metatron
You seem to think anecdotal stories about low temperatures mean global warming isn't happening. You're wrong. It's like someone saying because no one they know has died in a car crash travelling by car is safer than the statistics show.
Oh, increased snowfall is one characteristic of WARMING if the increase is from 'very' sub-zero temperatures to 'nearer zero degrees C' sub-zero temperatures; the East Antarctic Ice Shelf is growing, because increased temperatures means snowfall has increased. But the lying or self-decieving idiots you source from make such a superficial study of the subject they don't realise this supports climate change as they childishly think more snow means colder.
Frank
I am not going to be able to respond to everything you wrote in your first response to one of my earliest posts. Much water has passed under the bridge since then as well I find it hard to believe that you cannot find any of the material I presented to have any validity.
If there is a fault in my rebutals, show me. To suddenly not be able to defend arguments you advanced or repeated here yourself now they have been rebutted sounds like evasion and excuses. I will happily deal with any further arguments you have made in discussion with other posters that remain open after you have had the courtesy to respond to me properly, rather than cherry pick what you find easy to deal with.
Perhaps that is just your debating style.
Actually you will find the pattern of someone making statement, that statemnt being reponded to, and then the original person who made the statement being able to respond in turn is pretty univesral in discussions. Characterising it as me is sad.
So be it, I guess if it suits the pursuit of truth we can spend the next 100 pages of this thread in an endless, "that's a straw man", "red herring", "lies" and whatever other dismissive catch phrases we can dream up.
Oh deary me. So, you don't want to discuss things properly? Or don't you realise those terms are recognised as descriptors for fallacious (i.e. false or evasive) arguments? Forgive me if I took too much for granted and responded in short hand, but as each successive point you made was, on examination, shown to be a misrepresentation of the real argument (straw man), a destraction ploy (red herring) to avoid dealling with the actual argument, or a lie (lie), I shifted up a gear. They were such trite arguments great detail wasn't required.
I realise YOU may not be the one originating them, but repeating them in all sincerity, so don't take my criticism of the arguments you've repeated as criticism of you.
Additionally because I use WORD as my editor and how this website and it don't seem to get along I am forced to respond in chunks.....if at all...to what you wrote.
Use notepad; there's a bug in forum software that screws up C&P from Word.
You'll forgive me if I do not take Shutterbugs word for your credentials.
In fact let's leave the ego at the door.
I was responding to his question, so it's my word you choose to take or otherwise. I don't particulary care what you believe in this respect. Deal with the science.
If you are what you believe to be, then you are comparable to a bully. If you have qualifications that put you in a different league, then you should think about publishing papers yourself or at least not entering into debate with the 98% of the people here who are not academics and do not pretend to be. Why don't you try going head to head with the likes of Defreitas, Baliunas, Edward Wegman or even Claude Allegre?
Ah, the spite, the resentment. Still not actually dealing with the science. And you are making utterly contrived comparisons; I don't compare myself to anything other than someone with a minor degree in science, and a lot of personal post-degree study of evolutionary biology. Why make a comparison to others I do not make myself? Will distorting what I say make you look good?
I knew this would end up in just being silly. What difference does Baliunas' opinion on CFC's have to do with the qualified, arguably expert scientific opinion that she and Soon put forward in the article.
It is the 'arguably' you are ignoring. That's the difference. Someone who ignores a consensus so deep and so well evidentally supported the originators of the theory get Noble Prizes had better have some extremely clear and unambiguous science behind them. She doesn't.
She is not alone in her opinion although you can sling mud at these names as well I admit.Dr. S. Fred Singer, Research Professor at George Mason University and Professor Emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia, and a looong list of others : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer
Yup, you're right, and the mud sticks with this one. His only moment of note seems to be actually being right in a situation where Carl Sagan was wrong. The link shows that he claims glaciers are advancing, yet cannot produce any evidence that this is so. Why do you feel that saying someone who cannot back his claims with any evidence supports Sallie adds credibility to someone who has her usage of citations refuted by those very people she cites?
Oh, he also dismissed reports on the risks of passive smoking as junk science; was it this thread or another where I pointed out the tobaecco indistry apologists were just like the vast majority of anti-climate change scientists? Why are you proving my point? I mean, thanks and all that, but...? Huh?
This is directly from the article you quoted;
Singer has been accused of conflicts of interest, most notably involving financial ties to oil and tobacco companies. [16] [17] In 1993 APCO, a public relations firm, sent a memo to Philip Morris to vice-president Ellen Merlo stating: "As you know, we have been working with Dr. Fred Singer and Dr. Dwight Lee, who have authored articles on junk science and indoor air quality (IAQ) respectively ..."[18]
The 1994 AdTI report was part of an attack on EPA regulation of environmental tobacco smoke funded by the Tobacco Institute. [19] Singer was also involved with the International Center for a Scientific Ecology, [20] a group that was considered important in Philip Morris' plans to create a group in Europe similar to The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC). Singer is also a Research Fellow at the Independent Institute,[21] another recipient of Philip Morris and ExxonMobil funds.[22]
A nonsmoker himself, Singer serves on the Science Advisory Board of the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH)[23]. The ACSH strongly opposes smoking but otherwise tends to support industry positions on health issues, for example downplaying risks associated with dioxin, asbestos, and other carcinogenic materials.[24]
In a February 2001 letter to the Washington Post, Singer denied receiving funding from the oil industry, except for consulting work some 20 years prior. While funds were not directed to Singer in his name, publicly available documents show that Singer's non-profit corporation SEPP received multiple grants from ExxonMobil, including in 1998 and 2000.[17
If this fills YOU with confidence about this guy's honesty or competence, well, that is your promblem aned one many readers would not share with you.
Why are you so unwilling to accept even in the face of evidence you cite yourself that some scietists are incompetent or dishonest, and that in the global warming debate, the evidence clearly shows which side is better characterised that way?
Dr. Hugh Ellsaesser of the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory,
LOL. This guy believes in global warming, but believes human produced CO2 is special and that we should just sit tight and enjoy the ride. So, you like his opinion about CFC's but NOT about Global Warming?
Dr. Thomas Gold Astrophysicist and Astronomy Professor of Cornell University, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Gold
Fascinating chap, an 'out-there' thinker with a middeling strike rate; some genuine good ideas in advance of his time, some total mistakes. But you provide no evidence he'd support Baliunas and Soon.
Dr. Marcel Nicolet, world famous atmospheric scientist,
... who died in 1996, and who could therefore still be a brilliant atmospheric sceintists based upon the sceince when he was working, but totally wrong with newer understandings or evidence.
Dr. Haroun Tazieff, whose Tazieff Resolution calls for a retraction of the Montreal Protocol,
Do you realise cutting and pasting without credit is PLAGERISM? At best it is rude, at worst people might think you were trying to make people think you knew this off the top of your head. You got this all from here;
http://sciencepoliticsclimatechange.blogspot.com/2006_08_01_archive.html
Adding in a few URL's and spreading it out over several lines do not stop what you are doing from being commonly seen as dishonest; don't you know that?
AND you ignore the FACT the page you are taking it from is using them as BAD examples of skeptics, I quote;
I believe that skepticism in the face of advocacy is a virtue, but this group gives skepticism a bad name.
I am wondering if further debate is productive, I mean, you take a quote out of context to suit your argument, but you've not dealt with the ten points you quoted and I refuted.
Even if all of these scientists mentioned, actually received payments directly from oil companies, how would that make their views any more suspect than those scientists who either support through membership or receive financial support from Greenpeace or the Sierra club? Why is the Fraser Institutes Agenda suspect when it hosts a peer reviewed paper but the tree huggers agenda is above suspicion?
Because, as the web page you plagerised but prehaps didn't read points out, "skepticism in the face of advocacy is a virtue" but some skeptics give "skepticism a bad name". And I have proved links between AGW cynics and vested interests. You just have vauge accusations.
You have not at any point responded to the detailed rebutal of claims you made, and you clearly do not evaluate the worth of a scientific argument before using it, seeming instead to select them based on how palatable you find them when compared to whatever preconceptions you have. Sorry if that is harsh, but there is no evidence to the contrary.
Competency is not the domain of only those who have Sierra Club membership.
AGAIN, a boring false characterisation.
At least I hope that is not what you are implying.....
No, it is actually what you fallaciously implied in your previous sentence; keep track man.
Yes Wikipedia presents the reference to the 13 authors. One of those authors was of course Mann himself. His refutation consisted of his claim that using inferred temperature readings from the past (i.e. tree rings samplings) coupled with modern instrument readings is accepted practice in his field. That may very well be in the discipline of paleoclimatolgy (I doubt it)
Frank, come on. What I, or you, or anyone SAY is not of great interest unless we can show that what we say is supported by the evidence. You have a doubt over what is accepted practice in paleoclimatology. You know little about the subject (I am no expert either) so this is unfounded speculation. Why the lack of desire to actually prove your point? Rebut properly or don't bother.
Further the guff about moisture is a another red herring to imply that Baliunas was out in left field,
As you've not bothered to prove your point about the initial guff (as I guess you would describe it), further speculation is again of limited interest when you could, if you wanted to, try and prove your point properly.
Shall we instead actually discuss in detail some of the faults with the S & B paper?
Like the vauge definition they gave to the MWP? Any 50-year period of warmth, wetness, or drought between the years 800 and 1300?
Like the straw man they used in comparing ALL the 20th C to other centuries, thus distorting the trend, further distorting the trend by not including many of the most recent records?
Using a record of plankton in ocean sediment that actually shows the strength of trade winds from 1150 to 1989 (which doesn't even fit their own method of determining the MWP), and of which the original researcher says "he found no 50-year period of medieval extremes in his record. "I think they stretched the data to fit what they wanted to see," he says.
Using sediment records from the African coast as a proxy for ocean-surface when the original researcher said "Mr. Soon and his colleagues could not justify their conclusions that the African record showed the 20th century as being unexceptional".
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/~wsoon/1000yrclimatehistory-d/Sep5-CHEarticle.txt
Please also note the confirmation of the source they had funds from, more of which here;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_de_Freitas
... when all that Soon and Baliunas noted was that Mann failed to take into account moisture levels as a reasonable mechanism for filtering the data.
Yes, well, as commented above in the Harvard link "It is absurd to take wetness or dryness as proof of abnormal warmth,"
Of course, if you wanted to talk about the ten scientific points you provided that I rebutted we wouldn't still be doing a meta-analyis. I'd far rather we discuss actual scientific points in favour of each argument.
Likewise in DeFreitas own paper critical of Mann, the issue of moisture comes up again. Although accepted to a degree,
Ah. Now is it accepted or not? Make your mind up. If so, to what degree? See what vaugeness gets you? Correct; NOWHERE.
In fact, as the latest IPCC report (2007) reports a 90% certainty that recent temperature increases are causd by man, I am curious you want still to attack a paper from 1998. Everyone who has researched the subject knows the conflicting views over the hocky-stick graph. But global warming does not fall or stand on that graph, so please, address more recent research, like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report
Lastly, 3 people from Climate Research (Hans von Storch, Clare Goodess, and Mitsuru Ando) are said to have taken exception to the peer reviewed article by Soon & Baliunas only after a much more prestigious paper EOS came down hard on the criticism.
If a much more prestigious Journal also publishes a more scientifically rigourous review what's the problem? It's about the science (well, it is for me, you're not even discussing the AGW cynical 'science' you brought to the discussion).
Even though that constitutes the timing of their departures it is rhetorical to conclude that the departures are solely based on what Soon and Baliunas wrote and thereby completely devoid of other factors. In fact to conclude that other factors were at play would give voice to the science of human behavior, personal motivations, logic and reason as it is known to exist in the real world!
Additionally, since the editorial staff today is made up of 12 people and a further 24 Review Editors (I don't know exactly how many were in place in 2003) I doubt that these 3 people constituted "half" of the editorial staff.
That first paragraph is a masterpiece of burble, which doesn't prove a thing. The second? "Today", "I don't know exactly how many were in place in 2003" and "I doubt". Wow. What a convincing case. Come on, do it properly.
http://www.sgr.org.uk/climate/StormyTimes_NL28.htm?
Whoops! So far so not rhethorical. Bad peer-review of Soon & Baliunas's paper and a few others caused the resignation which was five out of ten editors that existed then.
Why do you have this compulsion to NOT check your facts?
If the departure did in fact constitute 1/2 of the editors, the ones who stayed should carry just as much weight as those who left.
Now you are speculating as to the mind of the other half; please document your assumption they supported the peer-review process as it was carried out; they could have remanined as Editors and still felt the review process was flawed.
In other words had all or most of the editors resigned in protest the statement above could be considered more than hype and propaganda.
I think the additonal research I did shows it is nether hype nor propoganda, and shows you couldn't be arsed to even support your own argument or check your facts, preferring speculation. And this is where I point out again you've not responded to the ten rubbish bits of 'science' you quoted above that I rebutted.
As for Otto Kinne's statement in the broader context : http://www.int-res.com/articles/misc/CREditorial.pdf
"While the instrument of quality control, the peer review process, has stood the test of time, it should be further developed."
"Even a very thorough review process cannot include all essential perspectives and it cannot exclude mistakes "or misjudgements."
"Quality control at CR was practised along generally established lines. There were no problems over the 13 years of CR existence. But there was insufficient attention to the methodological basis of statements that touch on hotly debated controversies and involve pronounced political and economic interests. CR should have been more careful and insisted on solid evidence and cautious formulations before publication."
Translation? This is unfortunately how the peer review process works and has for sometime including articles written to support AGW. The only time it becomes an issue is when the subject matter is as hotly debated, and has been politically agendized at the highest levels of Government and Economic Interests.
He is clearly saying the peer review is not prefect, and that it was deficient in the case we are discussing. Funny how you miss that and focus on "and involve pronounced political and economic interests" whilst still ignoring any real consideration of the science.
While these statements may be true, the critics point out that they cannot be concluded convincingly from the evidence provided in he paper. CR should have requested appropriate revisions of the manuscript prior to publication.
See? even your own qutations support the point; their paper drew unsupported conclusions. Can we now move on to discussing those ten bits of joke AGW cynicism you support? Or more recent science?
What about the IPCC report itself? Is it devoid of contradictory statements, inflated numbers, misapplied statistics, revisions after the review process, leaps of faith and logic? If you have read the criticism then you know it is just as guilty if not more so given the number of hands that document passed through before going to press. Those critiques come from detractor and proponent alike! And you know it!
Yup, but you're not defending your own argument (I know why of course), and being vauge with the acusations. Don't shift focus off bad science you brought to the discussion and now won't touch.
If you insist, I can list those valid critiques one by one, and you know there are more than 2 of them.
Start of responding to the ten points you listed that I refuted. Or is saying you were hasty and in error really that difficult? I find one gains more credibility by admitting error than by ignoring it. The link to the fourth report is above, so after you've dealt with the out-standing we can move on to that if you like.
The controversy over Soon and Baliunas is a tempest in a teapot. And your aspersions toward special interest groups, foundations and think tanks goes both ways, only a plebe would suggest otherwise!
Errrr.... but the majority of AGW cynics mentioned here DO have provable links with lobby groups, and some are in the pay of lobby groups. Your accusations about the other side (which is FAR larger) are still vauge and unsubstansiated.
Nicola Scafetta and Bruce West Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900-2000 global surface warming. Geophysical Research Letters,
We estimate that the sun contributed as much as 45–50% of the 1900–2000 global warming, and 25–35% of the 1980–2000 global warming.These results, while confirming that anthropogenic-added climate forcing might have progressively played a dominant role in climate change during the last century,
And the rest? If they're right that leaves at least 65% of the recent increases caused by oither means! Maybe it's burning billions of tonnes of fossil fuels!
Frank, this actually goes further along the road proving the sun is not causing the recent rapid rise (as 35% of what we have wouldn't be considered nearly so rapid or extreme.
The above document appears of all places on the AGU website. The very authors of the so-called EOS article outrage against Soon and Baliunas in the CR paper!
Which is maybe why they are credible and other scientists are not? Which was my point.
Now, I KNOW you've not read ALL thos papers; I've only read three, or two and a bit to be accurate.
b. “Low cloud properties influenced by cosmic rays” N D Marsh & H Svensmark Physical Review
Letters 85 (2000) p. 5004-5007
Documents how galactic cosmic rays can influence the earth’s low cloud cover and how
this in turn would impact the mean temperature.
I quite liked this one until I read this http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/bradley/sun2004.pdf
d. “The sun’s role in climate variations” D Rind Science Vol. 296 (2002) p. 673-677
Provides a general overview of the sun’s impact on the earth’s climate through the Little
Ice Age, as well as through geological times, and the complexity in establishing the
solar/climate link.
But DOESN'T really do anything to dispute AGW. Which if you didn't just C&P the links you would have known.
e. “Solar influence on the spatial structure of the NAO during the winter 1900-1999” Kunihiko Kodera
Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 30 (2003) 1175 doi:10.1029/2002GL016584
North Atlantic oscillation is shown to be strongly modulated by high & low solar activity as
identified through sunspot cycles.
Errr... this is what happens when you weigh your references rather than read them... this would support or attack AGW how exactly? Look at the dates.
But then you got this entire list from that 'friends of science' website (again without citation) and took their word for it. So much for reading primary research (oh, Soon et. al isn't primary reasearch, it's a meta-analysis, although they can be very useful).
Rather than hurl insults at Abaddon or anyone else in an attempt to "win a debate" I would rather point the finger at the real culprits in this controversy.
I agree, thus your outbursts above ("If you are ... or even Claude Allegre?") seem contradictory as you make out I am saying something I am not saying. That's called lying. I play nice if you play nice, okay?
And yet Abaddon (and others) has the nerve to say those of us who say "the jury is still out", or due to the shenanigans we are as yet unconvinced and skeptical, are acting like JW's!
No, I have the nerve to state and document;
- the claims you've repeated are poor science, pretty much until this last post of yours, and then only one paper which doesn't disprove AGW
- that when you do drag up some nonsense that's shown to be nonsense you avoid admitting it - those ten pionts, eh?
I simply state;
- the latest reports give a 90% probability to AGW,
- that most AGW cynicism is junk science doubted by most credible scientists and is politically or financialy motivated
- (maybe not on this thread) there are a few interesting theories which might turn everything on its ear (like the GCR one, which you deserve full credit for bringing to the table as no other AGW cynic on the thread got close to a credible doubt).
What is next? A speech telling us that if "some of you like to do personal study into the bible the actual scientific papers on the subject that you should leave the deep study up to the FDS likes of myself because I have a keen understanding of these issues (go on....ask Shutterbug!). And if you just cannot help but be absorbed in these studies then you should think about getting a hobby! (sound familiar?)
*sigh* Blue collar bias. If someone with no knowledge of carpentry and no experience of carpentry told a carpenter they were doing it wrong (in a way that would make said carpenter cringe at the lack of knowledge it displayed), most people would agree said person was arrogant and unrealistic. If someone with no knowledge of science and no experience of science told a skilled scientist they were doing it wrong (in a way that would make said scientist cringe at the lack of knowledge it displayed), for some reason the remarks of the person with no knowledge or experience have to be weighed as being of equal quality. How silly.
Every one has an equal right to an opinion Frank. It doesn't mean every opinion is equal in quality.
You yourself have shown several times a simple lack of effort has made you make claims a little further study (which you are more than capable of doing but didn't) shows are not well supported, to be polite. I am not saying there is a qualified elite that no one can join; I am asking why some people feel qualified to discuss topics (normally by declaring large numbers of scientists are wrong and a few are right) they clearly don't know well, and aren't prepared to spend time studying.
Anyone can join a discussion like this credibly if they put the effort in. I have seen posters on this board who have vastly increased their knowledge because they recognised being able to form and defend a credible opinion about complicated subjects takes more than Google, or finding a web site sympathetic to their opinion to crib links from. Everyone does that to an extent, it's being able to seperate wheat from chaff that requires personal study.
The so called skeptical scientists should not be shunned for expressing doubts, especially if they have qualifications in the fields they are writing/critiquing.
They should be criticised for poor quality in their research and for unsupported claims, be they pro AGW or anti AGW.
What makes the JW religion a bad religion is that they do not allow dissent or debate, even doubt is not tolerated. If you were to get one of the GB to go on TV to publicly debate with say Alan Feurbacher (that would never happen but if it did) they would storm off the set instead of answering embarassing questions just like David Suzuki did.
I'm not supporting Susuki, I am attacking poor quality of AGW cynicism, and think I've made my point.
I am glad you've shown more willingness to actually discuss the issue than others. The GCR stuff was a good find on your part and is really quite possibly credible, maybe; from what I understand there's more definative research due later this year, but I can't find my reference to it...