Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
CDarwin

Creationists and Global Warming Deniers

Recommended Posts

Swan; In that case, what percentage of people on this or any forum are qualified or even have a right to express a view. People will and should judge from the materials available, which is for the most part is what science is all about. Extracting from the evidence to form that opinion....From your profile its obvious your more than qualified to offer authoritative comments and have specific beliefs, based in part on an educational background. My problem is with the apparent dismissal of any one else's opinion, based on your own background, where an earnest attempt to learn an issue may have been made...

 

 

iNow; The average person produces 50 tons of CO2 annually (274 pounds per day). This taken from a pro-camp so may be exaggerated. The gallon of fuel, gasoline-diesel, which weights about 8 pounds produces about 20 pound of CO2, as it picks up the two parts -O-. The average truck today gets no more than 8 mpg or travels about 64 (8 gallons) miles producing 160 pounds of CO2. For the record a car getting 30mpg will travel 240 miles while producing that 160 pounds of CO2.

 

On a 2500 mile produce truck trip, the truck fuel will produce 6240 pound of CO2, while the driver adds 800 pounds (3 days) or a total of 7,040.

 

The Wagon train, the 100 men alone would require 6 months to travel, 1/2 year and produce 50,000 pounds each of CO2. You are welcome to add what ever you like for the "ox", include or not, the methane or the decaying by products of what the ox and men leave behind.

 

Even a bus traveling with 50 persons, would produce less CO2, then the passengers themselves. The train with 100 cars, although burning gallons per mile has an efficiency level not often mentioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jackson33, you must have been home sick the day they taught the difference between fact and opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Swan; Your second response came on, while completing my own. I really have nothing further to comment on. Your simply saying my comments are arbitrary, with out merit and some how have little to do with any GW issue.

 

My post was intended to give some clarity to what IPCC actually said, according to the authors with Wikipedia and my opinions to their somewhat if not totally vague assertions. I would think however, the remedies suggested, suggest an apparent agreement the planet is in trouble or doomed, w/o direct intervention by the UN itself. This then in my mind an agenda...

 

Jackson33, you must have been home sick the day they taught the difference between fact and opinion.

 

Am not sure, I have stated anything as fact. Even in researching any statistic, I find incomprehensible variations. This is why I do argue GW, as man caused and reason to alter life styles TODAY.

 

When I was in school, a long time ago, we were taught as fact; The population of the US could never be sustained over 200 million people. We would be living in 50 story buildings, little food and destined to die from some unknown virus. Oh yes, if we lived to the 21 century, which was unlikely, the Earth would be deep in an ice age. These facts, to my knowledge have not materialized, nor IMO will the current rants of extremist groups. The fact is people with *doom and gloom* scenarios attract audiences which prefer living in that state. I simply prefer not to, feeling the planet and its people are going to be just fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay JohnB. Let's start here.

 

There are literally thousands of studies used to support the IPCC position you seem to disagree with so much. How about we begin by your sharing exactly which articles/studies are inaccurate, and exactly which ones we should not be using in this debate due to the issues you reference.

Fair enough. If you don't mind, it may take me a little while to put it into a fully coherent pattern.

 

Generally though, the reasons I'm not convinced of AGW and the objectivity of the IPCC are these;

 

1. A number of eminent persons can't fathom how the IPCC got the conclusions it did as those conclusions contradict the data that they are aware of.

 

2. A number of complaints concerning researchers having to show their "Green credentials" to the IPCC before being allowed to contribute.

 

(In short I am concerned that the IPCC is being or has been hijacked for political ends.)

 

3. I'm concerned about the assumptions underlying the projections presented in some papers.

a) That projections may be based on the IPCC assumption that pre industrial CO2 concentrations were around 280 ppm when data shows this to be incorrect. Your maths and proceedures may be flawless, but if you start from the wrong base-line your answer will be wrong.

b) That some work may still be based on the now discredited "Hockey Stick" of Mann et al.

c) I've read that a reasonable amount of earlier temperature data was from older records. (Well Duh.:D ) Most of the older type of thermometers were of the Min-Max variety, as in they recorded two temps; The daily minimum and the daily maximum. This data has simply been averaged to create an "average daily temperature". This means that the basic data being used is almost certainly wrong. Death Valley might go down to 0 degrees at night and be 50 degrees at noon, but no-one could possibly argue that the average daily temperature in Death Valley is 25 degrees and base their forecasts on that value.

d) I'm concerned that some more recent papers ignore previous (peer reviewed) papers that contain contradictory evidence. (Rates of temperature rise in past periods being the big one of these.)

4. Simply conflicting data from different sources that should all be considered reputable.

5. The what can only be called scare-mongering tactics being used by some in the pro GW side. (Often backed by half truths or downright lies.)

6. The rather repugnant practice on the part of the pro camp that likens someone who is sceptical of their findings to a holocaust denier. Make no mistake, the term "denier" was introduced into the debate for exactly that reason. The intentional use of the term is to stifle open debate by demonizing the opposition. The only time someone resorts to this tactic is when they have no actual proof and they are afraid that this will come out.

7. The simple fact that it was warmer 1,000 years ago than it is today without any of the destruction the doom sayers predict having occurred.

8. (And I'm reasonably sure about this, but still checking) That the records (cores etc) show that temperature rise preceeds the rise in CO2, not the other way around.

 

As I said, it may take some time to gather the references for all these points, perhaps you would like to pick one and we can take it from there?

 

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fair enough. If you don't mind, it may take me a little while to put it into a fully coherent pattern.

 

<...>

 

As I said, it may take some time to gather the references for all these points, perhaps you would like to pick one and we can take it from there?

No worries. See below.

 

 

Generally though, the reasons I'm not convinced of AGW and the objectivity of the IPCC are these;

 

1. A number of eminent persons can't fathom how the IPCC got the conclusions it did as those conclusions contradict the data that they are aware of.

The ability of eminent persons to fathom a consensus opinion is not really that relevant, so please don't waste too much time on this one.

 

 

2. A number of complaints concerning researchers having to show their "Green credentials" to the IPCC before being allowed to contribute.

Not relevant to the data itself. Please don't waste your time on this one either.

 

 

(In short I am concerned that the IPCC is being or has been hijacked for political ends.)

There might be some validity in this point, but it still is not relevant to the data itself. It borders on strawman, but I am relatively confident that's not your intent.

 

 

3. I'm concerned about the assumptions underlying the projections presented in some papers.

a) That projections may be based on the IPCC assumption that pre industrial CO2 concentrations were around 280 ppm when data shows this to be incorrect. Your maths and proceedures may be flawless, but if you start from the wrong base-line your answer will be wrong.

Which study is this? What do other studies show for the concetrations during that period? Why would this be the proverbial nail in the coffin considering the enormity of other available supporting evidence?

 

 

b) That some work may still be based on the now discredited "Hockey Stick" of Mann et al.

Which ones? Are there other studies that show the same effect by NOT relying on the "discredited 'hockey stick' of Mann et al.?"

 

 

c) I've read that a reasonable amount of earlier temperature data was from older records. (Well Duh.:D ) Most of the older type of thermometers were of the Min-Max variety, as in they recorded two temps; The daily minimum and the daily maximum. This data has simply been averaged to create an "average daily temperature". This means that the basic data being used is almost certainly wrong. Death Valley might go down to 0 degrees at night and be 50 degrees at noon, but no-one could possibly argue that the average daily temperature in Death Valley is 25 degrees and base their forecasts on that value.

Okay. That seems a valid point. It would be best to take a recording as often as possible, say every ten minutes, then average that over 24 hours to get an average daily temperature. So, which studies average the min/max only and what are their specific predictions that we should ignore? Is this the only source of data leading to such predictions, or are there other more accurate studies which have parallel findings using more appropriate methods?

 

 

d) I'm concerned that some more recent papers ignore previous (peer reviewed) papers that contain contradictory evidence. (Rates of temperature rise in past periods being the big one of these.)

Which papers? Also, was their topic of inquiry in any way dependent on past periods? If I'm measuring current usage of an ATM cash machine, my study doesn't really need to look at mergers and acquisitions of banking conglomerates over the past century. Many studies have very specific scope and intent. Also, what evidence do you have that they actively ignored contradictory evidence? Bold claims require bold proofs.

 

 

4. Simply conflicting data from different sources that should all be considered reputable.

I don't follow. Which? Be specific.

 

 

5. The what can only be called scare-mongering tactics being used by some in the pro GW side. (Often backed by half truths or downright lies.)

Okay, but the actual data has nothing to do with this. How the data is used cannot discredit the data itself.

 

 

6. The rather repugnant practice on the part of the pro camp that likens someone who is sceptical of their findings to a holocaust denier. Make no mistake, the term "denier" was introduced into the debate for exactly that reason.

Okay. This has nothing to do with the data itself either. The data is there. Show us which is wrong and should not be used. I don't care about the politics of it all. That's what's keeping us from moving forward on this. The data is clear, and it's consistent. How it's used by some is not relevant to it's accuracy.

 

 

The intentional use of the term is to stifle open debate by demonizing the opposition. The only time someone resorts to this tactic is when they have no actual proof and they are afraid that this will come out.

As I said above, this is not a logical conclusion. I make the comparison to creationists. It's not because I have no actual proof and am afraid this will come out. It's because despite the validity and merit of the evidence I share the data is ignored and the response is often the same... The comparison is to a child with their fingers stuck in their ears and their eyes closed. It's frustrating, and that's why I personally say they are retarded. It's not because I don't have proof and I'm afraid of being made a fool, it's because I am frustrated by continued belief if in mistaken points, despite the availability of contradictory information. Frankly, I don't have enough patience to deal with the way the data itself is ignored and spun, so I get a little pissy and call people names... it's not that I don't have proof. Btw... that was a strawman again. ;)

 

 

7. The simple fact that it was warmer 1,000 years ago than it is today without any of the destruction the doom sayers predict having occurred.

Strawman. Also, can you show me your evidence of the claim that it was warmer 1K years ago?

 

 

8. (And I'm reasonably sure about this, but still checking) That the records (cores etc) show that temperature rise preceeds the rise in CO2, not the other way around.

Okay. There is a definite maybe on this one. However, that has zero impact on our knowledge that increases in CO2 concentrations have measurable impact on global climate and temperature. Basically, don't waste too much time on this one, since even if it's true, it does not disprove the connection between climate and CO2, nor the fact that we are increasing the atmospheric concentration of CO2 at unprecendented rates.

 

 

Please stick to the data. Enough of this "I don't believe it because of how it's spun and used." That doesn't disprove the information, and it makes me pissy. :)

 

 

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JohnB: Your links all seem to be incorrectly formatted as http://http: (whatever) and they don't work.

 

Just to follow up on this, the usual reason for that is because the poster clicked on the "Insert Link" button and them immediately hit the paste button without removing the "Http://" bit that the forum software automatically (and unhelpfully) inserts at the beginning of the text box.

 

I don't think there's anything we can do about that except to just remind people to watch out for it, but thanks for bringing it up. Dak fixed the links, btw.

 

------------

 

The second point I want to make briefly is regarding this:

 

Jackson33, you must have been home sick the day they taught the difference between fact and opinion.

 

This is the kind of thing that really sickens me to see. It cheapens the debate here and reduces this discussion to nothing more than pointless bickering. And frankly those of you defending global warming ought to be the FIRST group of people slamming the poster for doing that. The FIRST. You shouldn't NEED a moderator to step in and take care of it, and frankly the silence speaks volumes of approval when people let something like that pass.

 

Intelligent discourse is not about making the other side wrong. More people should pay attention to what their own side is saying and how it is conducting itself. Careful -- you may find yourself understanding where your opponents are coming from! Oh my, we wouldn't want that! Oh noes!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2. A number of complaints concerning researchers having to show their "Green credentials" to the IPCC before being allowed to contribute.

Not relevant to the data itself. Please don't waste your time on this one either.

 

You're dead wrong on that one. Biased people make biased data. That's why they do double blind studies. Biased people are likelier to round measurements to the "correct" value, etc.

 

 

(In short I am concerned that the IPCC is being or has been hijacked for political ends.)

There might be some validity in this point, but it still is not relevant to the data itself. It borders on strawman, but I am relatively confident that's not your intent.

 

I bet you also think that it doesn't matter where the funding for a study on, say, the dangers of smoking, came from. Same thing here, the politicians have vested interests. There are ways to manipulate even the most honest scientists, you know.

 

Please stick to the data. Enough of this "I don't believe it because of how it's spun and used." That doesn't disprove the information, and it makes me pissy. :)

 

Just to clarify: these issues give me reason to doubt (not deny) the data/opinions of everyone with respect to global warming. And yet more doubts concerning the effects warming will have. I believe in global warming, but not the lunies who think it will be the end of the world.

 

I think it would help somewhat if people were to focus on the things that should be done regardless that would also help the environment: efficiency, (affordable) renewable energy, independence from foreign oil, the nasty chemical residues found in coal, ...

 

---

Also, I am annoyed that the people who think global warming will kill us all are also completely opposed to the most obvious solution (nuclear power).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're dead wrong on that one. Biased people make biased data. That's why they do double blind studies. Biased people are likelier to round measurements to the "correct" value, etc.

I repeat. Instead of making broad sweeping claims, show me what evidence is wrong or biased, and how this negates the conclusions supported by other evidence which is not.

 

 

I bet you also think that it doesn't matter where the funding for a study on, say, the dangers of smoking, came from. Same thing here, the politicians have vested interests. There are ways to manipulate even the most honest scientists, you know.

I repeat. Instead of making broad sweeping claims, show me what evidence is wrong or biased, and how this negates the conclusions supported by other evidence which is not.

 

 

Just to clarify: these issues give me reason to doubt (not deny) the data/opinions of everyone with respect to global warming. And yet more doubts concerning the effects warming will have. I believe in global warming, but not the lunies who think it will be the end of the world.

Strawman. There are serious dangers if current behavior goes unchanged, but that is not relevant to the data which shows the impacts of our current actions and behaviors.

 

 

I think it would help somewhat if people were to focus on the things that should be done regardless that would also help the environment: efficiency, (affordable) renewable energy, independence from foreign oil, the nasty chemical residues found in coal, ...

Indeed. I agree. There is too much effort being put toward discrediting those who believe it's caused by human action. Let's focus on changing our behaviors and removing as many as possible of our detrimental impacts to the planet.

 

However, if someone makes a claim that the data is false, and fails to adequately support that claim or respond to refutations of it, I'm going to focus on that. A dog chasing it's tail. A viscious cycle it is. ;)

 

 

Also, I am annoyed that the people who think global warming will kill us all are also completely opposed to the most obvious solution (nuclear power).

Stop speaking in absolutes. That comment is just silly. Also, there is just cause for concern over this "obvious solution" which are beyond the scope of the current conversation...

 

Which, as we all recall, after running down this "I must fight untruths" rabbit hole, is about the similarity, or lack thereof, of creationists and GW deniers. :doh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The second point I want to make briefly is regarding this:

 

"Originally Posted by yourdadonapogos

Jackson33, you must have been home sick the day they taught the difference between fact and opinion."

 

 

This is the kind of thing that really sickens me to see. It cheapens the debate here and reduces this discussion to nothing more than pointless bickering. And frankly those of you defending global warming ought to be the FIRST group of people slamming the poster for doing that. The FIRST. You shouldn't NEED a moderator to step in and take care of it, and frankly the silence speaks volumes of approval when people let something like that pass.

 

Intelligent discourse is not about making the other side wrong. More people should pay attention to what their own side is saying and how it is conducting itself. Careful -- you may find yourself understanding where your opponents are coming from! Oh my, we wouldn't want that! Oh noes!

 

I think this misses the point of the post. While you may object to the tone, the message is valid. The problem with accepting the premise that an opinion is acceptable is that opinions don't really have to be justified. An opinion is something you hold and don't have to be swayed by arguments against it. That's not science. If you are having a science discussion (and this was posted in General Science) then opinion doesn't matter — there aren't two sides to the story, despite the way the media portrays these issues. Science is about arriving at a description of how nature behaves, and science is evidence-based. Facts, not opinions. There's really no overlap. You don't have an opinion on how gravity behaves, or relativity, or anything else in science; you may have a conjecture or hypothesis, but the proof of the pudding is in the tasting, not a bunch of people standing around offering an opinion. You do experiments, collect data and figure out what's going on. From a scientific standpoint, I don't care what your opinion is, nor should I. If you have an objection to the science, then point out where it's suspect, or where the data are faulty.

 

The OP asked the question "Is denying the scientific consensus on the origins and development of life and the universe analogous to denying the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change?" and the answer to that is yes. The focus of the objection is largely not directed at the science itself, but engages in denialist tactics, and "I'm entitled to my opinion" (and its variants) is but one of those.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I repeat. Instead of making broad sweeping claims, show me what evidence is wrong or biased, and how this negates the conclusions supported by other evidence which is not.

 

Take your own advice. You just claimed that bias is not relevant to data, which seems like a broad, sweeping claim to me. I claimed that biased people are likelier to make biased measurements (and any bias in data is bias), not that that particular study is full of biased data.

 

Normally, bias can be canceled out by including people with the opposite bias, but if it is as Jackson33 claims that they choose people of only one bias on purpose, the results will be biased. You claimed that is not relevant, which is BS.

 

However, if someone makes a claim that the data is false, and fails to adequately support that claim or respond to refutations of it, I'm going to focus on that. A dog chasing it's tail. A viscious cycle it is. ;)

 

Me too. You did make some claims re things that are irrelevant to data gathering and interpretation, which incidentally is a claim that data showing that bias affects data, is false data. If you thought about it that far.

 

PS: bias by definition affects judgment, which I think is enough to logically prove that bias affects data.

 

 

 

Stop speaking in absolutes. That comment is just silly. Also, there is just cause for concern over this "obvious solution" which are beyond the scope of the current conversation...

 

Which, as we all recall, after running down this "I must fight untruths" rabbit hole, is about the similarity, or lack thereof, of creationists and GW deniers. :doh:

 

Sorry, you are right. However, these people also complain that solar has toxic chemicals, wind "kills" birds, hydro messes up fish and sentiment, geothermal heats up rivers, that the tiny amount of waste produced by nuclear is going to kill everything... It's like they hate electricity or something. Gets on my nerves.

 

I do believe that nuclear is the only single energy source that has been tested on a country-wide scale and could provide zero emission energy for the entire US, but I may be wrong about that, which is why I think it is the most obvious. Unless you want to wait for fusion, or more economical renewables.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Take your own advice. You just claimed that bias is not relevant to data

No. I did not. That is a misrepresentation of what I said.

 

 

Normally, bias can be canceled out by including people with the opposite bias, but if it is as Jackson33 claims that they choose people of only one bias on purpose, the results will be biased. You claimed that is not relevant, which is BS.

No. I did not. This is a misrepresentation of what I said.

 

 

Me too. You did make some claims re things that are irrelevant to data gathering and interpretation, which incidentally is a claim that data showing that bias affects data, is false data. If you thought about it that far.

Okay. Let me clarify what I said since you missed it. We are talking about the data regarding global climate change and how humans have an impact on this. Arguments against global climate change presented here have focussed on the political aims of individuals referencing that data and scientists who have an axe to grind against a group with a purpose. I stated that these issues do not disprove the data which has been presented, and asked that the arguments be against the data where relevant.

 

Is that better? No need to suggest I haven't "thought about it that far." That would be ad hominum.

 

PS: bias by definition affects judgment, which I think is enough to logically prove that bias affects data.

That's fine, but again, you are misrepresenting what I said.

 

 

Sorry, you are right. However, these people also complain that solar has toxic chemicals, wind "kills" birds, hydro messes up fish and sentiment, geothermal heats up rivers, that the tiny amount of waste produced by nuclear is going to kill everything... It's like they hate electricity or something. Gets on my nerves.

"These people?" All of them, huh? Wow. You must know a lot of humans to know all people who agree with the idea of anthropogenically induced global climate change. How many billion people do you know? :eek:

 

 

A special form of retarded... :cool:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, you are right. However, these people also complain that solar has toxic chemicals, wind "kills" birds, hydro messes up fish and sentiment, geothermal heats up rivers, that the tiny amount of waste produced by nuclear is going to kill everything... It's like they hate electricity or something. Gets on my nerves.

 

Totally incidental note: Dams are pretty much an ecological nightmare. Do I turn on a light a little less guiltily because I know so much of my power in East Tennessee is coming from hydro? Sure. But we really don't need to be building any more of the things. Nuclear is a viable option. Solar and wind are too once the technology is really economical. Geothermal is pretty underexploited. Natural gas has a lot of promise too. Ultimately we can save a lot of the need for electricity if we can just build our buildings properly.

 

"These people?" All of them' date=' huh? Wow. You must know a lot of humans to know all people who agree with the idea of anthropogenically induced global climate change. How many billion people do you know?

 

 

A special form of retarded... [/quote']

 

Now iNow, be nice. We'd finally got a few on-topic comments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Time for some context.

 

2. A number of complaints concerning researchers having to show their "Green credentials" to the IPCC before being allowed to contribute.
Not relevant to the data itself. Please don't waste your time on this one either.
You're dead wrong on that one. Biased people make biased data. That's why they do double blind studies. Biased people are likelier to round measurements to the "correct" value, etc.
No. I did not. That is a misrepresentation of what I said.

 

---

 

(In short I am concerned that the IPCC is being or has been hijacked for political ends.)
There might be some validity in this point, but it still is not relevant to the data itself. It borders on strawman, but I am relatively confident that's not your intent.
I bet you also think that it doesn't matter where the funding for a study on, say, the dangers of smoking, came from. Same thing here, the politicians have vested interests. There are ways to manipulate even the most honest scientists, you know.
No. I did not. This is a misrepresentation of what I said.

 

Seems to me you said that bias is not relevant to the data. If I misinterpreted you, I did not do so on purpose.

 

 

Okay. Let me clarify what I said since you missed it. We are talking about the data regarding global climate change and how humans have an impact on this. Arguments against global climate change presented here have focussed on the political aims of individuals referencing that data and scientists who have an axe to grind against a group with a purpose. I stated that these issues do not disprove the data which has been presented, and asked that the arguments be against the data where relevant.

 

 

 

I thought we were talking about whether or not bias affects data. You can argue about the data itself with someone else if you want to. I never said that bias disproves data, only that it biases it toward a specific answer.

 

Is that better? No need to suggest I haven't "thought about it that far." That would be ad hominum.

 

I was just suggesting that it was a rather long and tangential train of thought and most people wouldn't have followed it from where you left off. Meant no offense. But if you did think that far, than would that mean that your claim:

However, if someone makes a claim that the data is false, and fails to adequately support that claim or respond to refutations of it, I'm going to focus on that. A dog chasing it's tail. A viscious cycle it is. ;)

implies that you "focused on" your previous claim:

Not relevant to the data itself. Please don't waste your time on this one either.

which you now claim I "misinterpreted". If I misinterpreted it, what did you mean? If I didn't misinterpret it, then it seems you didn't "focus on" it enough.

 

 

"These people?" All of them, huh? Wow. You must know a lot of humans to know all people who agree with the idea of anthropogenically induced global climate change. How many billion people do you know? :eek:

 

Yes, all of them. If you followed my previous reply, you would know that I was talking about "the people who think global warming will kill us all". Who's doing the misinterpreting now? :rolleyes:

 

 

A special form of retarded... :cool:

 

Yes, I heard you the first time. And you are the one complaining about ad hominums. :doh:

 

I don't mind, though. What specifically of mine did you think was retarded?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seems to me you said that bias is not relevant to the data. If I misinterpreted you, I did not do so on purpose.

Fair enough. You DID misinterpret my point though. I want to leave it at that, since for me to reply to the rest would continue an unecessary disagreement that is well beyond the thread topic.

 

Of course bias in data is bad. I'm just asking that you show me exactly which study is biased instead of making sweeping generalizations with no support. Cool?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course bias in data is bad. I'm just asking that you show me exactly which study is biased instead of making sweeping generalizations with no support. Cool?

 

So, basically you agree with everything I said (except the rant on nuclear), but think that I also said a study was biased?

 

JohnB is the one who claimed that there was bias in the IPCC, and you dismissed that as irrelevant. I disagreed and said it was relevant, that you can't just ignore JohnB's claims as irrelevant.

 

Elsewhere (on a thread about opinions, not this thread) I said that I think that the entire subject is dripping in bias, but I am not stupid enough to try to prove that the biases are large enough to discredit the studies. Most of the bias would be in the reporting due to opinionated journalists, rather than bad studies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JohnB is the one who claimed that there was bias in the IPCC, and you dismissed that as irrelevant. I disagreed and said it was relevant, that you can't just ignore JohnB's claims as irrelevant.

The data itself does not appear to be biased. Those using it and spinning it may be. I reminded JohnB that the IPCC takes the stance it does based on literally thousands of studies, so I asked which studies EXACTLY he claimed had faulty data.

 

If I came across otherwise, then that is a fault of my own communication abilities (or lack thereof), and I hope we are all clear now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Elsewhere (on a thread about opinions, not this thread) I said that I think that the entire subject is dripping in bias, but I am not stupid enough to try to prove that the biases are large enough to discredit the studies. Most of the bias would be in the reporting due to opinionated journalists, rather than bad studies.

 

Bias by journalists has little or nothing to do with the science itself, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bias by journalists has little or nothing to do with the science itself, though.

 

Unfortunately, though, most people (and scientists not in meteorology) will get a good portion of their information indirectly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unfortunately, though, most people (and scientists not in meteorology) will get a good portion of their information indirectly.

 

And this confounds the issue, because can argue about many things: the underlying science, how it's reported/presented, what the implications are (and how that is presented) and on top of all that, the politics, ideology and rhetoric of the situation.

 

The main problem is that people mix and match what they are arguing about. It's hard not to, to some extent, since there is so much crosstalk inherent in the system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Come and see the crosstalk inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!" :D Sorry, just couldn't resist.

 

Firstly, thanks Dak for fixing those links, I'll watch for that trap in future.

 

inow. I do contend that bias effects the data. Perhaps not the original data, but bias can effect which datasets are used for the statistical analysis of the data and therefore effect the conclusions.

 

CO2 a "Greenhouse Gas" has long been thought to contribute to GW and man made CO2 to AGW. It was Mann's original paper, found here in pdf format which purported to show the actual link. (NATURE |VOL 392 | 23 APRIL 1998) This correlation is found on page 785 of that volume. The original "Hockeystick" is on page 783.

 

Mann himself went on to become a "Lead author" for the IPCC "Third Assessment Report" 2001. (Which is where the fun starts.)

IPCC takes the stance it does based on literally thousands of studies,

Yet in IPCC TAR, Mann's graph appears as Figure 1b in the Working Group 1 Summary for Policymakers, Figure 5 in the Technical Summary, twice in Chapter 2 (Figures 2-20 and 2-21) of the main report, and Figures 2-3 and 9-1B in the Synthesis Report. This led the IPCC Summary for Policymakers to claim on page 3 “that the 1990s has been the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year of the millennium”.

 

Since the graph did not show the "Medieval Warm Period" (AD 890 to 1170) or the "Little Ice Age" (AD 1580 to 1850) doubt was cast on the accuracy of the wok. So the question has to be; "How accurate is it?".

 

Reliable temperature records only go back around 150 years, earlier than that a paleoclimatologist relies on proxies to gain data. Proxies can be tree rings, boreholes, ice cores or a number of other things. Each of these proxies can be given a statistical weighting. The weightings and statistical analysis methodology used by Mann et al was challenged by Mc Intyre and McKitrick in their paper "HOCKEY STICKS, PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS AND SPURIOUS SIGNIFICANCE" published in Geophysical Research Letters, Vol 32(3), Feb 12 2005.

 

M&M showed that the algorithm used by Mann could be used to produce a similar result when given totally artificial and random values as data. For reproducability, they ran the simulations some 10,000 times.

 

Because of the doubt engendered by this The Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce as well as the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations in the US asked the National Academy of sciences for some independent verification. Thus was formed the AD HOC COMMITTEE ON THE ‘HOCKEY STICK’ GLOBAL CLIMATE RECONSTRUCTION. Their report can be found here.

 

The report validates the arguments of M&M. (Makes them sound like a chocolate, doesn't it?:) )

 

Some quotes from the report;

Overall, our committee believes that Mann's assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis.
It is not clear that Dr. Mann and his associates even realized that their methodology was faulty at the time of writing the MBH paper.

As for "Independent Verification";

Our findings from this analysis suggest that authors in the area of paleoclimate studies are closely connected and thus 'independent studies' may not be as independent as they might appear on the surface.
Based on the literature we have reviewed, there is no overarching consensus on MBH98/99. As analyzed in our social network, there is a tightly knit group of individuals who passionately believe in their thesis. However, our perception is that this group has a self-reinforcing feedback mechanism and, moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that they can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility.

 

So here we have published papers and an independent inquiry showing that the rise in temperature during the 20th C is not unprecedented and is lower than the temp shown by the proxy data for the MWP. Nor can there be shown a direct causal effect between CO2 and temp rise. There is a correlation, but correlation dose not imply causation.

 

It is also noteworthy to study the close relationships between the top 75 published researchers in the field. The bias is there and it effects the data chosen and the way it is interpreted.

 

I would also point you to page 5 of this pdf. (I'm trying to find the original) which shows the graph of previous climate change for the last 1,000 years from the IPCC Second Assessment Report. This graph clearly shows the MWP to be warmer than today.

 

So we have a flawed report using junk statistics that is backed up by "Independent" reports authored by colleagues and students of the original author. It is interesting to note (as an outsider) how often Mann references his own papers in later ones. Is this usual?

 

In conclusion, where is your proof that the latest cycle of increasing temperatures is unnatural or unprecedented? The data doesn't support that conclusion.

 

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CO2 a "Greenhouse Gas" has long been thought to contribute to GW and man made CO2 to AGW. It was Mann's original paper, found here in pdf format which purported to show the actual link. (NATURE |VOL 392 | 23 APRIL 1998) This correlation is found on page 785 of that volume. The original "Hockeystick" is on page 783.

So, you are referring to this:

 

nhemmill.gif

…for Northern Hemisphere mean temperature (NH) in 8C. In both cases, the zero line corresponds to the 1902–80 calibration mean of the quantity. For b raw data are shown up to 1995 and positive and negative 2j uncertainty limits are shown by the light dotted lines surrounding the solid reconstruction, calculated as described in the Methods section.

 

 

 

 

Mann himself went on to become a "Lead author" for the IPCC "Third Assessment Report" 2001. (Which is where the fun starts.)

Indeed. Let’s keep this clear, though.

 

There were actually four reports, each with several chapters covering a different piece of the puzzle. Mann was just one of the lead authors of ONE of those chapters. The chapter was within “The Scientific Basis” report, and was called “Observed Climate Variability and Change.”

 

Mann was just 1 of the 8 Lead authors of this chapter, which also had two other coordinating lead authors, 143 other contributing authors, as well as two other reviewing editors, but yes, Mann was "a" lead author.

 

 

That chapter is available here:

 

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/048.htm

 

 

Of particular interest, I especially liked the final page of that chapter, labeled 2.8 – “Are the Observed Trends Internally Consistent?” where they closed by stating:

We conclude that the variations and trends of the examined indicators consistently and very strongly support an increasing global surface temperature over at least the last century, although substantial shorter-term global and regional deviations from this warming trend are very likely to have occurred.

 

 

 

IPCC takes the stance it does based on literally thousands of studies

 

Yet in IPCC TAR, Mann's graph appears as Figure 1b in the Working Group 1 Summary for Policymakers, Figure 5 in the Technical Summary, twice in Chapter 2 (Figures 2-20 and 2-21) of the main report, and Figures 2-3 and 9-1B in the Synthesis Report. This led the IPCC Summary for Policymakers to claim on page 3 “that the 1990s has been the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year of the millennium”.

 

Since the graph did not show the "Medieval Warm Period" (AD 890 to 1170) or the "Little Ice Age" (AD 1580 to 1850) doubt was cast on the accuracy of the wok. So the question has to be; "How accurate is it?".

 

It turns out that the Mann et al report of 1998 did have several errors. The type and extent of the errors in that one 1998 report by Mann et. al. are discussed and detailed in this report published in 2003 by McIntyre and McKirtrick, titled “Corrections to the Mann et. al. (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemispheric Average Temperature Series.”

 

 

They state the following:

 

The dataset used to make this [MBH98] construction contained collation errors, unjustified truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, incorrect principal component calculations, geographical mislocations and other serious defects. These errors and defects substantially affect the temperature index. Although not all of the dataset could be audited, it was possible to prepare a data base with substantially improved quality control, by using the most recent data and collating it correctly, by avoiding arbitrary filling in or truncation of data and by computing principal components using standard algorithms.

 

[uPDATE] It turns out that Steve McIntyre is an axe grinder, a semi-retired minerals consultant. While I won't argue for the complete accuracy of the Mann et al., 1998 interpolations, I will state that McIntyre's credentials are murky at best.

 

McIntyre does not have an advanced degree and has published two articles in the journal Energy and Environment which has become a venue for skeptics and is not carried in the ISI listing of peer-reviewed journals. McIntyre was also exposed for having unreported ties to CGX Energy, Inc., an oil and gas exploration company, which listed McIntyre as a "strategic advisor.

[/uPDATE]

 

However, here’s what I suppose I’m missing in your argument, JohnB.

 

This was one report… one set of data which was used, and has been proven not entirely accurate. One data set. There are literally thousands more which do not contain these errors, yet show the same trends.

 

The outcome of all of this discussion is basically to say, “Using this specific report by Mann et. al. in 1998, one cannot with confidence state that the 20th century is hotter than it’s ever been.” So what? It’s still really very hot, and getting warmer, and there are significant number of other studies which show this increase without error, without bias, and with adequate support.

 

 

Considering the above, I ask again, so what?

 

 

 

Reliable temperature records only go back around 150 years, earlier than that a paleoclimatologist relies on proxies to gain data. Proxies can be tree rings, boreholes, ice cores or a number of other things. Each of these proxies can be given a statistical weighting. The weightings and statistical analysis methodology used by Mann et al was challenged by Mc Intyre and McKitrick in their paper "HOCKEY STICKS, PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS AND SPURIOUS SIGNIFICANCE" published in Geophysical Research Letters, Vol 32(3), Feb 12 2005.

 

You are correct in that we must rely more on proxy data to look beyond the 150 instrumental record. According to the National Climatic Data Center:

 

 

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/proxydata.html

Proxy data is data that paleoclimatologists gather from natural recorders of climate variability, e.g., tree rings, ice cores, fossil pollen, ocean sediments, coral and historical data. By analyzing records taken from these and other proxy sources, scientists can extend our understanding of climate far beyond the 140 year instrumental record.

 

 

However, the conclusions of the IPCC come from far more than just one study. Again, Mann et. al., 1998 was not fully valid, and they had some misinterpretations with some of their proxies. At this point I feel that I should remind you that section 2.3 of the IPCC TAR titled “Is the Recent Warming Unusual?” also referenced the work of Briffa et al., 1998b; Jones et al., 1998; Crowley and Kim, 1999; Free and Robock, 1999, as well as future work by Mann et al. which did not suffer the same proxy interpolation issues the 1998 report did.

 

 

Below is further information if you or others would care to pursue this additional supporting evidence (I’ve limited the references to those authors I referenced above from section 2.3 of the report, and excluded ALL work from Mann et al. due that being such a point of contention in your response):

 

 

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/094.htm

Briffa' date=' K.R., 2000: Annual climate variability in the Holocene: interpreting the message of ancient trees. Quat. Sci. Rev., 19, 87-105.

Briffa, K.R., P.D. Jones, F.H. Schweingruber, S.G. Shiyatov, and E.R. Cook, 1995: Unusual twentieth-century summer warmth in a 1,000-year temperature record from Siberia. Nature, 376, 156-159.

Briffa, K.R., P.D. Jones, F.H. Schweingruber, S.G. Shiyatov and E.A. Vaganov, 1996: Development of a North Eurasian chronology network: Rationale and preliminary results of comparative ring-width and densitometric analyses in northern Russia. In: Tree Rings, Environment, and Humanity. Radiocarbon 1996, J.S. Dean, D.M. Meko and T.W. Swetnam (eds.), Department of Geosciences, The University of Arizona, Tucson, pp. 25-41.

Briffa, K.R., F.H. Schweingruber, P.D. Jones, T.J. Osborn, S.G. Shiyatov and E.A. Vaganov, 1998a: Reduced sensitivity of recent tree-growth to temperature at high northern latitudes. Nature, 391, 678-682.

Briffa, K.R., P.D. Jones, F.H. Schweingruber and T.J. Osborn, 1998b: Influence of volcanic eruptions on Northern Hemisphere summer temperature over the past 600 years. Nature, 393, 450-455.

 

<…>

 

Jones, P.D., 1994: Hemispheric surface air temperature variations: a reanalysis and an update to 1993. J. Climate, 7, 1794-1802.

Jones, P.D., 1999: Classics in physical geography revisited – Manley’s CET series. Progress in Physical Geography, 23, 425-428.

Jones, P.D. and K.R. Briffa, 1992: Global surface air temperature variations during the twentieth century: Part 1, spatial temporal and seasonal details. The Holocene, 2, 165-179.

Jones, P.D. and M. Hulme, 1996: Calculating regional climatic time series for temperature and precipitation: methods and illustrations. Int. J. Climatol., 16, 361-377.

Jones, P.D., P.Ya. Groisman, M. Coughlan, N. Plummer, W.C Wang, and T.R. Karl, 1990:Assessment of urbanization effects in time series of surface air temperature over land. Nature, 347, 169-172.

Jones, P.D., T. Jónsson and D. Wheeler, 1997a: Extension of the North Atlantic Oscillation using early instrumental pressure observations from Gibraltar and south-west Iceland. Int. J. Climatol., 17, 1433-1450.

Jones, P.D., T.J. Osborn and K.R. Briffa, 1997b: Estimating sampling errors in large-scale temperature averages. J. Climate, 10, 2548-2568.

Jones, P.D., K.R. Briffa, T.P., Barnett and S.F.B. Tett, 1998: High-resolution palaeoclimatic records for the last millennium: interpretation, integration and comparison with General Circulation Model control run temperatures. The Holocene, 8, 455-471.

Jones, P.D., M. New, D.E. Parker, S. Martin and I.G. Rigor, 1999a: Surface air temperature and its changes over the past 150 years. Rev. Geophys., 37, 173-199.

Jones, P.D., M.J. Salinger and A.B. Mullan, 1999b: Extratropical circulation indices in the Southern Hemisphere. Int. J. Climatol., 19, 1301-1317.

Jones, P.D., E.B. Horton, C.K. Folland, M. Hulme, D.E. Parker and T.A. Basnett, 1999c: The use of indices to identify changes in climatic extremes. Clim. Change, 42, 131-149.

Jones, P.D., T.J. Osborn, K.R. Briffa, C.K. Folland, E.B. Horton, L.V. Alexander, D.E. Parker and N.A. Rayner, 2001: Adjusting for sampling density in grid box land and ocean surface temperature time series. J. Geophys. Res., 106, 3371-3380.

 

<…>

 

Crowley, T.J., 1992: North Alantic Deep Water Cools The Southern Hemisphere. Paleoceanography, 7, 489-497.

Crowley, T.J., 2000: Causes of Climate Change Over the Past 1000 Years. Science, 289, 270-277.

Crowley, T.J. and K.Y. Kim, 1996: Comparison of proxy records of climate change and solar forcing. Geophys. Res. Lett., 23, 359-362.

Crowley, T.J. and K.Y. Kim, 1999: Modeling the temperature response to forced climate change over the last six centuries. Geophys. Res. Lett., 26, 1901-1904.

Crowley, T.J. and T. Lowery, 2000: How warm was the Medieval warm period? Ambio, 29, 51-54.

 

<…>

 

Free, M. and A. Robock, 1999: Global Warming in the Context of the Little Ice Age. J. Geophys. Res., 104 (D16), 19057-19070.[/quote']

 

 

 

M&M showed that the algorithm used by Mann could be used to produce a similar result when given totally artificial and random values as data. For reproducability, they ran the simulations some 10,000 times.

This equine is fully deceased, and requires no more beating. ;) For this reason, I have excluded some other evidence you shared discussing the invalidity of Mann et al., 1998. I agree it had some errors (but not that everything within it was an error), but have shown how other studies support the conclusions.

 

 

So here we have published papers and an independent inquiry showing that the rise in temperature during the 20th C is not unprecedented and is lower than the temp shown by the proxy data for the MWP.

Look again. The ad hoc commissioned report you shared showed the flaws in Mann et al., 1998, they did not publish results supporting that the 20th century is just another century as pertains to climate. Also, to be clear, showing that the 20th century was hotter than any previous was never the main thrust of the IPCC report. I call your attention now to section 2.3.5 where the following is explicitly stated:

 

Since the SAR there have been considerable advances in our knowledge of temperature change over the last millennium. It is likely that temperatures were relatively warm in the Northern Hemisphere as a whole during the earlier centuries of the millennium, but it is much less likely that a globally-synchronous, well defined interval of “Medieval warmth” existed, comparable to the near global warmth of the late 20th century. Marked warmth seems to have been confined to Europe and regions neighbouring the North Atlantic. Relatively colder hemispheric or global-scale conditions did appear to set in after about AD 1400 and persist through the 19th century, but peak coldness is observed during substantially different epochs in different regions. By contrast, the warming of the 20th century has had a much more convincing global signature (see Figure 2.9). This is consistent with the palaeoclimate evidence that the rate and magnitude of global or hemispheric surface 20th century warming is likely to have been the largest of the millennium, with the 1990s and 1998 likely to have been the warmest decade and year, respectively, in the Northern Hemisphere.

 

 

 

Nor can there be shown a direct causal effect between CO2 and temp rise. There is a correlation, but correlation dose not imply causation.

You are correct that we cannot determine causation based on correlation. Just because more people carry umbrellas when it’s raining does not mean umbrellas cause it to rain. However, the evidence of the effect atmospheric CO2 concentrations has on global climate have been confirmed and fully agreed upon:

 

 

http://www.nsaa.org/nsaa/environment/climate_change/climate_change_QA.asp

What is the science on climate change?

Many scientists predict that unless global warming pollution is curbed, there could be a significant increase in global temperatures and decrease in average snow pack in the decades ahead. Scientists do not necessarily agree on the precise consequences of warming however, such as what will happen to global weather patterns, crop yields, regional temperatures or rainfall patterns. Five points that are not disputed in the scientific community include:

  • CO2 is a greenhouse gas and increased atmospheric concentrations of CO2 warm the earth
  • CO2 levels are increasing rapidly, and the current rate will have doubled over pre-industrial times by 2100
  • Climate tracks CO2 levels, as demonstrated by ice core samples dating back 400,000 years; as CO2 concentrations increase, climate warms
  • Human activity causes a significant amount of CO2 to be released
  • The planet is currently warming, and global average surface temperature has increased 1degree F over the last century.

 

 

It is also noteworthy to study the close relationships between the top 75 published researchers in the field. The bias is there and it effects the data chosen and the way it is interpreted.

You’ve just jumped from a statement that there are relationships between researchers to “the bias is there.” This is an unsubstantiated claim, and I’m not going to waste more time on it until you back it up with actual citations confirming the “bias based on friendship” assertion you’ve just made.

 

 

I would also point you to page 5 of this pdf. (I'm trying to find the original) which shows the graph of previous climate change for the last 1,000 years from the IPCC Second Assessment Report. This graph clearly shows the MWP to be warmer than today.

The possibility of this was acknowledged by the IPCC report, and also referenced in my response above. See IPCC section 2.3.5. Again, the IPCC is not there to demonstrate that this is the warmest period ever. The research shows the impact of human behavior on climate. My own interpretation is that the studies they reference show very clearly how the rate of change is unprecedented and we humans are the primary forcing factor.

 

 

So we have a flawed report using junk statistics that is backed up by "Independent" reports authored by colleagues and students of the original author. It is interesting to note (as an outsider) how often Mann references his own papers in later ones. Is this usual?

You’re still on about this ONE report among thousands? If that’s all you’ve got, you’re going to lose this debate in a hurry.

 

 

In conclusion, where is your proof that the latest cycle of increasing temperatures is unnatural or unprecedented? The data doesn't support that conclusion.

Again, my personal concern is with the rate of change and the connection between human output of CO2 into the atmosphere and this rate of change. Also, I never once have asserted that the current temperatures themselves are unprecendented, so I really have no need to prove this to you or anyone else.

 

However, I understand where you’re coming from on this. I quoted above multiple references which were brought to my attention by section 2.3 of the IPCC report which more than adequately covers your request. However, here are a few more for you to view to answer this (what I deem) irrelevant point on your own:

 

Last 2,000 years: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html

Before 2,000 years ago: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleobefore.html

 

 

I just want to remind you again, I never claimed the issue for which you requested proof.

 

The above is a lot to digest. To summarize, I maintain the position I do because of the consistency of the trends, and one faulty report among thousands of accurate reports does not negate the effects we're confronting as a species in terms of anthropogenically induced global climate change.

 

Enjoy. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be careful using sourcewatch as a reference any more as they are certainly biased.

McIntyre does not have an advanced degree and has published two articles in the journal Energy and Environment which has become a venue for skeptics and is not carried in the ISI listing of peer-reviewed journals.

How odd that they don't mention the papers that are in peer reviewed journals. They wouldn't be trying to put forward a false picture, would they?

You’ve just jumped from a statement that there are relationships between researchers to “the bias is there.” This is an unsubstantiated claim

Did you read the Ad Hoc report? I like the nice long list of supporting references from the IPCC btw as it illustrates the point quite well. 5 papers by Briffa; Jones and Schweingruber co-authored 4 each, Shiyatov 3, Vaganov and Osborn 2 each and Cook one. Of these seven names Briffa, Jones, Osborn and Cook all co-authored papers with Mann. What a shock that their papers support each other. This is not to say they are incorrect but by no stretch of the imagination could they be called any type of independent verification either. To again quote from the NAS report;

Based on the literature we have reviewed, there is no overarching consensus on [Mann’s work]. As analyzed in our social network, there is a tightly knit group of individuals who passionately believe in their thesis. However, our perception is that this group has a self-reinforcing feedback mechanism and, moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that they can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility.

and

The social network analysis of authors’ relations suggests that the

“independent reconstructions” are not as independent as one might guess. Indeed, the matrix outlined in Figure 5.8 illustrates the proxies that are used more than one time in twelve major temperature reconstruction papers. The black boxes indicate that the proxy was used in a given paper. It is clear that many of the proxies are re-used in most of the papers. It is not surprising that the papers would obtain similar results and so cannot really claim to be independent verifications.

Are you really suggesting that a group of people who co-author papers will not show bias towards each other?

This was one report… one set of data which was used, and has been proven not entirely accurate. One data set. There are literally thousands more which do not contain these errors, yet show the same trends.

Firstly it was the methodology, not the data that was at fault. How many of your "literally thousands", written by a known group of close associates use the same methodology?

I'm curious, what is so interesting about;

We conclude that the variations and trends of the examined indicators consistently and very strongly support an increasing global surface temperature over at least the last century, although substantial shorter-term global and regional deviations from this warming trend are very likely to have occurred.

The temperature in the century following a mini ice age is warmer than the last one of the mini ice age. I would think that's stating the bloody obvious.:D

Again, Mann et. al., 1998 was not fully valid, and they had some misinterpretations with some of their proxies.

That would have to be the understatement of the year. M&M proved that you could feed random data in and still get Mann's results. I would suggest that is far worse than "not fully valid".

At this point I feel that I should remind you that section 2.3 of the IPCC TAR titled “Is the Recent Warming Unusual?” also referenced the work of Briffa et al., 1998b; Jones et al., 1998; Crowley and Kim, 1999; Free and Robock, 1999, as well as future work by Mann et al. which did not suffer the same proxy interpolation issues the 1998 report did.

Actually section 2.3 references Mann et al 1998.

This equine is fully deceased, and requires no more beating.

The people whos papers you quote don't think so. Link. Hmmm, Rutherford, Mann, Osborn, Bradley, Briffa, Hughes and Jones seem to think that Mann et al 1998 has nothing wrong with it. Sort of makes you wonder about their other papers, doesn't it?

However, the evidence of the effect atmospheric CO2 concentrations has on global climate have been confirmed and fully agreed upon:........

Hang on, you quote sourcewatch and their comment that "Energy and Environment" is not a peer reviewed journal to discredit M&M and now you are using the "National Ski Areas Association" as a reputable source?

However, I understand where you’re coming from on this. I quoted above multiple references which were brought to my attention by section 2.3 of the IPCC report which more than adequately covers your request.

Getting all your information from one clique is guaranteed to give you a consistent picture. (But is it an accurate picture?)

 

BTW, my original comment about the IPCC wasn't intended as a strawman, as you correctly surmised.

 

WRT whether the current rate of change is unprecedented, I came across a paper a couple of years ago while looking into temperature changes at the end of the last Ice Age. It said, IIRC, sea bed samples from the US East Coast showed something like a 5 degree temp increase (water temp) in a 10 year period. I'll hunt for it as it would be gremane to the debate. I remember I was stunned by the figures at the time.

 

More later, it's 1.45 AM now. Need sleep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would be careful using sourcewatch as a reference any more as they are certainly biased.

Point taken. I still see him pretty much as an attack dog on one study than a climatologist though.

 

 

How odd that they don't mention the papers that are in peer reviewed journals. They wouldn't be trying to put forward a false picture, would they?

I wasn't able to find anything that he's published in a peer reviewed journal that has anything to do with global climate science. While peripheral to our conversation, would you be willing to supply a few links to work McIntyre's done in climate science which has been published in a peer reviewed journal?

 

 

Did you read the Ad Hoc report?

Yep.

 

 

I like the nice long list of supporting references from the IPCC btw as it illustrates the point quite well. 5 papers by Briffa; Jones and Schweingruber co-authored 4 each, Shiyatov 3, Vaganov and Osborn 2 each and Cook one. Of these seven names Briffa, Jones, Osborn and Cook all co-authored papers with Mann. What a shock that their papers support each other. This is not to say they are incorrect but by no stretch of the imagination could they be called any type of independent verification either.

As referenced in my post, I limited the references to those appropriate to that particular section of the report relevant to the climate over the past 1,00 years. However, your ad hom does nothing to refute the data, and you are now trying to sew the seed of suspicion because they happen to be engaged in work in the same field.

 

Show us specifically what studies have errors or are wrong and inaccurate. You have yet to substantiate this claim of problems in the studies.

 

 

Are you really suggesting that a group of people who co-author papers will not show bias towards each other?

No. I'm suggesting you show where the papers they published have errors and prove your assertions. Until then, you're full of crap. You're essentially arguing against the entire concept of peer review.

 

 

Firstly it was the methodology, not the data that was at fault.

Which study specifically? What exactly in their methodology was at fault? Did all studies suffer this same problem? Be specific. Right now, you are making stuff up and I don't trust you. Show me. Don't tell me.

 

 

How many of your "literally thousands", written by a known group of close associates use the same methodology?

Show us for which reports you challenge the methodology. You have not yet proven a problem in methodology except in Mann et al., 1998. I accept that this particular study had issues in their methodology specific to proxy data. However, other reports used other methods. They did not repeat the Mann et al., 1998 errors, so I assert that your claim that these other studies are unaccptable is a bogus one. Prove these other studies were false if you can. Until then, stop using it as a base for your argument.

 

 

M&M proved that you could feed random data in and still get Mann's results. I would suggest that is far worse than "not fully valid".

As I said REPEATEDLY above, the conclusion was drawn from much more than the work of a single study. I also supported your point that there were errors in the Mann et al., 1998 methodology, and further showed how other studies without these errors found similar conclusions. So, if all you have is that there were some problems in the Mann et al., 1998 study (which were not repeated in other studies), then your argument fails.

 

 

Actually section 2.3 references Mann et al 1998.

I never said it did not. I said that I would show you all of the OTHER work which lent to the conclusion, other work where the validity of the results was not challenged and the conclusions accurate, since you had such a specific problem with Mann. But, yes, Mann was cited. Try to recall that not everything in the Mann et al., 1998 study was flawed, only some parts. If the IPCC cites the accurate parts, then there really is no problem with doing so. Again, they used the works of others which has not been challenged, but was peer-reviewed and accepted. So what exactly is your point?

 

 

The people whos papers you quote don't think so. Link. Hmmm, Rutherford, Mann, Osborn, Bradley, Briffa, Hughes and Jones seem to think that Mann et al 1998 has nothing wrong with it. Sort of makes you wonder about their other papers, doesn't it?

Nope. Again, you are trying to sew the seed of doubt. If the papers are wrong, show us specifically which ones and where. You are currently engaged in numerous logical fallacies with this line of thought, and I challenge you to support your position or shut up about it.

 

 

Getting all your information from one clique is guaranteed to give you a consistent picture.

I guess it's a good thing I didn't do that then. But if you think I did, how about you illustrate first that it is, in fact, a "clique." Then, after that, the onus would be on you to illustrate how being a "clique" in any way negates the thousands of study results which clearly show anthropogenically induced global climate change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you really suggesting that a group of people who co-author papers will not show bias towards each other?

 

To expand on iNow's response, coming to similar conclusions is not evidence of bias. If I conclude that gravity varies with the inverse-square of distance and so do some of my colleages, is that because of bias or valid research? An evidence-free accusation of bias is just a smear tactic, which is a denialist strategy (to which I linked earlier) shared by creationists. Focus on what's wrong (if anything) with the methodology or data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly, may I apologise for the delay in replying. I've exceeded my quota and am now shaped to 64k by my ISP. As I do actually read the papers I link to and some are large pdfs, it slows me down somewhat.;):)

I wasn't able to find anything that he's published in a peer reviewed journal that has anything to do with global climate science.

No surprise. He isn't a climatologist. His and McKittricks paper here was about the methodology of Mann et al. You don't have to be a climatologist to comment on a statistical analysis.

I guess it's a good thing I didn't do that then. But if you think I did, how about you illustrate first that it is, in fact, a "clique."

I thought you said you had read the report? The statisticians called it that.

As analyzed in our social network, there is a tightly knit group of individuals who passionately believe in their thesis. However, our perception is that this group has a self-reinforcing feedback mechanism

 

Swansont,

Focus on what's wrong (if anything) with the methodology or data.

Certainly. In my post on page 3 I linked to this paper concerning chemical analysis results for CO2 concentrations from 1812-2004. From 1812-1865, the record show CO2 concentrations at or well above todays levels. If the AGW theory is correct, where are the concurrent temp rises?

 

BTW, I would really like you to read this work. Put bluntly, he claims that various physical laws are misapplied in the creation of GW models. Since his field is Physics, I would value your opinion as to whether he's full of it or not.

 

Perhaps you would care to look here. This page provides links to this work and also a link to this abstract concerning the placement of recording stations used by NOAA and others as a primary data source for surface temperature readings.

 

I would also point you to this article by Syun-Ichi Akasofu from the International Arctic Research Center. I invite you especially to consider Figure 12 on Page 11. The difference between the hindcasts and reality is striking. I may have no qualifications but Bad Forecasts/Hindcasts= Bad Models as far as I can tell.;)

 

A point to ponder. If Increasing CO2= Increasing Temperature then why has the temperature leveled off despite the fact that CO2 concentrations are increasing?

 

U.S. Temperature as supplied by NASA;

200708_1.gif

Note the leveling off at the end of the graph. The fact it's at the end of the graph can be misleading, the point is that according to information supplied by NASA there has been no warming for 10 years.

 

CO2 Concentrations as measured at Mauna Loa;

Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png

Note that the CO 2 concentrations increase during the same period.

 

I'm having trouble seeing a causal relationship here, but maybe I am retarded.;):D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.