified as accurate, claims made by the anti-science crowd as to their significance and meaning have not. Though this should be patently obvious to anyone with even a passing familiarity with science who actually bothers to read said e-mails, confirmation is nevertheless widely available over the web.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/

2) The "stepping down" you refer to is what? Phil Jones? Contrary to popular delusion, Jones has temporarily suspended his duties for the course of an investigation. To claim that this is equivalent to being forced to permanently resign or in any way evidence of the charges made against EA CRU being accurate, if you are in fact doing so, would be a matter of extreme imbecility on your part.

Again the missing arguments for AGW are whether there is another path to arrive at the critical quantitative relationship between CO2 and temps that comes to about the same value. Without this we just have correlation in a sea of potential causes. So far none of you have even addressed this critical issues nor PMed me with a reference.
As has been pointed out many times by now, this is neither a science subforum nor a thread about the scientific basis for AGW. If you wish to know the answers, go seek them in the appropriate venue. They are plainly and easily available.

novice skeptic

21st February 2010, 08:54 AM

Are you going to tell me that the shrieking morons who came out to disrupt the Carnahan town hall in St Louis were real concerned citizens and not a bussed-in rent-a-riot?

A conversation can only be interesting for me if I feel like the other person is at least as receptive to the possibility that they might be wrong as I am. I don't get that sense from you (no offense intended). Therefor I'm really not interesting in playing games with you and your namecalling of anyone who happens to have a different p.o.v.

You know, sometimes someone with a different idea isn't evil or stupid.

I Ratant

21st February 2010, 10:08 AM

Well on that front the few laws influenced by the anti-vaxxers are by far outweighed by the anti-science Bush era.

Do you know of other left of the isle examples of bad science legislation recently?

And what Lefty said, the trend toward threatening violence because one fears a leftist government takeover seems to be a recent right wing theme. I think more than a few Republic Party officials have a short memory for the trouble that has caused in the past. Tim McVeigh comes to mind.
.
The guys on the left of the aisle don't seem to get nuthin' past those guys on the right, at this point in time.

Skeptic Ginger

21st February 2010, 11:21 AM

.
The guys on the left of the aisle don't seem to get nuthin' past those guys on the right, at this point in time.I don't get your point here. I assume you are trying to be sarcastic but the point of the joke doesn't make any sense.

I Ratant

21st February 2010, 11:52 AM

I don't get your point here. I assume you are trying to be sarcastic but the point of the joke doesn't make any sense.
.
A bit of pedantry submerged there tool. :)
The recent miserable failure to get a decent health care situation, mostly due to the intransigence of the Republican side to come anywhere's near a common solution pisses me off.

The Central Scrutinizer

23rd February 2010, 07:17 AM

Edited for rule 11.

Cynic

23rd February 2010, 08:28 AM

As you'll recall, in another thread you posted about "owners" of corporations who weren't also shareholders. I corrected you and pointed out that owners and shareholders are the same thing. You continued to insist otherwise, and I asked for a list of corporations who have owners that aren't shareholders. To date, you still have not supplied that list, nor admitted that you were wrong.

At the risk of exposing my own ignorance...

As I understand it, a company that has not gone public does not necessarily have shareholders. A non-public company can indeed have an owner that is not a shareholder.

The Central Scrutinizer

23rd February 2010, 08:50 AM

At the risk of exposing my own ignorance...

As I understand it, a company that has not gone public does not necessarily have shareholders. A non-public company can indeed have an owner that is not a shareholder.

"Public" has nothing to do with it. If a company is set up as a corporation, it has shareholders. If "Joe's Grocery" is set up as a Sole Proprietorship, it does not. If Joe incorporated, he is a shareholder, even though he owns all the shares.

The thread discussion in question was specifically about corporations.

Cynic

23rd February 2010, 09:59 AM

Ah. So I have exposed my own ignorance. :) Though to be fair, if one guy owns all the shares, calling him anything other than owner is dumb. If you aren't sharing, calling it a share is just legal jargon. ;)

The Central Scrutinizer

23rd February 2010, 01:10 PM

Ah. So I have exposed my own ignorance. :)

It's ok to be ignorant. It just means you don't know. However, when one willfully makes themselves ignorant (is given the information, but chooses to ignore it), then they enter the realm of stupid.

Though to be fair, if one guy owns all the shares, calling him anything other than owner is dumb. If you aren't sharing, calling it a share is just legal jargon. ;)

Perhaps. But the claim was that there are owners who are not shareholders.

Skeptic Ginger

23rd February 2010, 04:16 PM

At the risk of exposing my own ignorance...

As I understand it, a company that has not gone public does not necessarily have shareholders. A non-public company can indeed have an owner that is not a shareholder.Forget it. Scrut is hung up on a meaningless issue. I used the terms, 'owner' and 'stock holder' in a sentence as two different entities because there's a difference between being a direct owner and in just holding stock where you have no direct connection to the company.

We post what we post because of how we are thinking about an issue. If someone reads what we wrote differently than we had in mind, most people say something, you clarify what you meant and everyone moves on.

This is a non-issue that Scrut insists on trying to make an issue of.

The Central Scrutinizer

24th February 2010, 06:04 AM

Forget it. Scrut is hung up on a meaningless issue. I used the terms, 'owner' and 'stock holder' in a sentence as two different entities because there's a difference between being a direct owner and in just holding stock where you have no direct connection to the company.

We post what we post because of how we are thinking about an issue. If someone reads what we wrote differently than we had in mind, most people say something, you clarify what you meant and everyone moves on.

This is a non-issue that Scrut insists on trying to make an issue of.

You're clueless, aren't you?

Shadowdweller

25th February 2010, 06:47 PM

Here's yet another little slice of drooling idiocy floating through the blogosphere that several posters (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5658116&postcount=230) on these very boards (even in this very thread) seem to be unable to discern:
A theory that correlates for 40 years and then fails for 15 yrs is not the sort that anyone should use as an argument to revise the planet's economies.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html#ixzz0fWRsdTRR

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Global-Warming-shocker-Climategate-scientist-admits-no-warming-since-1995-84337497.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiRK5by62KQ&feature=youtu.be&a

All of the above refer to a BBC interview of Phil Jones, director of Climate Research Unit at UEA. A transcript of which may be found here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm)

The pertinent section would be:
B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

C - Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?

No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.

Jones, of course, is saying that the time frame is too short compared to measured difference in average temperatures to produce conclusive results, not that warming has suddenly and mysteriously ceased. A point which, as usual, is either lost upon or deliberately ignored by the illiterate denialist hordes. It is particularly amusing to see how Beck attempts to spin the answers.

leftysergeant

26th February 2010, 06:26 AM

Five freaking years, during which oil prices have risen so that Americans have been forced to use less of it, and during which our demand for exotic hardwoods has declioned, making it less profitable to logged old groth rain forests, and during which the sun may be putting out less energy as it goes trhrough a regular cycle does NOT, in any way, mean that AGW is BS.

The interval from one El Nino event to the next is longer than that.

Only to non-scientists is the five-year trend much of interest.