Aardvark

There's nothing wrong with a healthy skepticism of climate science reporting. Often it is wrong or distorted. However, just because the science is poorly reported doesn't mean you should doubt the science.

When science and politics mix then a degree of doubt is necessary.

You've consistently attacked the science throughout this thread, arguing that climate scientists analysis of the data is flawed in order to drive political ends:

No i have not. I have not 'attacked' the science, i have pointed out how the scientific data has been consistently misused and distorted for political ends. That is a quite different thing.

Attack the reporting all you want, but when you attack the science out of ignorance, you're not being skeptical, you're just a denialist.

A 'denialist' Oh no! A nasty label to stick on me! (It's always easier to stick a label on someone than to actually engage their argument isn't it )

If you actually bothered to read and understand my posts, you would see clearly that i haven't attacked any science. I have attacked the distortion and misrepresentation of science to make claims that are not properly substantiated.

The scientists who did the research that appears in the IPCC can rightly be called skeptics, as well.

Indeed, but when the IPCC has been established under the auspices of the UN, an organisation renowned for it's staggering corruption, and when a person such as Christopher Landsea states that he saw the IPCC "as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound'' then i won't just access it's conclusions as unvarnished gospel truth. In addition, it has been well documented that the IPCC has been subject to political pressure from the Bush administration on behalf of the oil industry, yet another example of politics interfering with supposedly objective science.

When scientists linked to the tobacco industry issue research on the relationship between tobacco and human health they are subjest to greater scrutiny than usual. Yet when scientists, whose research grants are dependent on political organisations, issue research on global warming we're supposed to simply accept that there couldn't be any resultant bias or distortion, even unconsciously.

I'd like to see some clear cut, independently verifiable predictions. That would work for me. Not yet more statistical analysis and interpretation that can be interpreted in various ways.

???????

YOU just tried to use it as evidence AGAINST global warming!

No i did NOT. I have NOT argued that global warming is not taking place. I have argued that much of the 'evidence' presented in the public sphere for global warming is highly suspect due to political pressures. As such, i remain open minded about the matter.

Can you show us an instance of someone using the regional mean surface temperature of the contiguous 48 states (or even North America as a whole) as an indicator of how the global climate is changing?

I have read several newspapers where those figures were quoted in editorals in support of the idea that not only was global warming a completely proven certainty but that it was a desperately urgent crisis.

I think you're arguing against a strawman here...

I think you still don't understand my point. I have read many distortions and misrepresentations of the science concerning global warming. It is clear that there are many groups with vested interests in using the global warming theory to promote there own interests. Therefore i remain sceptical of the theory.

Just to clear up a surprisingly common miscomprehension, the word sceptical does NOT mean i disbelieve, it means i remain unconvinced at this moment. I take it you are capable of understanding the distinction?

First: anyone using the contiguous 48 states as any sort of indicator of the global climate is an idiot. From the NASA citation:

 

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

I heartily agree. It's unfortunate that it has been used very widely as an indicator, as proof infact, of a crisis in the global climate. The science has been abused, twisted and distorted. Important policy decisions and public opinion are being formed on the basis of headlines which appear absolutely conclusive about things where there is still a great deal of uncertainty.

One thing is that the scientists, in general, aren't the ones simply extrapolating based on the data points on the graph. That's either an error or manipulation done by people with an agenda — choosing a smaller set of data and using it to support your point. (which is a political tactic rather than a scientific one)

And yet the conclusions drawn from this inadequate data is used widely and stated as established fact. The scientific process has become hijacked by the political.

Two lessons from this are: don't rely on journalists for accurate scientific reporting, and policy-makers need access to impartial scientific analysis, like was provided by the Office of Technology Assessment, which was disbanded in 1995.

Unfortunately, the policy makers do not seem in the slightest bit interested in impartial scientific analysis, instead the entire matter, conclusions and actions, are based on headlines and blatant propaganda.

Which prompts the question: is the IPCC an impartial body? And when one answers, one should justify that answer with some substantive support.

And the answer to your question is?

If you mean a tiny change in the data is giving a completely different political result, I agree.

Yes, that's the point i'm trying to make. I see big headlines, the London Evening Standard actually had a headline that the world is ending when it reported the IPCC findings. A lot of very bold claims have been made, followed by demands for the most draconian of actions, all based on such data.

It gives those with an agenda an opportunity to trumpet out exaggerations and falsehoods based on misrepresentation of the data and events.

Exactly. Which is why i choose to keep a certain scepticism concerning this subject. (Greek: skeptomai, to look about, to consider)

You've given several examples in this very thread. (mistaking data from the USA as being representative for the world, exaggerating the magnitude of an error, questioning the validity of the science based on that error, etc.).

I made one mistake, to confuse data relating to the USA with data relating to the world. It doesn't alter my point at all. My point is, that data was used very publically and vocally as 'proof' of the crisis of global warming when it was thought that the hottest decade in the USA was the 1990's, when the data was corrected and it was found that the hottest decade was the 1930's, suddenly it is all irrelevant and just a matter of anomalies to be overlooked.

That is CLEAR evidence of misuse of science.

People who trumpeted 1998 as being anything more than an anomalously high data point in an increasing trend are guilty of similar political manipulation. One expects data to be scattered in scientific analysis, and also expect the occasional data point to deviate by a large amount (i.e. several standard deviations).

Which makes it all the more reprehensible that the data is misrepresented in such an overly simplistic and misleading way, being used to make firm conclusions and statements of fact which it simply doesn't support.

However, if you check the scientific sources, I'll bet you see trendlines that average the data over some period, to smooth out the fluctuations. That's one way to tell the difference between scientific presentation of the data and someone attempting to manipulate it for political reasons.

Unfortunately, the Earths climate undergoes a great deal of natural fluctuation which complicates any attempt to draw a trendline. This leaves a great deal of uncertainty and room for different inferences. And yet, we see opinions and hypotheses in these areas reported as conclusive fact.

If the data are cherry-picked, it's often an indication of the latter. An extrapolation using only ~1992 through 1998 to predict massive temperature increases would be guilty if the same error. But I haven't run across any; I'd be interested to see them. OTOH, I've seen several extrapolations using 1998 as an endpoint, purportedly showing a subsequent downtrend.

I also have seen several extraplations, supposedly 'proving' that we are on the verge of a new ice age. Trying to draw trendlines and then using them to predict the future is fraught with uncertainities. Yet the matter id=s presented as settled fact and very serious public policy decisions are being made on that basis.

So forgive me if i remain dubious, there are simply too many vested interests concerned for any faith to be placed in the consensus.

Those figures are for regional mean surface temperature North America, not the global mean surface temperature.

True, i made a mistake there, just like NASA But my point stands.

After correcting the error, the change in regional mean surface temperature (for the US) was less than 1%

 

The change in global mean surface temperature is not even worth noting (less than thousandths of a percent)

That is my point. A huge amount is being extrapolated from very small variations in very complex data. When it was thought that 1998 was the hottest year in the 20th century (in the USA) it was used very widely as supposedly powerful evidence of the immediate crisis of global warming. A tiny change in the data and suddenly it is giving completely different results and the hottest year of the 20th century is supposedly 1934.

That is a pretty clear indication that data is being used in a HUGELY oversimplified way to make assertions that it can't safely substantiate. Which is why i remain sceptical. Too many headlines shouting about the end of the world and too many scientists who know that their research grants will only keep coming if their results back up the consensus. The politics has become too wrapped up in the science.

I meant appeal to conspiracy, and have corrected my post. Thanks for pointing out my error and giving me the chance to correct it.

You've just discredited yourself. Well done

Given that bascule has stated an opinion to the contrary, this is clearly not an absolute truth.

Absolute truth? You do understand that we are discussing semantics don't you?

How about a completely related citation for this, as it is a purely scientific claim?

 

 

NASA data seems to disagree

You do know that NASA got their data wrong don't you? They have publically (although very quietly) admitted it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/08/16/eaclimate116.xml

http://www.thestar.com/article/246027

http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/opinion/nationalcolumns/article_1804986.php

NASA now accept, without any of the usual fanfare that accompanied the original announcement that the 1990's were the hottest decade on record that, yes, the 1930's were the hottest decade in the 20th century.

And yet when it was thought that 1998 was the hottest year on record (as opposed to 1934), that was shouted from the rooftops as evidence of the major crisis facing the globe. Now, that has been shown to be false, silence. That's odd, it smacks of vested interests rather than an honest approach to the data.

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309102251

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/

Then perhaps you can use those suspicions as motivation to research the data more closely for yourself.

You have no idea how closely i have researched this area.

Your simple association with scientific results and politics has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the accuracy of the science generating those results.

You are wrong. Politics can easily distort science.

What gets most tiring is the continued and consistent attempts to sway opinion against human induced global climate change using a bunch of hand waving and appeals to authority,

I haven't made any appeals to authority at all. And as for handwaving.....

then to complain about censorship when these illogical and unfounded appeals are mocked and shot down.

No one here has mentioned censorship.

If people attacked the science using science, there would be ABSOLUTELY ZERO "personal denigrations" being levelled.

It's just a shame that isn't the case and that personal denigrations are so quickly resorted to. Just ask Bjørn Lomborg.

Can you give an example of the "control over all aspects of people's lives" angle as it relates to climate change?

I have read several calls for such things as 'Carbon rationing' and for the phase out of private transportation and the taxation of airtravel with the purpose of ending all so called 'cheap' holidays. These calls have been made by influential and respected figures.

Check out George Monbiot if you really are interested.

The phrase "paleoconservative" is intended to provide juxtaposition to the term "neoconservative".

No, the use of the term "paleoconservative" clearly comes across as perjorative, regardless of your personal political sympathies.

It sounds like you don't have a problem with the scientific consensus on the climate so much as you have a problem with suggested policies stemming from the science.

I remain unconvinced. I read reports like the IPCC and i see scaremongering. The science has become inextricably interwoven with politics. That makes me very suspicious that bad science is happening. My suspicions grow when i see the degree of intellectual and political bullying that is applied to this subject, the level of personal denigration leveled at any scientist who dares to question the consensus.

I believe it's incredibly important to keep the two distinct. One is science, the other is politics.

Unfortunately, they have become inextricably intermingled.

Interesting. Do you think these people, whatever you would like to call them, would not vocally reject global warming occuring as much if; in the political and public spectrum, it was recognised that big government solutions cannot be used to combat it.

Absolutely.

I guess really I'm interested if rejection of science is based on ideology concerning the way the economy should function? So in a way global warming is like a "sacrificial lamb" in a debate it has nothing to do with it, ultimately.

If you consider most of the proposals to 'combat' climate change, you will see that they are generally ineffective. When this is pointed out the reply is that they are 'symbolic' or give a 'moral high ground'.

The Kyoto agreement so lauded by the 'Greens' even if obeyed in full would have had no measurable impact of global warming, it would however have cost hundreds of billions of dollars and kept millions in poorer countries in desperate poverty.

On a completely unrelated note, for the last 10 years the Earths climate has been cooling and the hottest decade in the 20th century was the 1930's.

I'm constantly amazed that apparently serious commentators can still doubt that NAFTA is a good thing for all concerned.

Do we really need to rehash the arguments about comparative advantage? Of course there will always be special interests who benefit from prtotectionism and will try and argue that they should be protected for the public good. I'm worried by how much these self serving and ultimnately dishonest positions are making it into the mainstream.

We still nail 'em up, folks. I will not accept your moral burdens.

I don't understand. What or who is being 'nailed up'? And what moral burden are you refusing to accept?

Aardvark, let's watch the personal invectives, please. People are entitled to their opinions, and casting aspersions with words like "idiotic" don't add anything to the discussion. That's not an argument in post #39, it's an attack, and some of your replies to john5746 are in the same vein. You can do better than that.

I responded exactly in kind. If someone uses the word idiotic to describe an opinion, i fail to see why my using the exact same word in the exact same context to describe an opinion should be singled out.

Assassinate al Sadr, get him out of the way, stoke the holy war. Let him live, let his will keep his own holy war alive. Catch 22.

Kill al Sadr, his little 'holy' war ends. Leave him alone, his 'holy' war continues.

No Catch 22 there.

Just a little bit longer. We'll see, one way or the other. Judging by McCain's assessment, I doubt that the Republicans will be able to claim victory

Despite the fact that victory is actually being achieved, you doubt that the Republicans will be able to claim victory. That opinion is difficult to understand.

and a Democratic pullout will prove that pulling out is the best way to force an agreeable conclusion.

Force an agreeable conclusion by refusing to use any force but instead to run away. There is an obvious contradiction in your argument there.

If you ask me, it is idiotic to continue spending 200 billion dollars each year on failed foreign policy.

What would be idiotic, is after spending all that money, and more importantly, all those lives, to NOW pull out, just as victory is finally being achieved.

I don't hate Bush, but we have already lost. That should be apparent.

No, it's apparent to anyone who wants to see that the democratic Iraqi government is becoming stronger, Al Qaeda is being crushed and the militia are also being defeated. If you can't see that then it suggests wilfull blindness on your part.

All we are doing now is being "responsible" for actions that are not our own. It's time to move on.

Actually, being responsible for our own actions. We (The West/The Coalition) went in, and we have a responsibility to support the establishment of the democratic government in Iraq.

When that happens, all things will resolve themselves.

Do you really think in such cliches?

What this administration proposes it that some time in the near future (hopefully), things will get better and we can start phasing out withdrawal,

Actually, what the administration is saying is that things ARE getting better and that the job needs to be finished before withdrawing.

and then EVERYBODY will continue acting responsibly when we leave.

Like the way the Iraqi government and army are acting responsibily right now, getting stronger, beating Al Qaeda and the militias and dealing with sectarian issues in a peaceful, democratic manner. That's what will make Iraq a stable and peaceful nation, not abandoning the Iraqis to the gangsters.

That is a laugh. It's not our fight..

It's not a laugh, and it very much is 'our' fight.

Like I said earlier, if we decapitate al Sadr as well, this could have a very beneficial effect, but does anybody really see that happening?

It's what is happening right now. Do you even bother following the actual events in Iraq? You do realise that he is being marginalised, that the people of Iraq are turning against him and his militia is being slowly but steadily destroyed.

Catch 22.

Apparently you have no idea what Catch 22 means.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7356875.stm

 

This indicates that desperation is now a factor in Sadr's stratagem.

The desperate bluster of a bully who is facing defeat.

The only thing likely to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory for the coalition now is the fifth column tendency in the West. All the 'useful idiots' who would rather see America and her allies defeated because they are so blinded by hatred for GW Bush.

Yeah, Yeah, we can all play these games. I can imagine Eisenhower invading Mexico during WWII to bring democracy there and Roosevelt not mentioning Hitler, except to say he was in a bunker somewhere and not bothering anyone. Let's stay in reality, OK?

Except my example was a perfectly relevant use of a historical parrellel. Unlike yours. Maybe you need to recheck in to reality.

I typed up a response citing how I do not hate Bush and actually support Patraeus, but since you had taken a little snipet way out of context and tried to sabotage my character by implying that I was just a Bush hater, I don't think it merits such a response.

You're the one who wrote that the main aim of the surge is to reduce American casualties. Very weird priorities, and very revealing about your character.

I'd have thought most people who actually care about victory would have thought that the aim of the surge was, you know, that thing called victory. There are millions of people out there depending on that.

I truly believe there are people on both sides of the issue that have the interests of their country, Iraq and the world at heart.

And it is very very obvious that there are millions of people out there who do not have the interests of their country , Iraq and the world at heart. People so blinded by hatred for GW Bush that they'd prefer to see defeat in Iraq. A huge number of people are very invested in the idea of defeat, which is why they react so badly to any positive news from Iraq.

If you want to close your ears to any disagreements and throw manure on them, that is your problem, not mine.

Awwww, did i hurt your feeling? Grow up.

al Sadr is supposedly taking instructions from the clergy, making this a holy war. Oh wait, I guess we already knew that. Just who is in charge?

al Sadr is linked with the Iranians, who obviously want to create as much chaos in Iraq as possible.

Obviously, al Sadr is the biggest internal impediment to unity, especially if he is being backed by the clergy. I can't say much about the Sunni contingent, basically because I don't hear much about them. However, when a significant contingency, backed by the clergy, is signalling for us to move on, this indicates that this is a major stumbling block to unity, that they can deal with it. I don't see this as a move for continual power struggles on their part.

al Sadr is losing, the Iraqi government and people are facing down him and his militia. The 'significant contingency' is signally for al Sadr and his gang to be disarmed, disbanded and kicked out. The tide has turned.

They are full of hurt about the incredible number of innocents included in the carnage.

They are the ones who have deliberately inflicted hurt on innocents as a tactic. They aren't feeling any hurt about that, but the Iraqi people are turning against them now, recognising them as the source of hurt to innocents, not the Western forces.

This is all about enforcing a benchmark, dissolving militias, instead of hiring them. This is why the Iraqi government was so hesitant to accomplish this benchmark.

On the contrary, the Iraqi government has acted as quickly and firmly as possible. It has been a very hard job for them, but they are doing it, fighting hard, taking casualties, and winning.

Oh man, I just read this article from al Jazeera. From their perspective, al Sadr is the Shia spiritual leader of Iraq, not al Sistani, and this is what they broadcast all over the news.

Al Jazeera is not a very reliable source. al Sadr is a local militia leader of dwindling influence and important. He is certainly not the spiritual leader of Shias in Iraq.

I'm going to throw this out as a little poll. What do you think is al Qaeda's primary motive in continuing to send suicide bombers into Iraq? I still believe that it is primarily to protest American interference and make things difficult for us, which includes targetting Shiites to foment war, just as Zarqawi stated as his mission statement.

It's to create chaos. As far as Al Qaeda goes, the worse things are the better. They've almost lost, the Iraqi people have turned against them, their only chance is a premature American withdrawal and a secterian civil war breaking out. The first is a possibility considering the number of Americans who want to see America defeated, the second is looking less likely.

This is good.

Anything that makes it harder for these frauds to be perpetuated on the vunerable and the gullible has to be a good thing.

Macro/Micro is a false distinction propagated by creationists.

Either there is genetic change happening or there is not, that is the sole criteria that needs to be looked at.

If some people use the Olympics as an opportunity to protest and boycott it will let the Chinese government know the strength and depth of feeling around the world about their behaviour in Tibet and involvement in other areas such as Darfur.

As China wishes to engage internationally and be dealt with, with respect, then an awareness of these opinions will have to be considered in their decision making processes.

Why'd you decide to keep going? Scared you might be unable to deal with their overpowering display of utterly convincing scientifically based research?

The Global Warming theory is used by many on the left/liberal political spectrum to push for increases in government power and control over all aspects of peoples lives.

That is why so many so called 'paleoconservatives' (nice use of perjorative and biased language there) have a problem with the 'consensus' on global warming. especially as so many of the demanded solutions are completely ineffectual or even counterproductive.

The invasion of Iraq, if it was going to happen at all, should have happened after the first Gulf War when there was an Arab nation that had been attacked by Saddam, whose government may have agreed to, and been able to, run the peace-keeping force and occupation.

Rehashing what should have been done nearly two decades ago isn't really very helpful.

Any occupation of a Muslim country by an even nominally Christian force is going to have a negative effect, more so the longer it goes on.

Do you really think that the Iraqis are that bigotted?

The "Coalition of the Willing" should have united to push the UN into action with a moderate Muslim administration ready to go in afterwards, not just charged in themselves. Now there is no easy way out.

There never was a 'Coalition of the Willing' to push the UN to do anything. The UN was always an obstructionary force which we now know was corrupted by the Hussien regime. As for a mythical 'moderate Muslim' coalition, what magic wand are you going to wave to create that?

Well I certainly didn't suggest he's a racist because of criticism of China. I also have a big issue with their human rights violations. That's what makes Norman's antics so disappointing - we're already primed for persuasion.

So, he's singlehandedly derailed the entire discussion and made people who have concerns about China afraid to voice them for fear of guilt by asscociation.

He won't respond to reason, that doesn't mean that reason should be abandoned and irrational and emotional arguments used instead. Surely the obvious thing is to ignore him, not to descend to his level.

Well, in my experience racists have generally been intransigent haters that do not possess the skills to articulate an intelligent reason for it. Norman has spouted his dislike, and yet cannot seem to articulate ANY reason for it, let alone an intelligent one.

Just because racists tend to be stupid and Norman is stupid does not logically lead to the conclusion that Norman is a racist.

Come on, you know better than that.

At this point, stabbing rhetoric may be the only way to coax an argument out of him - besides one liners hypocritically calling everyone in here stupid while he complains about the substance of the thread. He's irrational and overly emotionally invested to the point he can't even seize the repeated opportunity to convince a room full of people to agree.

I doubt it, he's had the opportunities to respond, thinking that accusing him of racism is going to get a better response doesn't make sense. It does mean that iNow has descended to his subrational level.

Anyway, i hate the way that discussions on China aways descend to these false lies about racism. It's a contemptible, dishonest diversion i see a lot, to state or imply that any criticism of China must be motivated by racism. I don't see it claimed when people criticse America or France or Sudan, yet it always comes up with China. This deliberate refusal to see the difference between disagreeing with the Chinese regime and disliking the Ethnic Han group.

This surge is supposed to allow Iraq to get its act together, so we can leave EARLIER.

Which is exactly what is happening.

What's this argument about? The surge has worked. The Iraqi government and army are getting much stronger and forcing the militias to back down. al-Qaeda in Iraq is almost broken.

And the complaints come because some artifical deadline hasn't been kept to? I can just imagine how that would have gone down in the past 'General Eisenhower (Lies n' Power), you have failed and betrayed your country. You have only given the West victory by May of 1945 when the Deadline for victory was for March 1945! Disgraceful!

What is happening is Iraq is victory, after a slow, long bloody process with a lot of setbacks, victory is finally being achieved. It looks like there are a lot of people who simply don't want to see victory, they'd prefer to see defeat. Maybe it would help give them that little thrill of self righteousness as they criticise GW Bush, and that has got to be more important that the lives of millions, right?

This saddens me.

 

We agree on so much, yet you attack me personally.

You choose to imply that he is a racist. Don't whine when he responds, it makes you look either hypocritical or just plain stupid.

We are one planet, and old labels of "us and them" no longer serve our mutual benefit.

Wake up. This planet is full of 'us and them'.

Trying to pretend otherwise is just ignoring all of reality. When it comes to China, there is a VERY clear distinction between the Chinese and the Tibetans. Complaining that they are 'old labels' which don't work for 'our mutual benefit' is just an abdication of reason and intelligence in the face of an unpleasant reality.

The Iraqi government is finally getting to grips with the private armies that are bedevilling that country.

It's a huge sign of progress.