Global Warming. Fact or grossly exaggerated??

[GPIDEAL]

Still on that "conspiracy theory" kick, are you?

Here's what I find amusing, on reflection.

When I first posted comments about the IPCC's political agenda, you said it was a "conspiracy theory."

I then proved beyond any reasonable doubt that politics influences the IPCC's reports (the IPCC is public about that) and that many observers in some of the country's largest newspapers and elsewhere believe the IPCC is mostly influenced by a political/activist agenda (a "conspiracy theory" is supposed to be covert).

At that point, you said there's nothing wrong with politics influencing the IPCC -- so why did you initially claim it was "conspiracy" thinking?

Even more entertaining, you have referred to trash political propaganda such as the James Powell post and spoke about it as if it had actual academic merit (eg., post 604).

It has to be asked: Since you don't know the difference between political propaganda and academic research, how do you know that my comments about the IPCC's political agenda represent a "conspiracy theory"?

Will every honest scientist put their reputation on the line even with a strong or favorable political agenda?

We have the same scientific debate with respect to the Kennedy Assassination.

There are examples of politics affecting science but it shouldn't affect each and every scientist out there.

Eg., Luis Alvarez, the Nobel Laureate who espoused the Jet Effect Theory (debunked by others by demonstrating how Alvarez fudged results with different materials, only concluding on stuff to support his pro-lone assassin scenario but not realistic when it comes to reproducing the same effect with human skulls or materials with similar tensile or shear strength). Luis Alvarez did many projects for the government and received govt funding. Therein was his bias.

P.S. Alvarez's Nobel Prize was on atomic physics but he with his son came up with the Big Event theory of the dinosaurs dying from the impact of an asteroid or comet with our planet at the location of the Yucatan peninsula.

 

[AK-47]

Let me be really clear again, 10,000 climatologist researchers/scientists are all not going to prostitute themselves for a monetary reward that will be incredibly small for them, as they are at the end of the chain and the punishment when/if exposed would overshadow any of that reward

How do you know how many scientists are, or are not, involved in the global carbon credit trading scheme?? Where do you get this 10,000 number from?? I was talking about the collection of temperatures the IPCC does, are you sure this involves 10,000 scientists from around the world??

Also, even if it did involve that many, chances are even greater some might be corrupt, especially if they wanna keep their government funded jobs. And you wouldnt need all of them to go along with the scam, just a few hundred would be enough to skew the numbers

Knowing you, it could mean anything, random error, honest mistakes, or on purpose, just to name three .I'm nor expert with statistical analysis, but it's obvious I know more than you

Hey, you catch on quick. I probably meant "on purpose"

I'm nor expert with statistical analysis

No shit. You're no expert in spelling either

 

[blackrock13]

How do you know how many scientists are, or are not, involved in the global carbon credit trading scheme?? Where do you get this 10,000 number from?? I was talking about the collection of temperatures the IPCC does, are you sure this involves 10,000 scientists from around the world??

Also, even if it did involve that many, chances are even greater some might be corrupt, especially if they wanna keep their government funded jobs. And you wouldn't need all of them to go along with the scam, just a few hundred would be enough to skew the numbers


Hey, you catch on quick. I probably meant "on purpose"


No shit. You're no expert in spelling either

My knowledge of how many are involved is about as much as yours. The difference is that I have worked with a number them and understand what motivates them and you don't have that firsthand knowledge. Just your suspicious and maybe a nagging feeling that since you can be bought cheaply, so can others. Money is waaaaaaay down the list for most researchers. Are all or most stockbrokers and bankers crooked because very few have swindled clients? Are all or most doctors sexual perverts because one got caught molesting patients? Are all or most cops bent because some have been caught.

The collection of the temperature data is basically automated at this time, pretty difficult to make an error there. Even the your self described soup is well set mathematical/statistical equations. You take the data put it in the computers and out comes the result. From that point there is a better chance of variations based on interpretations, not a black and white point in the process.

It was pointed earlier how many scientist/author were involved in the latest IPCC report. The 10,000 comes from the total of paper published in recent years, not just for the IPCC. A good research scientist wil always be able to find a job. Almost everyone that was fired by the Conservatives in recent years have found employment with other governments or the private sector. To a man, they have made it known they doubt they will ever work in Canada again.

Some might be corrupt? How many, give us an educated guess? Nothing like painting with a broad brush.

Spelling? Don't forget about them glasshouses, but I guess you have to scratch for even the slightest gaff at this point.

 

[Moviefan-2]

The evidence is that 10,000+ scientist believe in AGW and about 24 don't.

There is no evidence of that. The trash propaganda you're citing doesn't allow you to draw that conclusion, or anything close to it.

You think the trash propaganda tells you that, but that's only because you don't know how to analyze such things.

Of course you are still ignoring that the majority of scientists don't dispute anthropogenic global warming...

"Don't dispute?" The only one of your trash propaganda posts to put a number on it showed a clear majority had no view one way or the other.

And of those who had a view, many who were skeptical were misclassified as having "no opinion" and therefore not counted in the tally of those with an opinion -- in effect, driving up the percentage in the bogus "consensus" numbers.

You would do well to reject junk propaganda and focus on the science. And on that point....

Your way of dismissing the evidence is to pretend it's not there.

I can't imagine where you got the idea that I am "dismissing the evidence." I have done no such thing.

Since you insist this is a point of confusion, let me clarify the record: I fully accept the real-world evidence (that means actual findings, not computer model printouts) that shows the IPCC's predictions were spectacularly wrong.

Meanwhile, it's interesting to note that the IPCC's PR campaign doesn't seem to be working too well. According to Gallup, climate change is one of the issues Americans care the least about:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/167843/climate-change-not-top-worry.aspx

Maybe repeatedly crying "wolf" and ignoring the actual scientific results wasn't such a clever idea, after all.

 

[blackrock13]

There is no evidence of that. The trash propaganda you're citing doesn't allow you to draw that conclusion, or anything close to it.

You think the trash propaganda tells you that, but that's only because you don't know how to analyze such things.



"Don't dispute?" The only one of your trash propaganda posts to put a number on it showed a clear majority had no view one way or the other.

And of those who had a view, many who were skeptical were misclassified as having "no opinion" and therefore not counted in the tally of those with an opinion -- in effect, driving up the percentage in the bogus "consensus" numbers.

You would do well to reject junk propaganda and focus on the science. And on that point....



I can't imagine where you got the idea that I am "dismissing the evidence." I have done no such thing.

Since you insist this is a point of confusion, let me clarify the record: I fully accept the real-world evidence (that means actual findings, not computer model printouts) that shows the IPCC's predictions were spectacularly wrong.

Meanwhile, it's interesting to note that the IPCC's PR campaign doesn't seem to be working too well. According to Gallup, climate change is one of the issues Americans care the least about:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/167843/climate-change-not-top-worry.aspx

Maybe repeatedly crying "wolf" and ignoring the actual scientific results wasn't such a clever idea, after all.

Please referring to post #453 and #456 for this evidence.

I can't analyses it? That's rich coming from someone who doesn't understand the difference between meteorology and climatology. I gave you the list of papers to back the claim, apparently your too lazy or incapable to read them, understand them, and report back to on us why James Powell's statement is trash propaganda. Not that I expected you would or could do that.

All the Gallop poll shows is that American are short sighted, worried more about stuff that affects them now, and don't care about the future generations. Then again how many of those polled would know what an Arctic Vortex or the Great Conveyor is. This is the same population that 25% think Obama is a muslim or African born. Be afraid be very afraid.

 

[basketcase]

...

I can't imagine where you got the idea that I am "dismissing the evidence." I have done no such thing.
...

You sure seem to be but here's some more for you to ignore.

Here's Nasa's latest climate change research from yesterday.

Long-term warming likely to be significant despite recent slowdown

A new NASA study shows Earth's climate likely will continue to warm during this century on track with previous estimates, despite the recent slowdown in the rate of global warming.

This research hinges on a new and more detailed calculation of the sensitivity of Earth's climate to the factors that cause it to change, such as greenhouse gas emissions. Drew Shindell, a climatologist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, found Earth is likely to experience roughly 20 percent more warming than estimates that were largely based on surface temperature observations during the past 150 years.

Shindell's paper on this research was published March 9 in the journal Nature Climate Change.

Global temperatures have increased at a rate of 0.22 Fahrenheit (0.12 Celsius) per decade since 1951. But since 1998, the rate of warming has been only 0.09 F (0.05 C) per decade—even as atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to rise at a rate similar to previous decades. Carbon dioxide is the most significant greenhouse gas generated by humans.

Some recent research, aimed at fine-tuning long-term warming projections by taking this slowdown into account, suggested Earth may be less sensitive to greenhouse gas increases than previously thought. The Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which was issued in 2013 and was the consensus report on the state of climate change science, also reduced the lower range of Earth's potential for global warming.

To put a number to climate change, researchers calculate what is called Earth's "transient climate response." This calculation determines how much global temperatures will change as atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to increase – at about 1 percent per year—until the total amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide has doubled. The estimates for transient climate response range from near 2.52 F (1.4 C) offered by recent research, to the IPCC's estimate of 1.8 F (1.0 C). Shindell's study estimates a transient climate response of 3.06 F (1.7 C), and determined it is unlikely values will be below 2.34 F (1.3 C).

Shindell's paper further focuses on improving our understanding of how airborne particles, called aerosols, drive climate change in the Northern Hemisphere. Aerosols are produced by both natural sources – such as volcanoes, wildfire and sea spray – and sources such as manufacturing activities, automobiles and energy production. Depending on their make-up, some aerosols cause warming, while others create a cooling effect. In order to understand the role played by carbon dioxide emissions in global warming, it is necessary to account for the effects of atmospheric aerosols.

While multiple studies have shown the Northern Hemisphere plays a stronger role than the Southern Hemisphere in transient climate change, this had not been included in calculations of the effect of atmospheric aerosols on climate sensitivity. Prior to Shindell's work, such calculations had assumed aerosol impacts were uniform around the globe.

This difference means previous studies have underestimated the cooling effect of aerosols. When corrected, the range of likely warming based on surface temperature observations is in line with earlier estimates, despite the recent slowdown.

One reason for the disproportionate influence of the Northern Hemisphere, particularly as it pertains to the impact of aerosols, is that most man-made aerosols are released from the more industrialized regions north of the equator. Also, the vast majority of Earth's landmasses are in the Northern Hemisphere. This furthers the effect of the Northern Hemisphere because land, snow and ice adjust to atmospheric changes more quickly than the oceans of the world.

"Working on the IPCC, there was a lot of discussion of climate sensitivity since it's so important for our future," said Shindell, who was lead author of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report's chapter on Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing. "The conclusion was that the lower end of the expected warming range was smaller than we thought before. That was a big discussion. Yet, I kept thinking, we know the Northern Hemisphere has a disproportionate effect, and some pollutants are unevenly distributed. But we don't take that into account. I wanted to quantify how much the location mattered."

Shindell's climate sensitivity calculation suggests countries around the world need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the higher end of proposed emissions reduction ranges to avoid the most damaging consequences of climate change. "I wish it weren't so," said Shindell, "but forewarned is forearmed."
http://phys.org/news/2014-03-long-term-significant-slowdown.html


But I'm sure NASA is too political for you to listen to as well.


You also still have no explanation for why the scientific community seems not to be up in arms over the erroneous research but instead accept their conclusions.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Apparently your too lazy or incapable to read them, understand them, and report back to on us why James Powell's statement is trash propaganda. Not that I expected you would or could do that.

I didn't need to read the individual papers to determine that the post is trash. All I had to do was look at the pie chart and the information provided underneath to determine that the posting is a Goebbels-like effort to disseminate false information.

The pie chart creates the false illusion that a "vast majority" (to use basketcase's words) of climate scientists support the theory of anthropogenic global warming. In fact, Powell found no such thing.

I already provided an analysis, but here it is again.

Here's the link: http://www.jamespowell.org/

Powell's post (on principle, I refuse to call it "research" or dignify it with any other language that suggests it has merit) did a search of 10,885 articles that he said were peer reviewed. In his judgment, only two articles "rejected" anthropogenic global warming.

What did the rest say? We have no idea.

Powell said the 10,885 articles were ones "with" topics or keyword phrases such as "global warming," "global climate change" and "climate change." No further details are provided regarding content.

The obvious questions for Powell are:

-- How many of the articles "with" references to the climate were clearly addressing anthropogenic global warming, as opposed to changes in the climate that may have occurred through natural variants?: He doesn't say.

-- How many articles specifically support the premise of anthropogenic global warming?: He doesn't say.

-- Of those that do support the premise, how many indicate that they believe the affect on the climate is significant enough to be a concern?: He doesn't say.

-- Of those that support the premise, how many (if any) provide any evidence or valuable research into the matter: He doesn't say.

What can we conclude from this? Absolutely nothing.

--

The Cook paper was a bit more honest (as propaganda goes) in at least acknowledging that most of the papers reviewed expressed no opinion on the matter, one way or the other (although many papers that were skeptical were wrongly identified as having no opinion).

But let's assume he got the general trend line right. The actual findings (not the bogus "consensus") claim would be aligned with reality.

-- The scientific evidence shows we don't know whether man-made carbon dioxide emissions affect the climate or not, nor is it likely that question will be resolved in the next few decades.

-- Cook's numbers showed that about two-thirds of the papers he looked at expressed no position on whether man-made carbon dioxide emissions affect the climate.

It's actually quite consistent.

Not that it really matters. As I have said all along, such matters should be decided by evidence, not by polling climatologists or counting papers.

 

[basketcase]

I don't need to read the individual papers to determine that his post is trash...

Sounds scientific.

 

[Hip]

The severity is realistic. Mankind's role is exaggerated.

 

[Moviefan-2]

You also still have no explanation for why the scientific community seems not to be up in arms over the erroneous research but instead accept their conclusions.

As far as NASA and political radicalism goes, I'm guessing you've never heard of James Hansen. Try Google.

Your assertion that the "scientific community" accepts the theory of anthropogenic global warming continues to be completely baseless. As I mentioned in my previous post, the only propaganda piece to actually cite numbers found that two-thirds of the papers reviewed expressed no opinion on the matter.

(Doran cited numbers, but as was previously noted, his survey never asked respondents about AGW. He simply asked whether respondents believe human activity affects the climate, a view that pretty much everyone -- including me -- would support.)

 

[Moviefan-2]

Sounds scientific.

It most certainly was a proper analysis. Perhaps you shouldn't comment on things you don't understand.

 

[groggy]

Um... that actually proves that I'm right. He isn't quibbling with any one set of individual results. It is the entire approach of focusing on computer model predictions (rather than real-world evidence) that he is questioning.

Isn't 'quibbling'?
What a stupid, stupid comment.
Its like saying someone who thinks tobacco smoke is good for you isn't 'quibbling' with the cancers showing studies, they just feel they are good for you.
stupid, stupid, stupid.

I may be open to a bet, but your characterization of the bet is misleading. And you have the stakes backwards.

Let's start with the bet.

The bet is whether or not Mann willingly made the computer codes and all of the raw data available.

You are already trying to change the terms of the bet by saying 'made' which implies past tense.
This sounds like you are basing your whole claim on McIntyre's old and false claim.
You said you didn't think Mann's data is online in present tense, are you afraid of that bet?

I'm not sure how you plan to fulfil this, but let's be clear on the required proof (Hint: That means you actually have to read this part, Groggy):

-- You would have to provide evidence from an impartial, third-party source (ie., not skepticalscience.com or realclimate.org) that all of the raw data and the computer codes were provided.
-- It has to be all of the raw data, not some data.
-- The source of your evidence cannot be Mann himself, given all the problems the fake "Nobel laureate" has demonstrated when it comes to providing accurate information.
-- It must be clear in the evidence that Mann turned over the data voluntarily, not through a Freedom of Information request.

Your terms are pure bullshit, asscovering moves.
First, since you already have shown to not believe in the scientific method and instead back creationists what you define as a scientist is probably some flat earth wingnut on the Heartland payroll while you would ignore legit agencies like NASA, IPCC and a host of organizations that represent legit scientific bodies.
Your second point is another bullshit asscovering move, because you will never accept that 'all data' is available as long as some Heartland quack says it isn't.
Your third point is even more stupid, if Mann can't supply the data he's working with, who can? That's the most stupid term yet.
And what is this 'voluntary' bullshit. You claimed the data isn't available, what does it matter how many asshat FOI requests Heartland put out before Mann put the data out?
The question was, is the data publicly available.

You're quibbling because you know you are full of shit and would lose this bet if you didn't add some stupid, faith based, terms to it.

Admit it, the data is publicly available and you were either wrong or lied about it.


And I'm still getting ready to name the book you should read after you supplied a man who thinks the world is 6,000 years old as a credible scientist.
Not to mention that you are still backing that fool.

 

[groggy]

How do you know how many scientists are, or are not, involved in the global carbon credit trading scheme?? Where do you get this 10,000 number from?? I was talking about the collection of temperatures the IPCC does, are you sure this involves 10,000 scientists from around the world??

Since 97% of climatologist support the work, you have to claim that 10,000 scientists are in on the fix.
All of them, except those fools who are on the oil money that you like to support.

If it was only 100, the other 9,900 would out their work as shoddy.
Research grants are only given out to those whose work has passed peer assessment, so you'd have to say that those 10,000 climatologists and all their peers are in on the fix.

It just boggles the mind how ridiculous this conspiracy claim of yours sounds.

 

[groggy]

Your assertion that the "scientific community" accepts the theory of anthropogenic global warming continues to be completely baseless.

Lets put aside your failed attempts at stats analysis and look at the scientific associations that support the claims of the IPCC:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Concurring

Note that there is not one scientific association that dissents.
Not one.

That's called consensus.
Loser.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Groggy:

No one disputes that some of Mann's data are available. The issue is whether Mann has provided the raw data and computer codes to allow researchers to determine if his results can be replicated.

Simply showing some data are available doesn't satisfy that test. That's why I set the terms.

You misunderstood point no. 3. I'm not disputing that Mann would have been the source of the data. I said you can't use him as the source for your evidence that the release of data has occurred (in other words, you would need a reliable third-party account of the data having been provided). Mann isn't reliable.

I accept your point on the fourth term. I'll drop that one.

If you are willing to accept the remaining three terms and the wager -- in clear language -- I'll post the revised set of terms and we can make a bet.

It's your call.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Lets put aside your failed attempts at stats analysis and look at the scientific associations that support the claims of the IPCC:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Concurring

Note that there is not one scientific association that dissents.
Not one.

That's called consensus.
Loser.

Wikipedia? Seriously?

 

[basketcase]

As far as NASA and political radicalism goes, I'm guessing you've never heard of James Hansen. Try Google.
...

So once again you want to dismiss scientific research because you don't like what they say. I guess I was psychic.

I also notice you refuse to comment on the science discussed in the article and just want to write off NASA as scientifically unsound.

 

[basketcase]

It most certainly was a proper analysis. Perhaps you shouldn't comment on things you don't understand.

You have really become a joke, claiming you don't need to know what any of those papers say because you don't like a pie chart. To add, your arguments have come to be like loveyhobby, pretending you are smarter than everyone else.

 

[basketcase]

Since 97% of climatologist support the work, you have to claim that 10,000 scientists are in on the fix.
All of them, except those fools who are on the oil money that you like to support.

If it was only 100, the other 9,900 would out their work as shoddy.
Research grants are only given out to those whose work has passed peer assessment, so you'd have to say that those 10,000 climatologists and all their peers are in on the fix.

It just boggles the mind how ridiculous this conspiracy claim of yours sounds.

It's easier for him to think that than it is to admit he might be wrong.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Actually, it looks like Mann's research was made available, after all (I actually didn't know if it had or not):

http://www.multi-science.co.uk/mcintyre-mckitrick.pdf

Groggy should have taken the bet. Too bad -- the offer is withdrawn.

Update: Actually, I can't figure out what went on. It looks like Mann had an assistant provide data, but it may not have been the correct data. As far as I can tell, Mann did not provide the computer codes (similar to his 2005 statement that the code was his intellectual property and he didn't have to release it). Page 59 and on:

http://books.google.ca/books?id=97H...cintyre and mckitrick get mann's data&f=false

So maybe I was right.

I don't know. Either way, I don't think it's the kind of thing that will be easily settled in a bet. So my offer is still withdrawn.