Global warming

[oglommi]

Have anyone actually prooved that co2 actually causes the green house effect in laboratories or otherwise?

[Schneibster]

Hmmmm... assuming you're serious, you are apparently not aware that the greenhouse effect was proposed in the nineteenth century. By Fourier. As in Fourier transform, which you might have heard of here and there. And investigated by Arrhenius. As in first winner of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry Arrhenius. They were ultimately proved correct, according to our current knowledge. The theory explains the average surface temperatures of Venus, Earth, and Mars fairly nicely, so there's some observational evidence.

As far as proving it in a laboratory, what precisely do you have in mind? Proving that CO2 is largely transparent to visible light, but has strong spectral lines in the IR? Yep. As far as showing that the radiation from a body at the temperature of Earth has a peak very close to those lines? Yep. As far as showing that those lines occur in a "window" in the absorption spectrum of water vapor, thus increasing the potency of CO2 as a greenhouse gas in our atmosphere? Yep.

So I guess my question is, given evidence that CO2 behaves a certain way in the lab, and given evidence that it works in the atmosphere the way they say it does, evidence from three planets, my question would be, do you believe that CO2 will act differently in the atmosphere from the way it acts in the lab, if so why, and how do you account for the surface temperatures of those three planets if it does?

[Safe-Keeper]

'How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic' answers all the questions one could possibly have. I can't post links yet, so you'll have to Google it. Have a good read!

[mhaze]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_14224469c2a710577c.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7056)
this chart is gratis of www.globalwarmingart.com (http://www.globalwarmingart.com)

The special case of the greenhouse effect as it applies to man made CO2 emissions was developed by G.S. Callendar, 1939 maybe into the 1958.
He is considered the father of modern global warmers. The actual warming concept in textbooks is called the Callendar Effect in his honour.

Some aspects of this theory have not been subjected to replicatable experiments. Exactly how much does doubling or tripling atmospheric CO2 increase temperature, and why? Inquiring minds would like to know.

Here (http://www.aip.org/history/climate/Radmath.htm) is a fairly interesting and unbiased history.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/Radmath.htm

From Callendar -

'Climatology is a difficult subject. By long tradition the happy hunting ground for robust speculation, it suffers because so few can separate fact from fiction'

[mhaze]

Corrected link

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

[bobdroege7]

the latest Scientific American has a nice article on Global Warming.

http://www.sciam.com/issue.cfm

Fee for a fluff piece but hey the library is open.

[Schneibster]

Nice, Safe-Keeper. I had heard about this, but hadn't heard it was this complete.

ETA: Link (http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/how-to-talk-to-global-warming-sceptic.html)

[Chocolate Devourer]

You can find plenty of details on the history of how scientists came to the conclusion in Spencer Weart's "The Discovery of Global Warming" site.

I can't place links either but if you google it, you'll find it.

[Diamond]

You can find plenty of details on the history of how scientists came to the conclusion in Spencer Weart's "The Discovery of Global Warming" site.

I can't place links either but if you google it, you'll find it.

Yes, the website is at http://www.aip.org/history/climate/
and you'll find the Hockey Stick, a scientific fraud, at the bottom of http://www.aip.org/history/climate/20ctrend.htm

So no change there.

The website (and I assume the book) is chock full of historical revisionism of the kind the IPCC would appreciate.

[mhaze]

Yes, the website is at http://www.aip.org/history/climate/
and you'll find the Hockey Stick, a scientific fraud, at the bottom of http://www.aip.org/history/climate/20ctrend.htm

So no change there.

The website (and I assume the book) is chock full of historical revisionism of the kind the IPCC would appreciate.

I stand corrected, having just read the section on Callendar and finding it passed the smell test.

Credit is given to the debunkers of the hockey stick in the bibiography, but the continued use of the graph in the final text section is inappropriate. You don't fix a lie with a footnote.

So yeah, this is bogus. This is ridiculous, really.

[mhaze]

Nice, Safe-Keeper. I had heard about this, but hadn't heard it was this complete.

ETA: Link (http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/how-to-talk-to-global-warming-sceptic.html)

Of course the comments are more interesting than the "How to Talk blah blah blah.

[JoeEllison]

'How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic' answers all the questions one could possibly have. I can't post links yet, so you'll have to Google it. Have a good read!

Wouldn't that be best addressed by a mental health professional, one trained in dealing with persecution complexes and conspiracy theory delusions?

Seriously.

[mhaze]

www.climateaudit.org

Here is the "climateaudit.org pledge".

If they dont turn over data and methods, question the science.

Looks totally reasonable to me. Like, something everybody should be able to agree on. A place where real scientists and amateurs can discuss topics with no flame baiting and no trolls. Wonder why that isn't possible here? Guess some people don't want it.

[Big Al]

Again, somebody asks an honest question and is flamed to cinders immediately.

Schneibster, if a woo believer said that the great Fourier and Arrhenius believed in God, I'm pretty sure you'd snap back that they were committing an Argument from Authority fallacy. Neither Fourier nor Arrhenius is famous for climatology.

Why is it so hard either to keep a civil tongue and answer coolly and clearly, or just not to answer?

Please don't say it's because you've been just forced to answer the same questions over and over: I've seen streams of Young Earth creationists, Geller hagiologists, rampant theists and self-deluded Remote Viewers treated with far more courtesy after a hundred inane posts. I've lost count of the number of Occam's Razors, Flying Spaghetti Monsters. Weak Anthropic Principles and explanations of logical fallacies that have whipped across the screen.

I know the weather's been getting warmer on the average for some time, but I'm not convinced about the androgenic aspects of it. OK, I understand a study has exonerated the sun, but I don't see a convincing tracking of historical temperature with CO2. I've heard the argument that the several-century lag of CO2 increase behind temperature rise is because a change of CO2 increases temperature immediately, which later causes a much greater increase in CO2 from oceans etc.

That strikes me as nonsensical: surely, that would be a runaway positive feedback mechanism. Why does the later, greater emission of CO2 not cause an absolutely huge temperature excursion? I'm sure there's a perfectly reasonable answer to that, but I couldn't find it on Google, and I'm not a climate scientist. So why not help, instead of haranguing?

What's wrong with just a tiny bit of civility in replies to climate questions? Either that, or restraining the need to answer at all?

[Schneibster]

Again, somebody asks an honest question and is flamed to cinders immediately.

Schneibster, if a woo believer said that the great Fourier and Arrhenius believed in God, I'm pretty sure you'd snap back that they were committing an Argument from Authority fallacy. Neither Fourier nor Arrhenius is famous for climatology.

Why is it so hard either to keep a civil tongue and answer coolly and clearly, or just not to answer?I'm not sure what you're talking about, Al. I'm not even entirely certain I care, considering you have at best taken the worst possible interpretation of what I've said in order to criticize, but I'll at least entertain the criticism to the extent of asking you. I note that instead of addressing the points, you're addressing the poster; I'd say it's a relatively civil act on my part to even respond, considering.

I know the weather's been getting warmer on the average for some time, but I'm not convinced about the androgenic aspects of it. OK, I understand a study has exonerated the sun, but I don't see a convincing tracking of historical temperature with CO2. I've heard the argument that the several-century lag of CO2 increase behind temperature rise is because a change of CO2 increases temperature immediately, which later causes a much greater increase in CO2 from oceans etc.Actually, the main argument has nothing to do with that. The main argument is precisely what I have stated above: CO2 has this spectrum here, water vapor has that spectrum there, the Sun has a blackbody spectrum centered here, and the Earth has a blackbody spectrum over here. Given these physical facts, and given conservation of energy, what do you expect to happen? Simple: it's gonna get warmer. And it is. The rest is details. Basically, you're ignoring the obvious gross physical facts and concentrating on the details. Which is something I've told you before, Al.

[David Rodale]

Actually, the main argument has nothing to do with that. The main argument is precisely what I have stated above: CO2 has this spectrum here, water vapor has that spectrum there, the Sun has a blackbody spectrum centered here, and the Earth has a blackbody spectrum over here. Given these physical facts, and given conservation of energy, what do you expect to happen? Simple: it's gonna get warmer. And it is. The rest is details. Basically, you're ignoring the obvious gross physical facts and concentrating on the details. Which is something I've told you before, Al.

Please cite your evidence it is and will get warmer.

[JoeEllison]

Please cite your evidence it is and will get warmer.
Ummmm... that would be nearly everything that nearly every single climate scientist, who isn't working for the oil or coal companies, has produced over the last few decades.

Where's your evidence against reality?:cool:

[Schneibster]

You can argue with that one forever, Joe- it ain't interested in facts. Doesn't think thermometers work.

[robinson]

I never questioned the coming Global Warming, you know, the one that is a fact, no doubt about it, it has been proven beyond all doubt, everybody agrees with, that Global Warming.

I never even thought about questioning it, looking into it, until I saw the religious like attacks on anyone who did question it. That got my attention. Why would anyone with a brain be so emotional, so irrational, so petty as to personally attack somebody for asking questions, or having a different view about Global Warming?

I'm funny that way, but when I see dumb behavior, stuff that makes no sense, I start wondering why. Why is questioning something viewed as heresy? How did a scientific Theory become the same as Church Doctrine? What the hell is going on when skeptics, logical, scientific people, start sounding like the faithful?

[a_unique_person]

I stand corrected, having just read the section on Callendar and finding it passed the smell test.

Credit is given to the debunkers of the hockey stick in the bibiography, but the continued use of the graph in the final text section is inappropriate. You don't fix a lie with a footnote.

So yeah, this is bogus. This is ridiculous, really.

It's not a lie.

[Big Al]

I never questioned the coming Global Warming, you know, the one that is a fact, no doubt about it, it has been proven beyond all doubt, everybody agrees with, that Global Warming.

I never even thought about questioning it, looking into it, until I saw the religious like attacks on anyone who did question it. That got my attention. Why would anyone with a brain be so emotional, so irrational, so petty as to personally attack somebody for asking questions, or having a different view about Global Warming?

I'm funny that way, but when I see dumb behavior, stuff that makes no sense, I start wondering why. Why is questioning something viewed as heresy? How did a scientific Theory become the same as Church Doctrine? What the hell is going on when skeptics, logical, scientific people, start sounding like the faithful?

I agree utterly, robinson. It's frightens me. Whenever climate raises its head here, I have to pinch myself to remind me that I'm not on a fundie or woo site. I've never, ever ever heard a skeptic repond to a YE Creationist with something like "There's a bloody CONSENSUS about the Big Bang, you moron! Do you actually know how to read?"

[Megalodon]

I agree utterly, robinson. It's frightens me. Whenever climate raises its head here, I have to pinch myself to remind me that I'm not on a fundie or woo site. I've never, ever ever heard a skeptic repond to a YE Creationist with something like "There's a bloody CONSENSUS about the Big Bang, you moron! Do you actually know how to read?"

So you ask a question, get it answered, ignore the answer and raise a strawman...

A couple of years of similar debating techniques is exactly why some people dismiss the denialists after a couple of posts. We all have been there and done that.

It's quite simple, and not at all dependent in a "consensus":
What we know about physics tells us that it should get warmer, unless there's a dramatic negative feedback in the system;
What we know about the world tells us that no such negative feedback exists, and that some positive feedbacks are not only possible but highly probable;
Real world measurments show that it's getting warmer.

It's simple. Not that a denialist will acknowledge it, in the exactly same way as a creationist will never acknowledge the fact of evolution... but it is simple.

[mhaze]

Apparently a Denialist is someone who does not believe whatever exact brand of Christia - oops, exuse me - Alarmism that the person using the phrase, Denialist, is.

The fact about another 2000 papers are published each year in climate science seems to indicate that there are quite a few open question marks. I regularly visit numerous websites and blogs where these subjects are discussed, often with strong opinions; however there is no of the personal attacks, insults and cynicism that is seen on JREF. People agree to disagree and then make detailed lists of their areas of disagreements, and agreements.

So yeah, what is the big deal?

[JoeEllison]

You can argue with that one forever, Joe- it ain't interested in facts. Doesn't think thermometers work.
Is there a worldwide mercury conspiracy at work?:cool:

[Diamond]

It's not a lie.

That's true. It's a scientific fraud.

[Diamond]

So you ask a question, get it answered, ignore the answer and raise a strawman...

A couple of years of similar debating techniques is exactly why some people dismiss the denialists after a couple of posts. We all have been there and done that.

It's quite simple, and not at all dependent in a "consensus":
What we know about physics tells us that it should get warmer, unless there's a dramatic negative feedback in the system;
What we know about the world tells us that no such negative feedback exists, and that some positive feedbacks are not only possible but highly probable;
Real world measurments show that it's getting warmer.

It's simple. Not that a denialist will acknowledge it, in the exactly same way as a creationist will never acknowledge the fact of evolution... but it is simple.

Clean up on aisle 6. Enormous can of stupid logical fallacies burst wide open.

Bring the dump truck because this one's a biggie.

[Megalodon]

The fact about another 2000 papers are published each year in climate science seems to indicate that there are quite a few open question marks. I regularly visit numerous websites and blogs where these subjects are discussed, often with strong opinions; however there is no of the personal attacks, insults and cynicism that is seen on JREF. People agree to disagree and then make detailed lists of their areas of disagreements, and agreements.

So, to clarify your statement, would you think that the papers published every year in evolutionary biology, molecular biology and genetics mean that evolution is not a fact, because there are "quite a few open question marks"?

[Megalodon]

Clean up on aisle 6. Enormous can of stupid logical fallacies burst wide open.

Bring the dump truck because this one's a biggie.

Well, they do say that plagiarism is the more sincere form of flattery...

Personally, I find it depressing.

BTW, care to show those logical fallacies?

[mhaze]

So, to clarify your statement, would you think that the papers published every year in evolutionary biology, molecular biology and genetics mean that evolution is not a fact, because there are "quite a few open question marks"?

:) I would think that there were a few open question marks in the areas addressed by the papers published in those areas.

In the case of climate science, this is an issue that has been latched onto, quite possibly erroneously, by politicians. There are trillions of dollars in taxes, carbon credits, and behavior change riding on climate change interpretations.

Creationism is not taught in most schools, but Gore Alarmism is taught, as the Gore movie with it's pack of Alarmist Lies is pretty standardly shown in schools and is taught as fact.

Do you have a little problem with that or not?

[Diamond]

Well, they do say that plagiarism is the more sincere form of flattery...

Personally, I find it depressing.

BTW, care to show those logical fallacies?

Why certainly. Let's go through them at a pace you can understand. I'll type extra slowly for clarity.

So you ask a question, get it answered, ignore the answer and raise a strawman...

Completely unlike your "answers" presumeably.

A couple of years of similar debating techniques is exactly why some people dismiss the denialists after a couple of posts. We all have been there and done that.

The ad hominem attack - first call your opponent a "denialist" rather than a skeptic. "Denialism" is of course an attempt to conflate skepticism of AGW alarmism with Holocaust denial.

Now patronize your opponent with an apparently simple syllogism:

It's quite simple, and not at all dependent in a "consensus":
What we know about physics tells us that it should get warmer, unless there's a dramatic negative feedback in the system;
What we know about the world tells us that no such negative feedback exists, and that some positive feedbacks are not only possible but highly probable;
Real world measurments show that it's getting warmer.

So rising carbon dioxide should all things being equal cause a rise in temperature.

Except that all of the high resolution ice cores show carbon dioxide rise as a centuries delayed response to climate warming and never a forcing. Which means that the syllogism fails the experimental test. There must be a large negative feedback in the system to cause this, and to prevent the climate system running away to either Venus-style greenhouse or Ice House attractors, which the Earth has managed to avoid for billions of years despite having carbon dioxide levels (and temperatures) significantly higher than today.

But sadly simple syllogisms appeal to simple people.

It's simple. Not that a denialist will acknowledge it, in the exactly same way as a creationist will never acknowledge the fact of evolution... but it is simple.

And finally, when you're flogging a denialist dead horse, compare your opponent to a creationist.

Actually here's my favourite quote from a real creationist:

"One of the most basic laws in the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that as time goes by, entropy in an environment will increase. Evolution argues differently against a law that is accepted EVERYWHERE BY EVERYONE. Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. That just isn't possible: UNLESS there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it.

That made the FSTDT Post of the Year for 2005 (http://www.fstdt.com/fundies/top100.aspx)

Now of course if anyone were to compare syllogisms, then bright people might be impressed by the same use of illogic and the same ignorance of science in both.

But then that would be a straw man. The megacans of stupid are rapidly bursting in the heat - the cleanup on aisle 6 will continue shortly...

[Megalodon]

:) I would think that there were a few open question marks in the areas addressed by the papers published in those areas.

You would be right...

In the case of climate science, this is an issue that has been latched onto, quite possibly erroneously, by politicians.

Is this going to turn into a "it's a international enviro-socialist conspiracy to sink the US" argument? If it is, I have more important things to do with my time.

There are trillions of dollars in taxes, carbon credits, and behavior change riding on climate change interpretations.

What does that have to do with the science?

Creationism is not taught in most schools, but Gore Alarmism is taught, as the Gore movie with it's pack of Alarmist Lies is pretty standardly shown in schools and is taught as fact.

I have not seen Gore's movie, but given your persistent entumescence for the guy, forgive me if I take this with a grain of salt.

Do you have a little problem with that or not?

As I said, haven't seen the movie.

Anyway, did you have a point to begin with?

[Schneibster]

I never questioned the coming Global Warming, you know, the one that is a fact, no doubt about it, it has been proven beyond all doubt, everybody agrees with, that Global Warming.

I never even thought about questioning it, looking into it, until I saw the religious like attacks on anyone who did question it. That got my attention. Why would anyone with a brain be so emotional, so irrational, so petty as to personally attack somebody for asking questions, or having a different view about Global Warming?

I'm funny that way, but when I see dumb behavior, stuff that makes no sense, I start wondering why. Why is questioning something viewed as heresy? How did a scientific Theory become the same as Church Doctrine? What the hell is going on when skeptics, logical, scientific people, start sounding like the faithful?I wonder the same thing. And I look at this thread. And you know what I see?

Yeah.

[JoeEllison]

What does that have to do with the science? Nothing... but it has EVERYTHING to do with the denialists. Remember, the misinformation about global warming that the denialists have been suckered into believing comes mainly from corporate sources, that have a stake in continuing to sell fossil fuels and pollute the environment. Not a lot of peer-reviewed research, but a whole stack of money from the oil companies.

And then they wonder why their claim of being "skeptical" is mocked and laughed at?

[JoeEllison]

I wonder the same thing. And I look at this thread. And you know what I see?

Yeah.
Yeah. Me too. Funny, isn't it?

[mhaze]

You would be right...

Is this going to turn into a "it's a international enviro-socialist conspiracy to sink the US" argument? If it is, I have more important things to do with my time.

What does that have to do with the science?

I have not seen Gore's movie, but given your persistent entumescence for the guy, forgive me if I take this with a grain of salt.

As I said, haven't seen the movie.

Anyway, did you have a point to begin with?

Suit yourself, but you are welcome to show that I am wrong; for example show me where children in schools are taught that sea level rise is 2-3 mm per year, after they see Gore's movie. Curriculums are published, that should not be a problem right? So can you show where the actual science is taught and not the Alarmism?

RE "what does it have to do with the science", and "environ-conspiracy", I am a bit puzzled that the answers are not obvious. So here are just a couple answers.

1. What, exactly, do you tell people to change their behavior on? (determined by science, not alarmism)
2. What, exactly, do you spend public money and do reasearch on?
3. What changes, exactly, do cities make to have less adverse environmental impacts?
4. What is the focus of policy toward the third world?
5. Are carbon credits and carbon offsets good? Should they be implemented? How about straightout emissions taxes? (Based on science right?)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/14224469e0d61cdfab.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7082)

[Big Al]

So you ask a question, get it answered, ignore the answer and raise a strawman...

No strawman there, Megalodon. Although some of the individual words may vary, I've seen pretty much those sorts of putdowns. I have actually seen the "consensus" staement used as the be-all and end-all of the argument. No discussion. Case closed.

A couple of years of similar debating techniques is exactly why some people dismiss the denialists after a couple of posts. We all have been there and done that.

I've heard that one, too. Why the need to post at all if you're that ticked off? Why are the same posters only too happy to point out strawman arguments, Occam's Razor, Argument from Personal Incredulity, the Forer Effect and god knows how many other of the same principles again and again and again. They never seem to tire of that.

The answering posts may get a little tetchy if the same questioner carries on being wilfully ignorant, but they aren't dismissive from the off.

It's quite simple, and not at all dependent in a "consensus":
What we know about physics tells us that it should get warmer, unless there's a dramatic negative feedback in the system;

OK, what about those who say the CO2 concentration has been much higher in the prehistoric past, without the temperature being radically higher? Are they lying?

CO2 concentration has been rising pretty much steadily since the industrial revolution. After several decades of rises, the average yearly global temperature dropped fairly steadily year-on-year from approximately 1941 to 1975. We are told this is due to sulphate emissions creating a negative forcing. Why were sulphate emissions not seriously affecting the climate until the 1940s? They, too, were important industrial emissions. What caused the sulphate level to rise so dramatically in the 1940s that not only did they allay the temperature-increasing effect of the rising CO2 concentration, they reversed it? CO2 was still rising, after all.

Assuming that sulphate emissions were gradually curtailed as a result of Clean Air policies, why do we not see a gradual lessening of the temperature decrease until CO2 begins to dominate again? Why the sudden, steady increase in temperature from 1975, instead of a curve as SOx dropped out and the still-increasing CO2 began to take over?

What we know about the world tells us that no such negative feedback exists, and that some positive feedbacks are not only possible but highly probable;

I humbly suggest "what we know about the world" is insufficient to predict the climate. I've seen a huge spread in predictions of the rate of increase, confusion as to whether the rise will continue perpetually or peter out, whether the Northern Hemisphere will become a desert or an ice-bowl. Current climate models do not postdict the Little Ice Age or the Medieval Warm Period, which were significant climatic events. However, they did not depend on CO2 as a forcing. Cloud formation seems to be all but absent in climate models, but is almost certainly an important forcing.

Real world measurments show that it's getting warmer.

And I have never, ever denied that. OK, this year, in the UK at least, is so far considerably cooler than last year, but I do appreciate the difference between weather and climate.

However, there is the fact that a large number of weather stations in Siberia and in non-urban areas have ceased to be. They are no longer taking measurements at all. And yet all I've seen as a rebuttal to the urban heat island forcing is along the lines of, "Oh, that's irrelevant."

We do not know all the factors affecting climate, not by a long chalk. The 30s were pretty warm in the UK. Builders started to put water pipes on the outside of new houses because they believed there was never going to be a cold winter again. Global warming was happening - after all, the temperature had been steadily rising for 30 years. It was simple.

This was proved to be an incorrect decision during the chilly winters of the late 40s to the mid-70s, as water pipes burst all over the UK.

In the 70s, climatologists just knew we were heading for another ice age. The temperature fell steadily for 30 years. That proved it. It was obvious.

Since then, the climate has been warming up for 30 years. That means global warming is here.

Really, the simple fact that the mercury's higher than it was thirty years ago says absolutely jack about continued trends. I have never denied that recent years have been warmer than in my youth. That is both simple and obvious. Yes, I would be an idiot to deny that.

Is it simple and obvious that human beings are causing the rise in temperature? Is it simple and obvious that the temperature will continue to rise without limit? Is it simple and obvious that carbon dioxide forcing is the only game in town? I don't think so.

It's simple. Not that a denialist will acknowledge it, in the exactly same way as a creationist will never acknowledge the fact of evolution... but it is simple.

A creationist denies that evolution is happening at all. I don't deny we're in a warming cycle. I just think we don't know enough about the climate to predict what's going to happen tomorrow, let alone a hundred years from now.

I'm all for recycling and cutting down pollution on a general principle: it would be nice to stop poisoning the earth. So basically, I'm happy to walk the walk. I'm just not convinced enough to talk the talk.

[Megalodon]

Why certainly. Let's go through them at a pace you can understand. I'll type extra slowly for clarity.

Having read your post, I can say it didn't help... try thinking next time.

The ad hominem attack - first call your opponent a "denialist" rather than a skeptic.

Depressing... An ad hominem fallacy means that I would be attacking the arguer instead of the argument. I explained my position based on the poster's behaviour and made an argument myself. At most you could have said that I was poisoning the well, but even that one wouldn't fit, since I was explaining the reason why some regulars are less than polite.

And BTW, sceptics look at the evidence...

"Denialism" is of course an attempt to conflate skepticism of AGW alarmism with Holocaust denial.

And you are of course a plaid marsupial from Omega 3... as an exercise, find the similarity between both assertions.

Now patronize your opponent with an apparently simple syllogism:

Even if it was true, is patronizing a logical fallacy now? And by the way, that was not a syllogism. Don't use big words if you don't know their meaning.

So rising carbon dioxide should all things being equal cause a rise in temperature.

Apparently you got it....

Except that all of the high resolution ice cores show carbon dioxide rise as a centuries delayed response to climate warming and never a forcing. Which means that the syllogism fails the experimental test. There must be a large negative feedback in the system to cause this, and to prevent the climate system running away to either Venus-style greenhouse or Ice House attractors, which the Earth has managed to avoid for billions of years despite having carbon dioxide levels (and temperatures) significantly higher than today.

...but then, disaster.

But sadly simple syllogisms appeal to simple people.

Yes, I agree the list was simplified to drive a point across. Is that a logicall fallacy, now?

And finally, when you're flogging a denialist dead horse, compare your opponent to a creationist.

You're wrong as usual... but I know you're not going to let it stop you.

Now of course if anyone were to compare syllogisms, then bright people might be impressed by the same use of illogic and the same ignorance of science in both.

Well, I am surely impressed with your grasp of the terms "syllogism" and "logical fallacy".

So, back to your earlier claim: Can you show us the the logical fallacies?

[JoeEllison]

1. What, exactly, do you tell people to change their behavior on? (determined by science, not alarmism)
2. What, exactly, do you spend public money and do reasearch on?
3. What changes, exactly, do cities make to have less adverse environmental impacts?
4. What is the focus of policy toward the third world?
5. Are carbon credits and carbon offsets good? Should they be implemented? How about straightout emissions taxes? (Based on science right?)

So, you now accept that changes need to be made? Or are you going to claim that unsatisfactory answers to your question are somehow proof that there's not a problem at all?

[Big Al]

Nothing... but it has EVERYTHING to do with the denialists. Remember, the misinformation about global warming that the denialists have been suckered into believing comes mainly from corporate sources, that have a stake in continuing to sell fossil fuels and pollute the environment. Not a lot of peer-reviewed research, but a whole stack of money from the oil companies.

Joe Newman of Perpetual Motion fame has said exactly the same thing. Guess there must be something in his claims after all.

Let me put things another way:

In the 1930s, it was warming, and people thought it would go on forever. It didn't. Scientists knew about the Greenhouse Effect then, they knew carbon dioxide was a GG, and they took measurements. Where did they go wrong in their predictions?

In the 1970s, it was cooling, and people thought it would go on forever. It didn't. Scientists knew about the Greenhouse Effect then, they knew carbon dioxide was a GG, and they took measurements. They also know SOx was a negative forcing. Where did they go wrong in their predictions?

The temperature is increasing now. How do we know we're right in the assumption of ever-increasing temperature? Because we know so much more about the climate than in the 30s and 70s? Then why can't we agree on what the rate of rise will be, or for how long it will continue? Is this part of the great consensus?

[JoeEllison]

Joe Newman of Perpetual Motion fame has said exactly the same thing. Guess there must be something in his claims after all.

Let me put things another way:

In the 1930s, it was warming, and people thought it would go on forever. It didn't. Scientists knew about the Greenhouse Effect then, they knew carbon dioxide was a GG, and they took measurements. Where did they go wrong in their predictions?

In the 1970s, it was cooling, and people thought it would go on forever. It didn't. Scientists knew about the Greenhouse Effect then, they knew carbon dioxide was a GG, and they took measurements. They also know SOx was a negative forcing. Where did they go wrong in their predictions?

The temperature is increasing now. How do we know we're right in the assumption of ever-increasing temperature? Because we know so much more about the climate than in the 30s and 70s? Then why can't we agree on what the rate of rise will be, or for how long it will continue? Is this part of the great consensus?

I guess if every scientist doesn't agree 100% with every other scientist, then the bulk of the evidence can be thrown out?

You sound like one of those "evolution is a theory in crisis" creationists.

[mhaze]

So, you now accept that changes need to be made? Or are you going to claim that unsatisfactory answers to your question are somehow proof that there's not a problem at all?

First of all I would like to say that I am willing to discuss this with you. I am not willing to play little discussion board flame wars and/or knee jerk troll responses. If you want to insult me, go right ahead. I flat don't care. But you will not get a response from it...

Since the beginning of recorded history, various people have discussed "changes that need to be made" and "changes in behavior that would be good". That ain't gonna stop, right? Overall, the result of that is better than if discussion does not occur or is severely proscribed in extent.

In a practical sense, though it is difficult or impossible to get into subtle questions of logic and science in a message board where the noise to signal ratio is high. Nonetheless, why don't you pick one of those topics I mentioned, and comment on it? Then I'll comment on or expand or refute your comment. Etc.

[Schneibster]

No strawman there, Megalodon. Although some of the individual words may vary, I've seen pretty much those sorts of putdowns. I have actually seen the "consensus" staement used as the be-all and end-all of the argument. No discussion. Case closed. You know, I specifically asked you what was a "put down." You never answered. I never mentioned any consensus, and neither did Megalodon. So what are you talking about here?

Looks like a strawman argument to me.

I've heard that one, too. Why the need to post at all if you're that ticked off? Why are the same posters only too happy to point out strawman arguments, Occam's Razor, Argument from Personal Incredulity, the Forer Effect and god knows how many other of the same principles again and again and again. They never seem to tire of that.So basically we should just ignore logical fallacies? What are you saying here? Do you have the slightest clue what you're implying? You're implying that we should abandon thinking. Not just a real great start, Al. That doesn't work for me.

The answering posts may get a little tetchy if the same questioner carries on being wilfully ignorant, but they aren't dismissive from the off.People who don't have an agenda don't accuse people of being nasty without being able to prove it, Al. I asked you to present specific criticisms. You didn't. I guess you don't have any. If you don't, then where did this claim come from?

OK, what about those who say the CO2 concentration has been much higher in the prehistoric past, without the temperature being radically higher? Are they lying?Apples and oranges, Al. Also, what's this about the CO2 level being "much higher," without the temperature being "radically higher?" You got anything to actually cite that wasn't written by an oil company shill that shows this? Any of that, you know, evidence stuff?

CO2 concentration has been rising pretty much steadily since the industrial revolution. After several decades of rises, the average yearly global temperature dropped fairly steadily year-on-year from approximately 1941 to 1975. We are told this is due to sulphate emissions creating a negative forcing. Why were sulphate emissions not seriously affecting the climate until the 1940s? They, too, were important industrial emissions. What caused the sulphate level to rise so dramatically in the 1940s that not only did they allay the temperature-increasing effect of the rising CO2 concentration, they reversed it? CO2 was still rising, after all.Gee, I dunno, maybe it was that little thing they had then, I think they called it World War 2. You never heard of that, right? And then they had to rebuild Europe afterward, and Asia; you know, all that stuff that got bombed. And then people started realizing that there was a lot of pollution being made, and started yelling about it. I seem to recall a little something about that in the 1960s. Maybe it's just me.

Assuming that sulphate emissions were gradually curtailed as a result of Clean Air policies, why do we not see a gradual lessening of the temperature decrease until CO2 begins to dominate again? Why the sudden, steady increase in temperature from 1975, instead of a curve as SOx dropped out and the still-increasing CO2 began to take over? Sulphates don't have a long half-life in the air, Al. You have to keep pumping them out, or they go away pretty quick. That would be some of that, you know, science and stuff.

I humbly suggest "what we know about the world" is insufficient to predict the climate. I've seen a huge spread in predictions of the rate of increase, confusion as to whether the rise will continue perpetually or peter out, whether the Northern Hemisphere will become a desert or an ice-bowl. Current climate models do not postdict the Little Ice Age or the Medieval Warm Period, which were significant climatic events. However, they did not depend on CO2 as a forcing. Cloud formation seems to be all but absent in climate models, but is almost certainly an important forcing. So, basically, because we don't know everything, we don't know anything. This is the same argument the cretinists use, Al. I thought you didn't like them.

And I have never, ever denied that. OK, this year, in the UK at least, is so far considerably cooler than last year, but I do appreciate the difference between weather and climate.

However, there is the fact that a large number of weather stations in Siberia and in non-urban areas have ceased to be. They are no longer taking measurements at all. And yet all I've seen as a rebuttal to the urban heat island forcing is along the lines of, "Oh, that's irrelevant." See, it's mischaracterizations of opposing arguments like this that irritates people, Al. Anybody who knows what the real argument is in this case can spot this a mile off.

If you've only got one measurement, then you question it, you look it over, you pound on the top of the box to see if the meters are maybe stuck. But when you measure that same thing five or six completely different ways and get the same answer from all of them, then it becomes a lot clearer what the facts are. And the thing is, Al, we've got those five or six different ways. And they all say the same thing. So when you concentrate on one of them, and ignore the others, what is that?

In the 70s, climatologists just knew we were heading for another ice age. The temperature fell steadily for 30 years. That proved it. It was obvious.And another one. Every time you go look this up, it turns out a coupla guys said, well, maybe if things are just like this, we might be headed for an ice age. I think we oughta go check it out. And the media trumped that up into a big headline, and the guys are like, where did you get that? We never said that. We just said maybe we oughta go check it out. But now it's like, all the scientists said this. They didn't. All the newspapers did.

Really, the simple fact that the mercury's higher than it was thirty years ago says absolutely jack about continued trends. I thought it was all "urban heat islands," Al. Losing the thread of the argument a bit there?

Is it simple and obvious that human beings are causing the rise in temperature? Well, gee, Al, the CO2 concentration seems to be rising, and the isotopes (measured two different ways) say that's carbon that hasn't been where it can absorb C14 from the atmosphere for a long, long time. Anybody can go check out the figures for how much CO2 we're making; it's pretty simple. Economists keep track of stuff like that. So given we know we're making this amount of CO2, and given the concentration is rising that much, and given the isotope results, I guess it looks like we are making the CO2 levels rise. And given all the really obvious physics above, which you still haven't said anything about, gee, I guess that really does mean humans are causing the rise in temperature.

Did you have some point here?

Is it simple and obvious that the temperature will continue to rise without limit? Who ever said that? Gimme a source, Al. I just don't see it. I haven't heard it. I think you either have listened to someone who didn't know what they're talking about, or you're obfuscating. Which is it, Al?

Is it simple and obvious that carbon dioxide forcing is the only game in town? Al, nobody ever said CO2 forcing is the only forcing. Again, who ever said that? You know, that evidence stuff.

A creationist denies that evolution is happening at all. I don't deny we're in a warming cycle. I just think we don't know enough about the climate to predict what's going to happen tomorrow, let alone a hundred years from now.What's going to happen tomorrow ain't climate, Al. It's weather. Global warming is not weather.

I'm all for recycling and cutting down pollution on a general principle: it would be nice to stop poisoning the earth. So basically, I'm happy to walk the walk. I'm just not convinced enough to talk the talk.A link that provides answers to every point you've brought up here, and a lot more besides, is produced. Have you read the articles at that link, Al? Are you actually interested in the evidence, or are you just saying you are because it sounds good?

[Big Al]

I guess if every scientist doesn't agree 100% with every other scientist, then the bulk of the evidence can be thrown out?

I never said that. Please stop putting words in my mouth. However, when a "near-100% consensus" seems to be used as a major piece of evidence in its own right, it does make me wonder what the absolute knock-down argument is. "Consensus" isn't it as far as I'm concerned.

You sound like one of those "evolution is a theory in crisis" creationists.

Nice little ad hom that neither addresses my questions nor advances one iota of evidence.

[mhaze]

I never said that. Please stop putting words in my mouth. However, when a "near-100% consensus" seems to be used as a major piece of evidence in its own right, it does make me wonder what the absolute knock-down argument is. "Consensus" isn't it as far as I'm concerned.



Nice little ad hom that neither addresses my questions nor advances one iota of evidence.

Here is IMHO an example of just one kind of Science that cannot be discussed on JREF due to the various attempts to stifle discussion that may be contrary to True Believers. This is a quote from Armstrong et. al. who are heavyweights in economics in the area of forecasting and prediction.
The full paper is downloadable as pdf, it is worth reading.

“Global Warming: Forecasts by Scientists versus Scientific Forecasts (http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/Public_Policy/WarmAudit31.pdf)”

We conducted an audit of Chapter 8 of the IPCC’s WG1 Report. We found enough information to make judgments on 89 out of the total of 140 principles. The forecasting procedures that were used violated 72 principles. Many of the violations were, by themselves, critical. We have been unable to identify any scientific forecasts to support global warming. Claims that the Earth will get warmer have no more credence than saying that it will get colder.

This brief quote of course does not do Armstrong's work justice.

[JoeEllison]

I never said that. Please stop putting words in my mouth. However, when a "near-100% consensus" seems to be used as a major piece of evidence in its own right, it does make me wonder what the absolute knock-down argument is. "Consensus" isn't it as far as I'm concerned.



Nice little ad hom that neither addresses my questions nor advances one iota of evidence.

We've pretty much established that "evidence" has very little to do with your viewpoint. Therefore, we're forced to look for other sources for your position. Noting that your denial of readily-available evidence is very similar to the creationists is a pretty good starting place, I think.

So, for instance, I point out the general scientific consensus, not as evidence, but to wonder what sort of special insight you claim to have, that the entire rest of the world doesn't have. Since evidence doesn't sway your worldview, I'm curious to understand how you came up with that worldview in the first place. Usually it boils down to political ideology, so my first guess would be that you're a "free market capitalist"...

... although I could be wrong.

[JoeEllison]

Here is IMHO an example of just one kind of Science that cannot be discussed on JREF due to the various attempts to stifle discussion that may be contrary to True Believers.

Here we see the persecution complex, also common among the sort of mindset that usually lies underneath the fringe belief system.

[JoeEllison]

Oh, and a quick Google search turns up that the “Global Warming: Forecasts by Scientists versus Scientific Forecasts” is being published in Energy and Environment, which is a clearinghouse for substandard papers, often in support of right-wing political viewpoints, and is widely criticized for its poor peer-review process.

So, no surprise that a "journal" that seems to exist in large part to promote unfounded right-wing fringe beliefs would be a source for our friends who deny AGW.

[mhaze]

Oh, and a quick Google search turns up that the “Global Warming: Forecasts by Scientists versus Scientific Forecasts” is being published in Energy and Environment, which is a clearinghouse for substandard papers, often in support of right-wing political viewpoints, and is widely criticized for its poor peer-review process.

So, no surprise that a "journal" that seems to exist in large part to promote unfounded right-wing fringe beliefs would be a source for our friends who deny AGW.

:) Much better than ad hominem. But by the way, I have read numerous of the issues of E&E and do not find the content reflects your assertions. Whatever.

But what about the actual science?

Here are some bits of the paper to chew on -

…some of the well-established generalizations for situations involving long-range forecasts of complex issues where the causal factors are subject to uncertainty (as with climate):

• Unaided judgmental forecasts by experts have no value. This applies whether the opinions are expressed by words, spreadsheets, or mathematical models. It also applies regardless of how much scientific evidence is possessed by the experts. Among the reasons for this are:
a) Complexity: People cannot assess complex relationships through unaided observations.
b) Coincidence: People confuse correlation with causation.
c) Feedback: People making judgmental predictions typically do not receive unambiguous feedback they can use to improve their forecasting.
d) Bias: People have difficulty in obtaining or using evidence that contradicts their initial beliefs. This problem is especially serious for people who view themselves as experts.

• Agreement among experts is weakly related to accuracy. This is especially true when the experts communicate with one another and when they work together to solve problems. (As is the case with the IPCC process).


• Complex models (those involving nonlinearities and interactions) harm accuracy because their errors multiply. That is, they tend to magnify one another. Ascher (1978), refers to the Club of Rome’s 1972 forecasts where, unaware of the research on forecasting, the developers proudly proclaimed, “in our model about 100,000 relationships are stored in the computer.” (The first author [Amrstrong] was aghast not only at the poor methodology in that study, but also at how easy it was to mislead both politicians and the public.) Complex models are also less accurate because they tend to fit randomness, thereby also providing misleading conclusions about prediction intervals. Finally, there are more opportunities for errors to creep into complex models and the errors are difficult to find. Craig, Gadgil, and Koomey (2002) came to similar conclusions in their review of long-term energy forecasts for the US made between 1950 and 1980.

[JoeEllison]

First of all I would like to say that I am willing to discuss this with you. I am not willing to play little discussion board flame wars and/or knee jerk troll responses. If you want to insult me, go right ahead. I flat don't care. But you will not get a response from it...

Since the beginning of recorded history, various people have discussed "changes that need to be made" and "changes in behavior that would be good". That ain't gonna stop, right? Overall, the result of that is better than if discussion does not occur or is severely proscribed in extent.

In a practical sense, though it is difficult or impossible to get into subtle questions of logic and science in a message board where the noise to signal ratio is high. Nonetheless, why don't you pick one of those topics I mentioned, and comment on it? Then I'll comment on or expand or refute your comment. Etc.
Why are you pretending that people are flaming and/or persecuting you?

I asked a pretty simple question... I've asked you before I think, and I think you avoided answering then as well.

Here, let me try again: So, you now accept that changes need to be made? Or are you going to claim that unsatisfactory answers to your question are somehow proof that there's not a problem at all?

Or, more bluntly, what does a plan to fix the problem have to do with the existence of the problem?

[mhaze]

Here, let me try again: So, you now accept that changes need to be made? Or are you going to claim that unsatisfactory answers to your question are somehow proof that there's not a problem at all?


There are changes, investments, and areas of study that are beneficial whether or not there is man made global warming, or any other specific issue. There are good changes that could be made to Bangladesh. They would be good irregardless of global warming.

But to assert that we in the US need to be buying compact flouresecent bulbs, using public transportation instead of our cars, because we might cause a rise in the sea level that would affect Bangladesh is lunacy.


Or, more bluntly, what does a plan to fix the problem have to do with the existence of the problem?Everything. We do devise plans to handle bird flu, without it's actual existence.

And we can build 450 nuclear plants, shut down an equal number of coal fire plants. Do that, and the CO2 emissions are reduced to what the IPCC say is the midline requirement for their projections. Ergo, there is no global warming problem, and no requirement for alarmism, just a need to build some stuff.

Later, if there was no bird flu pandemic, everyone is happy.

And if later history determines no Global warming, those powerplants exist, and benefit everyone.

So there are Win-Win solutions. You may say in the alternative, that some groups would oppose the nuclear powerplants. I would then argue that the shrillest of the Alarmist and Denialist arguments would be rightfully used to Shut Them the F*** UP.

[back2basics]

This is a quote from Armstrong et. al. who are heavyweights in economics in the area of forecasting and prediction.
The full paper is downloadable as pdf, it is worth reading.
.[/B]


Heavyweight in economics? Well he is a Marketing professor, kind of similar. But you would have though Wharton would have made him an actual economics prof. if he was such a heavyweight.

He has no science background, no background in climatology.

And when you look in to this "heavyweight" claim it just doesn't hold up, at all.

Armstrong cites himself more than anybody else cites him.

http://ideas.repec.org/e/c/par65.html

Armstrong, J Scott & Collopy, Fred, 2001. "Identification of Asymmetric Prediction Intervals through Causal Forces," Journal of Forecasting, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(4), pages 273-83, July.
Cited by:

J. S. Armstrong & R. Brodie, 2005. "Forecasting for Marketing," General Economics and Teaching 0502018, EconWPA. [Downloadable!]
J. S. Armstrong, 2005. "Decomposition by Causal Forces: A Procedure for Forecasting Complex Time Series," General Economics and Teaching 0502015, EconWPA. [Downloadable!]
Other versions:
Armstrong, J. Scott & Collopy, Fred & Yokum, J. Thomas, 2005. "Decomposition by causal forces: a procedure for forecasting complex time series," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 25-36. [Downloadable!]
J. Scott Armstrong & Kesten C. Green

Just one example from the link. So his 2001 paper is only cited by himself. In 6 years nobody else found his work usefull, apart from himself.

The paper you posted cites himself more than any paper. His own citations are around a 1/3rd of all the footnotes. And that ironic because he accused scientists of citing their own UN report in his questionaire.

A quick google search turns up almost nothing about him. His wiki page is slim and inaccurate (he didn't predict the 2004 election for example). Reading the report, is interesting because he offer little evidence for such a huge claim. His main point seems to be that the actual report does not have sufficient detail and he made attempt to look in to or understand the models other than reading the report.

He seems to like to promote his own ideas and methodologies, but other people are not many people are bighting.

Amazing what a certain amount of skepticism can turn up in just a few minutes.

[JoeEllison]

There are changes, investments, and areas of study that are beneficial whether or not there is man made global warming, or any other specific issue. There are good changes that could be made to Bangladesh. They would be good irregardless of global warming.

But to assert that we in the US need to be buying compact flouresecent bulbs, using public transportation instead of our cars, because we might cause a rise in the sea level that would affect Bangladesh is lunacy.

Everything. We do devise plans to handle bird flu, without it's actual existence.

And we can build 450 nuclear plants, shut down an equal number of coal fire plants. Do that, and the CO2 emissions are reduced to what the IPCC say is the midline requirement for their projections. Ergo, there is no global warming problem, and no requirement for alarmism, just a need to build some stuff.

Later, if there was no bird flu pandemic, everyone is happy.

And if later history determines no Global warming, those powerplants exist, and benefit everyone.

So there are Win-Win solutions. You may say in the alternative, that some groups would oppose the nuclear powerplants. I would then argue that the shrillest of the Alarmist and Denialist arguments would be rightfully used to Shut Them the F*** UP.

your post is one of the weirdest ones I've read in awhile. Wow. I'm not even sure what I'm supposed to get from this. Apparently, global warming can't exist, because if it did it would mean we might be inconvenienced VERY slightly in order to help people in other countries? Global warming doesn't exist because we aren't building nuclear power plants?

I'm trying to see how any of this has anything to do with anything else you've posted about global warming.

[robinson]

When did ad hom and "everybody knows it" become a substitute for "here is the peer reviewed articles showing why it is the current theory."?

If I hear one more idiot declare "you are a denialist" instead of debating the evidence, I think I am going to start hitting the report post button.

Calling someone a name, and apparently a name that has some sort of insulting meaning, (I never heard the word denialist until I read these forums), is not civil or intelligent. It is dumb.

And denialist isn't even a word.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=denialist&go=Go

I know, I know, you Woos think that making up a word that a "cool in group considers a real word", you think that makes it a word. Maybe to you it does, but the majority of intelligent thinkers in the world would consider you dumb.

And insulting. If all you got is calling someone a made up word, you got nothing.

[back2basics]

Unaided judgmental forecasts by experts have no value. This applies whether the opinions are expressed by words, spreadsheets, or mathematical models. It also applies regardless of how much scientific evidence is possessed by the experts. Among the reasons for this are:
a) Complexity: People cannot assess complex relationships through unaided observations.
b) Coincidence: People confuse correlation with causation.
c) Feedback: People making judgmental predictions typically do not receive unambiguous feedback they can use to improve their forecasting.
d) Bias: People have difficulty in obtaining or using evidence that contradicts their initial beliefs. This problem is especially serious for people who view themselves as experts.

This quote is just great. He says "Unaided judgmental forecasts by experts have no value" because amoungts other things "People confuse correlation with causation". Is he actually saying that the IPCC scientists confuse correlation with causation, a science 101 topic? He really cannot be serious.

Then to top that, this;

Bias: People have difficulty in obtaining or using evidence that contradicts their initial beliefs. This problem is especially serious for people who view themselves as experts

This is deeply ironic. But shows a complete and utter lack of knowlege about the scientific method. With his background in Marketing thats acceptable, but why is he even injecting himself in something that is clearly way above his head.

Obviously the latest "expert" paid for and sent out by people with agendas.

[robinson]

Now with that off my chest, I am sure the planet is warming, due to increased CO2 and other man made factors. And I definitely support reducing fossil fuel use, if for no other reason than to protect the air I breath.

But enough of that. What is the other factor in this matter? I looked at the ice core data. Very interesting. Anybody else notice something strange there?

[mhaze]

Apparently, global warming can't exist, because if it did it would mean we might be inconvenienced VERY slightly in order to help people in other countries? Global warming doesn't exist because we aren't building nuclear power plants?


Nuclear power plants do not emit greenhouse gases. Coal fired power plants emit double the amount as oil fired, and coal fired power plant construction is increasing. Power plants are a major source of CO2 emissions. We need power plants that do not create CO2 emissions. Therefore, we need nuclear power plants. A calculation shows that doubling the number of nuclear plants achieves the CO2 emission reductions required in the midlevel IPCC reports by the year 2050.

Other calculations show that most of the proposed "behavioral changes" supposedly to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are ineffective or nowhere near close to meeting the emissions reductions of the midlevel IPCC reports.

Got it?



I'm trying to see how any of this has anything to do with anything else you've posted about global warming.

Really?

[JoeEllison]

mhaze, do you think that global warming is real and at least partially driven by human behavior?

[Diamond]

Having read your post, I can say it didn't help... try thinking next time.

And back to the insults. Can't deal with the science, so just insult instead.

Depressing... An ad hominem fallacy means that I would be attacking the arguer instead of the argument. I explained my position based on the poster's behaviour and made an argument myself. At most you could have said that I was poisoning the well, but even that one wouldn't fit, since I was explaining the reason why some regulars are less than polite.

And BTW, sceptics look at the evidence...

So "denialist" isn't designed to be an insult akin to comparing someone to a Holcoaust Denier?

I call BS. The repeated use of the epithet "denier" is an ad hominem attack, and sighing about it isn't a defence.

And sceptics reserve judgement until the evidence demonstrates the proposition. So far, there is no evidence that carbon dioxide has ever caused warming in the real Earth atmosphere (and by that, I don't mean a computer model)

So where's the evidence?

And you are of course a plaid marsupial from Omega 3... as an exercise, find the similarity between both assertions.

Tedious attempts at humour aren't evidence either


Even if it was true, is patronizing a logical fallacy now? And by the way, that was not a syllogism. Don't use big words if you don't know their meaning.

I do know what they mean. You don't which is apparently where you cut out the argument because you realised it couldn't be defended.

So as a service, I'll put it back in:

It's quite simple, and not at all dependent in a "consensus":
What we know about physics tells us that it should get warmer, unless there's a dramatic negative feedback in the system;
What we know about the world tells us that no such negative feedback exists, and that some positive feedbacks are not only possible but highly probable;
Real world measurments show that it's getting warmer.

But the syllogism is false.

Real world measurements show its getting globally warmer, as it has been since the 17th Century, the trough of the Little Ice Age. The warming was strongest long before any increased in carbon dioxide. So the syllogism is really a fallacy about correlation and causation.

The ice core records show carbon dioxide rise as a response to warming and never a forcing, indicating that the positive feedbacks (if there are any) are feeble and counteracted by much larger negative feedbacks which keep the climate stable over billions of years. By the way, the temperatures fall well before carbon dioxide starts to fall - indicating the relationship is the opposite way to that proposed by AGW theory.

There I've put the arguments back in that you can't be bothered to challenge or defend.

Yes, I agree the list was simplified to drive a point across. Is that a logicall fallacy, now?

It's a logical fallacy of correlation being the same as causation.

We know that temperature has risen - check.
We know that carbon dioxide has risen - check.
Since carbon dioxide should cause warming therefore carbon dioxide rise caused the temperature rise - no its doesn't.

The fallacy of correlation implying causation is used hundreds of times on this Forum, and not exclusively to Global Warming, but AGW is certainly mainlining it like its going out of fashion.

You're wrong as usual... but I know you're not going to let it stop you.

And back to empty rhetoric. Haven't produced an argument so straight back to insult.

Well, I am surely impressed with your grasp of the terms "syllogism" and "logical fallacy".

You should be.

By the way, I'm not comparing you to a creationist, but I did accurately show a near identical argument from illogic to yours. Same construction and same lack of comprehension.

So instead of boring us all with another tedious reply of half-witted syllogisms and bad logic, why not actually present evidence that carbon dioxide has caused warming in the real atmosphere on the real Earth by reference to actual research showing this, something like:

"In this reconstruction from Proxy X, we see that carbon dioxide (red line) clearly rises before reconstructed temperature (blue line) and has consistently done so many times"

You know, something like evidence.

And by evidence I don't mean this:

What we know about the world tells us that no such negative feedback exists, and that some positive feedbacks are not only possible but highly probable;

Who is this "we" but an appeal to popularity?

[mhaze]

If I hear one more idiot declare "you are a denialist" instead of debating the evidence, I think I am going to start hitting the report post button.


That's a really good idea. I have no problem with posting a controversial link or subject, but hey.....what was that word...."controversial"? Yep, there it was....

[mhaze]

mhaze, do you think that global warming is real and at least partially driven by human behavior?

We've put more CO2 in the air and the air should warm up a bit because of that. Relatively affluent, say Western, lifestyles, cause 10-20 tons of CO2 per person to be released. Western lifestyles are a form of behavior, so yes, global warming is real and is at least partially driven by human behavior.

From that one must ask, well, what are we talking about here? Is it a 0.5 C rise over 50 years (does not matter at all) a 6 C rise over 50 years (not good) or a completely unknown rise because we ain't that smart to figure it out?

[mhaze]

This quote is just great. He says "Unaided judgmental forecasts by experts have no value" because amoungts other things "People confuse correlation with causation". Is he actually saying that the IPCC scientists confuse correlation with causation, a science 101 topic? He really cannot be serious.


I'm afraid he is quite serious.

“Global Warming: Forecasts by Scientists versus Scientific Forecasts (http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/Public_Policy/WarmAudit31.pdf)”
We conducted an audit of Chapter 8 of the IPCC’s WG1 Report. We found enough information to make judgments on 89 out of the total of 140 principles. The forecasting procedures that were used violated 72 principles. Many of the violations were, by themselves, critical. We have been unable to identify any scientific forecasts to support global warming. Claims that the Earth will get warmer have no more credence than saying that it will get colder.

[back2basics]

I'm afraid he is quite serious.

“Global Warming: Forecasts by Scientists versus Scientific Forecasts (http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/Public_Policy/WarmAudit31.pdf)”
We conducted an audit of Chapter 8 of the IPCC’s WG1 Report. We found enough information to make judgments on 89 out of the total of 140 principles. The forecasting procedures that were used violated 72 principles. Many of the violations were, by themselves, critical. We have been unable to identify any scientific forecasts to support global warming. Claims that the Earth will get warmer have no more credence than saying that it will get colder.

Tragic isn’t it?

He should stick to Marketing.

[JoeEllison]

We've put more CO2 in the air and the air should warm up a bit because of that. Relatively affluent, say Western, lifestyles, cause 10-20 tons of CO2 per person to be released. Western lifestyles are a form of behavior, so yes, global warming is real and is at least partially driven by human behavior.

From that one must ask, well, what are we talking about here? Is it a 0.5 C rise over 50 years (does not matter at all) a 6 C rise over 50 years (not good) or a completely unknown rise because we ain't that smart to figure it out?

Ummm... ok. Weird, but ok.

So, what I'm getting from all this is that you reject the idea that you should have to change your behavior in any way, and therefore you are much more willing to accept evidence and ideas towards solutions that require any personal sacrifice on your part. On the other hand, you embrace evidence and ideas that confirm your belief that your behavior does not have to change in any significant way.

Am I reading this correctly?

[mhaze]

Heavyweight in economics? Well he is a Marketing professor, kind of similar. But you would have though Wharton would have made him an actual economics prof. if he was such a heavyweight.

He has no science background, no background in climatology.

And when you look in to this "heavyweight" claim it just doesn't hold up, at all.

Armstrong cites himself more than anybody else cites him.

http://ideas.repec.org/e/c/par65.html

Amazing what a certain amount of skepticism can turn up in just a few minutes.

97 working papers and 68 published articles.

Amazing what a bit of skepticism can turn up.

[JoeEllison]

97 working papers and 68 published articles.

Amazing what a bit of skepticism can turn up.
So, shall we post the total number of papers and articles from the people who disagree with him? Would it make a difference?

I'm not sure what your point is here, either... especially since we know that the paper you posted to is being "published" in a less-than-respected journal.

[mhaze]

Ummm... ok. Weird, but ok.

So, what I'm getting from all this is that you reject the idea that you should have to change your behavior in any way, and therefore you are much more willing to accept evidence and ideas towards solutions that require any personal sacrifice on your part. On the other hand, you embrace evidence and ideas that confirm your belief that your behavior does not have to change in any significant way.

Am I reading this correctly?

You are on track except for one thing. You use words like "willing", "embrace" and "belief". I do not. To me this is really just calculations.

We can calculate what effect various behavior changes will have on CO2 emissions. And we can calculate what effect going to nuclear powerplants will have. Then we have some actual numerical numbers to tell us what to do, right?

So if the numbers told me behavior change, then I'm for it. They didn't.

[back2basics]

97 working papers and 68 published articles.

Amazing what a bit of skepticism can turn up.

Where were these papers published?

This is not the way critical thinking or skepticism works. You made a claim he was an economic heavyweight. He isn't even an economist. His field is marketing, I should have to explain that a marketing professor is hardly qualified in economics or climatology.

Papers really don't count unless they are peer reviewed and in index journals.

They certainly don't fit those criteria. International Institute of Forecasters was set up by himself, it's not peer reviewed. That accounts for nearly every paper he has ever published. So he publishes his own work? Big deal, this gives him zero credibility. It shows him to be fearful of publishing in peer review journals and a self promoter. He is just not credible, in an sense. Harvard business review is also not a peer reviewed journal..

I am just amazed he was even brought in to the debate.

[mhaze]

Tragic isn’t it?

He should stick to Marketing.

Tragic it is. That the IPCC, which should be just science, has stooped to marketing, and done a poor job of marketing, at that.

A pretty good discussion of Armstrong's work (http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1807), (both pro and con as I recall) is at climateaudit.org.

[JoeEllison]

You are on track except for one thing. You use words like "willing", "embrace" and "belief". I do not. To me this is really just calculations.

We can calculate what effect various behavior changes will have on CO2 emissions. And we can calculate what effect going to nuclear powerplants will have. Then we have some actual numerical numbers to tell us what to do, right?

So if the numbers told me behavior change, then I'm for it. They didn't.So, again, this is all a matter of what you're willing and not willing to do, and really not about all that pesky evidence stuff at all? Because, really and truly, that's where you seem to be coming from.

[mhaze]

So, again, this is all a matter of what you're willing and not willing to do, and really not about all that pesky evidence stuff at all? Because, really and truly, that's where you seem to be coming from.

And what pesky evidence would that be?

[JoeEllison]

And what pesky evidence would that be?

The wheels on the bus go round and round... :covereyes

[back2basics]

Tragic it is. That the IPCC, which should be just science, has stooped to marketing, and done a poor job of marketing, at that.

A pretty good discussion of Armstrong's work (http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1807), (both pro and con as I recall) is at climateaudit.org.


I am done, your sources are terrible which is why your conclusions are wrong.

Everybody you choose to believe is paid for and owned by energy companies. Steve McIntyre is still challenging the original hickey stick report which has been verified in multiple peer reviewed journals. He again doesn't publish, has no credibility, he does have a blog though.

If you cannot see the irony in the link you posted, and the logical flaws then this debate will go nowhere. It's just a waste of time, you don't want to work within the bounds of skepticism and critical thinking, or offer good sources or articles from real journals.

As far as I can tell the last peer reviewed reports questioning methods of climate change science were to do with the suns impact. These have just been blown away by the recent study that shows there is no correlation between sun spot activity and energy reaching Earth.

[varwoche]

Well he is a Marketing professor Once upon a time this cite -- in the science section of a skeptical forum no less -- would have boggled my mind. Instead, with bleak amusement and a ho-hum, I add marketing professor to the list of goofy cites that I've seen on jref posted by pseudo-skeptics that includes (no joke): a bumbling associate economics professor, Lyndon Larouche, Malloy/junkscience, Michael Crichton ad nauseum, an oil industry businessman :boxedin:, a coal mining engineer, right-wing lobbyist DCI and countless other bags of free market hot air, anonymous bloggers, "here", paid Exxon shills, the Czech president (who freely admits to ignoring scientific evidence), and last but certainly not least, a construction worker.

[JoeEllison]

I am done, your sources are terrible which is why your conclusions are wrong.

Everybody you choose to believe is paid for and owned by energy companies. Steve McIntyre is still challenging the original hickey stick report which has been verified in multiple peer reviewed journals. He again doesn't publish, has no credibility, he does have a blog though.

THAT'S the sort of thing that people need to be skeptical about. Mining company executives creating websites that pretend to have an interest in objective science, hyping the work of people published in obscure "journals" with substandard peer review, which are then touted as "evidence" by oil company-funded "think tanks". Then, of course, they go straight to Fox "News" and the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal.

The whole thing is a gigantic political scheme to market ideas with little or no scientific merit, right out there in the open for anyone with Google and a spare 15 minutes.

[mhaze]

[quote=back2basics;2779154]I am done, your sources are terrible which is why your conclusions are wrong.

Everybody you choose to believe is paid for and owned by energy companies. Steve McIntyre is still challenging the original hickey stick report which has been verified in multiple peer reviewed journals. He again doesn't publish, has no credibility, he does have a blog though.
[quote]

Really?

Do anything but actually debate or refute the actual paper and its arguments by Armstrong.

Another example of increasing the noise to signal ratios.

[JoeEllison]

Another example of increasing the noise to signal ratios.

Nope, another example of how easy it is for anyone to go online and show how much "noise" is produced, and how little "signal" lies behind the anti-GW position.

*shrugs*

You've been taken in by con artists and frauds, and I know it will be almost impossible for you to admit it to yourself, let alone the rest of us. I'm sorry that it happened to you.

[JoeEllison]

Hans von Storch, anyone?

[robinson]

Has anyone here studied the ice core data? Fascinating stuff. There is another issue as well, that hasn't made it into the model yet.

[JoeEllison]

Has anyone here studied the ice core data? Fascinating stuff. There is another issue as well, that hasn't made it into the model yet.

My understanding is that the ice core data confirms the general consensus that human activity is responsible for the current CO2 levels, which are higher than they have been in the past half-million or so year.

Yes, fascinating how every new piece of evidence helps to support and refine the scientific position.

[mhaze]

Hans von Storch, anyone?

Smart guy, but what is your point (http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,342376,00.html) -

From his article a while back in Der Spiegel

Other scientists are succumbing to a form of fanaticism almost reminiscent of the McCarthy era. In their minds, criticism of methodology is nothing but the monstrous product of "conservative think-tanks and misinformation campaigns by the oil and coal lobby," which they believe is their duty to expose. In contrast, dramatization of climate shift is defended as being useful from the standpoint of educating the public.


The principle that drives other branches of science should be equally applicable to climate research: dissent drives continued development, and differences of opinion are not unfortunate matters to be kept within the community. Silencing dissent and uncertainty for the benefit of a politically worthy cause reduces credibility, because the public is more well-informed than generally assumed. In the long term, the supposedly useful dramatizations achieve exactly the opposite of what they are intended to achieve. If this happens, both science and society will have missed an opportunity.

[cloudshipsrule]

Does anyone posting in this thread actually think there isn't money to be made for the pro-gw groups as well as the anti-gw groups? If there is a way to exploit peoples sensibilities, someone will do it.

P.S. There's always a way.

[Big Al]

You know, I specifically asked you what was a "put down." You never answered. I never mentioned any consensus, and neither did Megalodon. So what are you talking about here?

Looks like a strawman argument to me.

So basically we should just ignore logical fallacies? What are you saying here? Do you have the slightest clue what you're implying? You're implying that we should abandon thinking. Not just a real great start, Al. That doesn't work for me.

People who don't have an agenda don't accuse people of being nasty without being able to prove it, Al. I asked you to present specific criticisms. You didn't. I guess you don't have any. If you don't, then where did this claim come from?

Apples and oranges, Al. Also, what's this about the CO2 level being "much higher," without the temperature being "radically higher?" You got anything to actually cite that wasn't written by an oil company shill that shows this? Any of that, you know, evidence stuff?

Gee, I dunno, maybe it was that little thing they had then, I think they called it World War 2. You never heard of that, right? And then they had to rebuild Europe afterward, and Asia; you know, all that stuff that got bombed. And then people started realizing that there was a lot of pollution being made, and started yelling about it. I seem to recall a little something about that in the 1960s. Maybe it's just me.

Sulphates don't have a long half-life in the air, Al. You have to keep pumping them out, or they go away pretty quick. That would be some of that, you know, science and stuff.

So, basically, because we don't know everything, we don't know anything. This is the same argument the cretinists use, Al. I thought you didn't like them.

See, it's mischaracterizations of opposing arguments like this that irritates people, Al. Anybody who knows what the real argument is in this case can spot this a mile off.

If you've only got one measurement, then you question it, you look it over, you pound on the top of the box to see if the meters are maybe stuck. But when you measure that same thing five or six completely different ways and get the same answer from all of them, then it becomes a lot clearer what the facts are. And the thing is, Al, we've got those five or six different ways. And they all say the same thing. So when you concentrate on one of them, and ignore the others, what is that?

And another one. Every time you go look this up, it turns out a coupla guys said, well, maybe if things are just like this, we might be headed for an ice age. I think we oughta go check it out. And the media trumped that up into a big headline, and the guys are like, where did you get that? We never said that. We just said maybe we oughta go check it out. But now it's like, all the scientists said this. They didn't. All the newspapers did.

I thought it was all "urban heat islands," Al. Losing the thread of the argument a bit there?

Well, gee, Al, the CO2 concentration seems to be rising, and the isotopes (measured two different ways) say that's carbon that hasn't been where it can absorb C14 from the atmosphere for a long, long time. Anybody can go check out the figures for how much CO2 we're making; it's pretty simple. Economists keep track of stuff like that. So given we know we're making this amount of CO2, and given the concentration is rising that much, and given the isotope results, I guess it looks like we are making the CO2 levels rise. And given all the really obvious physics above, which you still haven't said anything about, gee, I guess that really does mean humans are causing the rise in temperature.

Did you have some point here?

Who ever said that? Gimme a source, Al. I just don't see it. I haven't heard it. I think you either have listened to someone who didn't know what they're talking about, or you're obfuscating. Which is it, Al?

Al, nobody ever said CO2 forcing is the only forcing. Again, who ever said that? You know, that evidence stuff.

What's going to happen tomorrow ain't climate, Al. It's weather. Global warming is not weather.

A link that provides answers to every point you've brought up here, and a lot more besides, is produced. Have you read the articles at that link, Al? Are you actually interested in the evidence, or are you just saying you are because it sounds good?

Schneibster,

'Well, gee, Schneibster, I guess if you can't understand something simple like the fact that what we grown-ups call "talking down" to people is really patronising (look the big word up in the dictionary if you don't understand it, Schneibster), I can't help you.'

or, as you more succinctly put it, 'That would be some of that, you know, science and stuff.'

Basically, bloody patronising.

This is a long post and it deserves a detailed response. I will post one hopefully some time tonight.

However, one thing I would like an apology for right now. That is your strawman argument that I advocated not exposing logical fallacies. I certainly did not. I just said that repeatedly giving the same climate information to climate "deniers" did not seem a plausible explanation for terseness, since I had seen members patiently point out any number of logical fallacies again and again to other errant posters, on other subjects. You don't seem to tire of that; it's only when climate issues are addressed when the patronising patient-kindergarten-teacher or angry-elder voice seem to come into play.

What I also object to is the implication that because I have expressed some doubt about this serious issue, or at least made my mind up, that I am an unreliable thinker likely to espouse any number of junk ideas.

However, that aside, I am happy to converse in a reasonable, measured and adult tone if you are, without sarcasm or down-talking.

I'll reply in greater detail later on.

[mhaze]

This quote is just great. He says "Unaided judgmental forecasts by experts have no value" because amoungts other things "People confuse correlation with causation". Is he actually saying that the IPCC scientists confuse correlation with causation, a science 101 topic? He really cannot be serious.

Then to top that, this;

This is deeply ironic. But shows a complete and utter lack of knowlege about the scientific method. With his background in Marketing thats acceptable, but why is he even injecting himself in something that is clearly way above his head.

Obviously the latest "expert" paid for and sent out by people with agendas.

Is he a heavyweight?

Yes, he is a heavyweight. If you just do not like his paper on the IPCC, continue to blast him in this discussion but.... then use him next time you are debating the "war on terror". :D

But it looks to me like the evidence based forecasting approach is well suited to the problems of climate science.

He wrote the handbook (40 plus contributing arthors) started several journals, has an encyclopedic website, and has published on numerous subjects. Start with wikipedia and go from there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forecasting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armstrong%2C_J._Scott

In 2003 Armstrong gave a BBC radio interview, applying his investigations of forecasting to "the war on terror". The BBC reported that "unaided judgments by college students were no better than chance. But when they asked experts... they were no more accurate than the students. Based on the research to date, then, discussions about what to do in situations such as in Iraq, are based on worthless forecasts!" [2] (http://mktg-sun.wharton.upenn.edu/ideas/pdf/Armstrong/Mass%20Media/BBC%202003.pdf).
Armstrong has made contributions to rule-based forecasting, conflict simulated interaction, structured analogies, decomposition by causal forces, auditing procedures for forecasting, and relative absolute error (See #Links to Full-Text Papers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armstrong%2C_J._Scott#Links_to_Full-Text_Papers)).[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armstrong%2C_J._Scott#_note-major_findings)
He was a founder {Journal of Forecasting (see Journal of Forecasting, 1,1982, p. 1-2)}and editor of the Journal of Forecasting (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/2966), the International Journal of Forecasting (http://www.forecasters.org/ijf/), and the International Symposium on Forecasting (http://www.forecasters.org/isf/). He is the author of Long-Range Forecasting (http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/Long-Range%20Forecasting/contents.html). His 2001 book, Principles of Forecasting: A Handbook for Researchers and Practitioners and the web site he founded, forecastingprinciples.com (http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/), discuss forecasting methods.
Armstrong has applied his findings about combining forecasts (http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/paperpdf/Combining.pdf) to political forecasting (http://www.politicalforecasting.com/). It provided an accurate forecast of the 2004 U.S. presidential election (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_U.S._presidential_election), data and methods available online at PollyVote.com (http://www.pollyvote.com/).There is a diverse group of subjects that he has applied his methods to. No evidence of oil companies here!

http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/special%20interest.html

I'm afraid he is quite serious.

“Global Warming: Forecasts by Scientists versus Scientific Forecasts (http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/Public_Policy/WarmAudit31.pdf)”
We conducted an audit of Chapter 8 of the IPCC’s WG1 Report. We found enough information to make judgments on 89 out of the total of 140 principles. The forecasting procedures that were used violated 72 principles. Many of the violations were, by themselves, critical. We have been unable to identify any scientific forecasts to support global warming. Claims that the Earth will get warmer have no more credence than saying that it will get colder.
Yep, he is serious. Sorry about that.

Climateaudit.org discussion here. (http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1807)

[Diamond]

Once upon a time this cite -- in the science section of a skeptical forum no less -- would have boggled my mind. Instead, with bleak amusement and a ho-hum, I add marketing professor to the list of goofy cites that I've seen on jref posted by pseudo-skeptics that includes (no joke): a bumbling associate economics professor, Lyndon Larouche, Malloy/junkscience, Michael Crichton ad nauseum, an oil industry businessman :boxedin:, a coal mining engineer, right-wing lobbyist DCI and countless other bags of free market hot air, anonymous bloggers, "here", paid Exxon shills, the Czech president (who freely admits to ignoring scientific evidence), and last but certainly not least, a construction worker.

Varwoche come on down! (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=59441&highlight=varwoche)

Lets see if varwoche can produce evidence of the "oil industry businessman" that he failed to produce last time.

Or maybe he's just the cowardly liar that I take him to be.

[robinson]

I need a friggin list to keep up here. Will everybody that is 100% sure that Global warming because of CO2 produced by people please raise their hand? Then post the proof that convinced you, then link to the source, and then pat yourself on the back.

Thank you in advance.

[varwoche]

Varwoche come on down! (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=59441&highlight=varwoche)Lets see if varwoche can produce evidence of the "oil industry businessman" that he failed to produce last time.

Or maybe he's just the cowardly liar that I take him to be. It's perplexing that you persist with this nonsense, given that I posted solid evidence (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1627607#post1627607), as opposed to your unsupported spleen venting. If you have new evidence, I'll be glad to consider it though I suggest that the thread you devoted to the topic would be the best place for it.

And speaking of perplexing, I welcome you to clarify some of your other whimsical rants:
Here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1628560#post1628560) you cite a construction worker, claim he is an oceanographer, and then ditch when exposed.
Here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1549485#post1549485) you falsify a quote and refuse to correct the record.
Here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2000607#post2000607) you cite non-posts as evidence. (Are you still a Rasputin adherent? ;) )
Here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1627104#post1627104) you are exposed making stuff up ex nihilo, and ditch when exposed.
Here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1632351#post1632351) again you make stuff up and and ditch when exposed.
Here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1651574#post1651574) your "debate" tactics are challenged and you ditch.
Here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1566038#post1566038) you wave M&M as a magical talisman to "debunk" any and all GW studies presented, including studies that postdate M&M that you "don't have time to read".
Here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2602879#post2602879) is where your virulent anti-science agenda takes a truly surreal turn, accusing climate scientists of being part of a broad Marxist cabal.Sorry Diamond, but you aren't within shouting distance of being taken seriously. You do a good job of disruption though.

[Schneibster]

Great, Al, you're going to "rebut" physics. I can't wait.

I posted your own words. I don't see another way to interpret them. You didn't explain, you asked for an apology- for an offense you didn't prove exists. Looks like another strawman, there, Al.

[David Rodale]

Heavyweight in economics? Well he is a Marketing professor, kind of similar. But you would have though Wharton would have made him an actual economics prof. if he was such a heavyweight.

He has no science background, no background in climatology.

And when you look in to this "heavyweight" claim it just doesn't hold up, at all.

Armstrong cites himself more than anybody else cites him.

http://ideas.repec.org/e/c/par65.html



Just one example from the link. So his 2001 paper is only cited by himself. In 6 years nobody else found his work usefull, apart from himself.

The paper you posted cites himself more than any paper. His own citations are around a 1/3rd of all the footnotes. And that ironic because he accused scientists of citing their own UN report in his questionaire.

A quick google search turns up almost nothing about him. His wiki page is slim and inaccurate (he didn't predict the 2004 election for example). Reading the report, is interesting because he offer little evidence for such a huge claim. His main point seems to be that the actual report does not have sufficient detail and he made attempt to look in to or understand the models other than reading the report.

He seems to like to promote his own ideas and methodologies, but other people are not many people are bighting.

Amazing what a certain amount of skepticism can turn up in just a few minutes.

I read it here first; statistics is not a science. Interesting. Just as interesting is the custom in this forum when in doubt, attack. Always attack.

Would you also consider W. Edward Deming insignificant? He was not an engineer yet was instrumental in rebuilding Japan's business and manufacturing economy after World War II to the status of bringing the Big 3 to it's knees.

Can you name any field of science not reliant on statistics, or any area of modern society for that matter? In fact, statistical science, though crudely applied, dates back thousands of years.

Forecasting is not something Armstrong made up. A statistician knows this, but then, you aren't a statistician and therefore not qualified to comment (sorry for the ad hom).

A statistician designs experiments, collects, analyzes, and interprets numerical data among other things. That could include but is not limited to climatology. To say Armstrong is not qualified because he has no background in climatology is baseless. Just as statisticians are not climatologists, the inverse applies.

Here is supporting documentation on the subject matter contained in Armstrong's paper referred to as social networking. Indulge:
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/StupakResponse.pdf

If Armstrong's analysis on climate models is inadequate, then perhaps you can provide evidence to the contrary? Being familiar with models of a different sort, I am confident your results will be less than stellar. Prove me wrong, and when you've exhausted your resources, I will be happy to provide some useful information on climate models. As a guide, be sure to look for the word 'uncertainty' and be wary of 'proxies'. Always use statistical tools to evaluate the referenced material before posting.

In any event, since there seems to be much confidence in climate models, as there must be in order to propagate the Holy Writ of AGW, why not become a "proxy" for Al Gore and take up Armstrong's challenge:
http://theclimatebet.com/2007/06/16/a-global-warming-challenge/
Members in this forum can post their displeasure with Armstrong's analysis by commenting in the blog. Heck, you could even call him a denialist.

Edit: I missed your post Scheibster. Did you ever locate the experiments used to test the hypothesis of CO2 being the main driver of climate? What about the climate sensitivity, any word on that?

[Diamond]

It's perplexing that you persist with this nonsense, given that I posted solid evidence (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1627607#post1627607), as opposed to your unsupported spleen venting. If you have new evidence, I'll be glad to consider it though I suggest that the thread you devoted to the topic would be the best place for it.

Then go to it (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=59441&highlight=varwoche).

Please explain on that thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=59441&highlight=varwoche) how Steve Mcintyre, who has never worked in the oil industry in any capacity can be an oil industry businessman.

There is no "solid evidence" at all, as you well know because you have been told repeatedly.

Its an ad hominem smear against Steve McIntyre to paint him as somehow "paid for" by an industry that is supposedly engaged in a conspiracy against the self-proclaimed defenders of the environment. And all because Steve McIntyre demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that the Mann Hockey Stick was a disgraceful and shoddy piece of trash that you are desperate to defend by any means.

Lets see this "evidence" (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=59441&highlight=varwoche). Or shall we just take you for the liar that you are?

Here's that thread again (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=59441&highlight=varwoche) the one that you bailed on because you couldn't produce any evidence for your repeated lying assertions.

[PogoPedant]

And denialist isn't even a word.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=denialist&go=Go

I know, I know, you Woos think that making up a word that a "cool in group considers a real word", you think that makes it a word. Maybe to you it does, but the majority of intelligent thinkers in the world would consider you dumb.


Consider the bolded sentence, and then consider the board you're posting on. See if you can't spot the cleverly hidden irony.

[JoeEllison]

Please explain on that thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=59441&highlight=varwoche) how Steve Mcintyre, who has never worked in the oil industry in any capacity can be an oil industry businessman.

BUSTED!!!

You owe an apology. Here's the real story: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_McIntyre)McIntyre was the President and founder of Northwest Exploration Company Limited which merged with CGX Energy Inc., an oil and gas exploration company. McIntrye was a strategic advisor for CGX in 2000 through 2003

So, you've been caught saying something completely untrue. I guess we can throw out your entire position as unworthy of belief now. Thanks!

[Megalodon]

So, you couldn't find a logicall fallacy, let alone the "megacan"...

Nothing new.

[Megalodon]

No strawman there, Megalodon. Although some of the individual words may vary, I've seen pretty much those sorts of putdowns. I have actually seen the "consensus" staement used as the be-all and end-all of the argument. No discussion. Case closed.

But not here. Thus your ignoring of the answer and comment to Robinson was a strawman. You might not have intended it, but that's another thing.

The answering posts may get a little tetchy if the same questioner carries on being wilfully ignorant, but they aren't dismissive from the off.

Sorry, but I disagree. I didn't find the answers to the OP dismissive.

OK, what about those who say the CO2 concentration has been much higher in the prehistoric past, without the temperature being radically higher? Are they lying?

Show me a link with the data and I can talk about it. Like this is difficult, since I don't know what period you're refering to.

CO2 concentration has been rising pretty much steadily since the industrial revolution. After several decades of rises, the average yearly global temperature dropped fairly steadily year-on-year from approximately 1941 to 1975. We are told this is due to sulphate emissions creating a negative forcing. Why were sulphate emissions not seriously affecting the climate until the 1940s? They, too, were important industrial emissions. What caused the sulphate level to rise so dramatically in the 1940s that not only did they allay the temperature-increasing effect of the rising CO2 concentration, they reversed it? CO2 was still rising, after all.

Schneibster tackled this one already.

Assuming that sulphate emissions were gradually curtailed as a result of Clean Air policies, why do we not see a gradual lessening of the temperature decrease until CO2 begins to dominate again? Why the sudden, steady increase in temperature from 1975, instead of a curve as SOx dropped out and the still-increasing CO2 began to take over?

And this one also...

I humbly suggest "what we know about the world" is insufficient to predict the climate. I've seen a huge spread in predictions of the rate of increase, confusion as to whether the rise will continue perpetually or peter out, whether the Northern Hemisphere will become a desert or an ice-bowl. Current climate models do not postdict the Little Ice Age or the Medieval Warm Period, which were significant climatic events. However, they did not depend on CO2 as a forcing. Cloud formation seems to be all but absent in climate models, but is almost certainly an important forcing.

I could even agree, if we didn't have a couple of decades of observations in accordance with the models. This is what separates a theory from fluff. Predictions were made, they were in general correct. The theory stands provisionally, being adjusted where it was incorrect.

Scientists must have been doing something right.

And I have never, ever denied that.

And I have never claimed you did.

OK, this year, in the UK at least, is so far considerably cooler than last year, but I do appreciate the difference between weather and climate.

Here in Germany the seasons are all mixed up, and it has been cooler, warmer, rainier and dryer than last year, sometimes in the same week :D... and we still have half of it to go :)

However, there is the fact that a large number of weather stations in Siberia and in non-urban areas have ceased to be. They are no longer taking measurements at all. And yet all I've seen as a rebuttal to the urban heat island forcing is along the lines of, "Oh, that's irrelevant."

Well, that is irrelevant, since temperature can now be readily measured via satellite.

We do not know all the factors affecting climate, not by a long chalk. The 30s were pretty warm in the UK. Builders started to put water pipes on the outside of new houses because they believed there was never going to be a cold winter again. Global