Grabthaw the Hammerslayer

Some Interesting Articles On Global Warming

749 posts in this topic

I wouldn't wee on you if you were on fire either :P lol

Yeah friends :D

p.s. I'm right, you're wrong so there :P :P :P lol

You're so full of CO2! :stinker4kz:

Edited by Quiet One

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the once "formidable castle" crumbles... as expected. All sources are questionable? Please. Don't pull the "I'm so dumb" at this point. I'm counting on you, late Murray, to continue defending the impossible on this an other topics.

Oh Quiet One, why do we talk about GW here? Because that is what this thread is about. Yep, call it an anomaly that we stay on topic but I know of some yamal trees that show that...

What's absolutely true is that regardless of the GW attention-whirl, we all have different perspectives on the matter by virtue of where each of us come from. For me, this is not different than when fuzzy logic showed up and mathematicians were in uproar, some figuratively in self-combustion at conferences. The same thing happened when artificial neural networks hit the scene and you could find key people in the IT intelligentsia wandering the halls like souls in purgatory wailing: "but, but, but, it's a black box... how can we trust it?!!!!". My view is academic and tales like this are many... and, btw, some theories are actually genuine and change our view of things completely while other theories are no more than hot air (see GW).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well isn't this wonderful. All getting along amicably. *Throws up*

Aw Graham, so you don't feel missed out - I would not wee on you if you were on fire either :D

1) All sources of information are questionable. When we vote for politicians, we are heavily influenced by the media. Even the BBC has its biases, never mind the infamous British press! Few posters on this forum would pass a macro-economics 101 exam but that doesn't stop them having opinions on how to get out of the recession. When we go to the doctor, we trust the peer-review process with our lives! There are ways in which drugs companies manipulate that process as much as anyone does in climatology I'd imagine.

lol OK where do I start? 1) All sources of information are questionable.... hmm and to bend an Orwell saying: and some information sources are more questionable than others....

Actually I'd rather information was right and certainly would not want to base my judgment on information known to be wrong.

BBC is most definitely biased but then with its unique source of funding and links to Government this is inevitable. They have a self-admitted policy for bias towards GW. Which for a news organisation that is supposed to be objective and cover both sides is a little odd, don't you think?

I'm glad you have so much faith in peer review. Everything you've said just confirms that it is a process I do not believe in as being objective.

2) You have to weigh up the probabilities of bad things happening. That's why I keep emphasising the number of scientists and scientific organisations who warn us about climate change. The number of apparent experts who warn us about these particular dangers is so high that the chance of AGW being true and dangerous must surely be non-negligible, even if you think on balance the odds are less than even.

Indeed you do have to weigh up probabilities which means having all information available to do the weighing. How can you weigh them up if one set of figures is stacked?

Again, more does not equal better. If that was the case X-Factor would be the best programme in the universe (and its not!!!) These scientists are a closed shop and anyone, frankly who can say they know how our climate works is a liar anyway. Its too complex. And besides recent temperature data is not looking good for the GW fans.

You also do us all a mis-justice. Academics are not the only people who understand this stuff and there are savvy people outside the system who don't have to rely on experts.

Personally I'd rather back the right information/theory rather than one that is popular.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, here are some problems with trying to accepth anthropogenic global warming based on "science":

1) There is no way on distinguishing the AGW from "natural" warming. Simply, the warmists detected what they perceived as "global warming" which they cannot completely explain by natural phenomena using their best knowledge. So, they decided that it had to be caused by human activities (think of a caveman trying to understand an eclipse).

2) because of #1 there is no way to quantify the amount of warming caused by humans. Don't believe me. Google it.

3) Despite many PR moves by the warmists the global cooling experienced in the last decade cannot be explained by any natural phenomenon (La Nina may be responsible for a little bit of it in the Americas, but not globally) and it was not predicted by any of the models (see #1).

4) The methods used to illustrate past climates/CO2, etc do not work for the 20th century thus creating a "divergence" of the thermometer temperatures and the temperatures predicted by these methods. This put in question the methods showing that we have "hottest/coldest" anything "on record."

5) in 1970s and IDENTICAL panic ensued following predictions of incoming ice age (and there was"consensus" and science was "settled") Just look up archives on New York Times. Governments declared they were taking measures to curb emissions and pollution causing the global temperature drop. That was going for 5 or 7 years.

6) All of you who believe Al Gore, please send me $100 and I will purchase carbon credits for you thus saving the planet.

7) If we can control the climate and COOL the Earth, how do we know that THIS action will not bring a new ice age??? remember, we cannot quantify the amount of warming attributed to humans (think carefully waht I wrote before dismissing it).

8) Who will win the World Cup opener?????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This: http://www.surfacestations.org/ if you have not seen it makes for interesting reading too.

A bunch of concerned people have been visiting every US weather station included in the "global temperature" log to record how suitable the conditions are for the measuring equipment, based upon NOAA's specification (which is general common sense practice and the standard in US).

Results speak for themselves.

Scroll down to look at pics at bottom of home page.

Also check out http://www.surfacestations.org/odd_sites.htm some examples of really bad sites.

This link http://wattsupwiththat.com/category/weather_stations/ gives more examples too.

Not surprising that they register an average 0.5 degree increase.

Now do you trust global temperature records?

Edited by Grabthaw the Hammerslayer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There were questions some posts back regarding organizations and scientists that question global warming caused by humans. Here are a couple of links:

http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/

http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=frontpage&Itemid=1

The second link is an interesting aside that is not likely to make headlines but, nonetheless merits attention... particularly from expert "seekers". Do notice the list of scientists, their fields of research and positions, as well as geographical location.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, here are some problems with trying to accepth anthropogenic global warming based on "science":

1) There is no way on distinguishing the AGW from "natural" warming. Simply, the warmists detected what they perceived as "global warming" which they cannot completely explain by natural phenomena using their best knowledge. So, they decided that it had to be caused by human activities (think of a caveman trying to understand an eclipse).

2) because of #1 there is no way to quantify the amount of warming caused by humans. Don't believe me. Google it.

3) Despite many PR moves by the warmists the global cooling experienced in the last decade cannot be explained by any natural phenomenon (La Nina may be responsible for a little bit of it in the Americas, but not globally) and it was not predicted by any of the models (see #1).

4) The methods used to illustrate past climates/CO2, etc do not work for the 20th century thus creating a "divergence" of the thermometer temperatures and the temperatures predicted by these methods. This put in question the methods showing that we have "hottest/coldest" anything "on record."

5) in 1970s and IDENTICAL panic ensued following predictions of incoming ice age (and there was"consensus" and science was "settled") Just look up archives on New York Times. Governments declared they were taking measures to curb emissions and pollution causing the global temperature drop. That was going for 5 or 7 years.

6) All of you who believe Al Gore, please send me $100 and I will purchase carbon credits for you thus saving the planet.

7) If we can control the climate and COOL the Earth, how do we know that THIS action will not bring a new ice age??? remember, we cannot quantify the amount of warming attributed to humans (think carefully waht I wrote before dismissing it).

8) Who will win the World Cup opener?????

tl;dr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's interesting how in the mainstream media I'm starting to see evidence of a re-framing of this debate. By cherry picking a few tasty quotes from the original emails (I highly recommend getting yourself a copy by the way; the full transcripts are fascinating) the question has been turned from a legitimate argument about the science to a shadowy conspiracy involving all the world's climatologists. Long term I can't see this being a particularly successful strategy for the denialists as conspiracy theories don't tend to go down too well with the public at large.

Recommended reading, those emails- should be simple to find on Google. For the first time in a while I actually feel quite positive about the peer review process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's interesting how in the mainstream media I'm starting to see evidence of a re-framing of this debate. By cherry picking a few tasty quotes from the original emails (I highly recommend getting yourself a copy by the way; the full transcripts are fascinating) the question has been turned from a legitimate argument about the science to a shadowy conspiracy involving all the world's climatologists. Long term I can't see this being a particularly successful strategy for the denialists as conspiracy theories don't tend to go down too well with the public at large.

Recommended reading, those emails- should be simple to find on Google. For the first time in a while I actually feel quite positive about the peer review process.

Come on, Oli, don't just show up.

If you are going to make a case against the climategate, dive in, don't shy away.

To have to endure the sound of screechy-like-liquidy-flatuses out of a drunken hag's exposed soiled undies, we already have the late Murray... and no one can beat him on that account... ok, maybe dribbler could, but that's _not_ the point.

Show us some flesh. The beasts need feeding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Show us some flesh. The beasts need feeding.

The first sentence put me in such a mindset that I read the second as "the breasts need feeding" and thought it to be quite the odd statement.

By the way, global climate change doesn't exist because that's just not convenient. Have a fantastic Friday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on, Oli, don't just show up.

If you are going to make a case against the climategate, dive in, don't shy away.

To have to endure the sound of screechy-like-liquidy-flatuses out of a drunken hag's exposed soiled undies, we already have the late Murray... and no one can beat him on that account... ok, maybe dribbler could, but that's _not_ the point.

Show us some flesh. The beasts need feeding.

Well, I could reiterate the hundreds of posts available in the comments section at:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/

...in which the climatologists concerned are having a nice long argument over about 50 pages of comments. But I don't think it's particularly valuable since you could just go and read it yourself. I haven't yet seen anything in the emails that's particularly controversial- taken in context the quotes are pretty banal considering that they represent the best case that could be mined from a decade's worth or correspondence.

If you like I can summarise the defence made of any particular emails- where do you want me to start?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This: http://www.surfacestations.org/ if you have not seen it makes for interesting reading too.

A bunch of concerned people have been visiting every US weather station included in the "global temperature" log to record how suitable the conditions are for the measuring equipment, based upon NOAA's specification (which is general common sense practice and the standard in US).

Results speak for themselves.

Scroll down to look at pics at bottom of home page.

Also check out http://www.surfacestations.org/odd_sites.htm some examples of really bad sites.

This link http://wattsupwiththat.com/category/weather_stations/ gives more examples too.

Not surprising that they register an average 0.5 degree increase.

Now do you trust global temperature records?

By scientifically analyzing them:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/about/response-v2.pdf

EDIT- just realised that sentence makes no sense. Imagine you'd said "HOW do you trust...". I've had two glasses of wine and my dyslexia is kicking in.

Edited by Oli

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6) All of you who believe Al Gore, please send me $100 and I will purchase carbon credits for you thus saving the planet.

Tell you what- you give me $10000 and I'll invest it in real estate in the Maldives....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first sentence put me in such a mindset that I read the second as "the breasts need feeding" and thought it to be quite the odd statement.

By the way, global climate change doesn't exist because that's just not convenient. Have a fantastic Friday.

Strange reverse thought that a breast might need feeding.

By the way, the climate changes all the time. Yesterday was sunny and today is raining. No, it has nothing to do with my convenience. Hope your Friday's climate is to your taste.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I could reiterate the hundreds of posts available in the comments section at:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/

...in which the climatologists concerned are having a nice long argument over about 50 pages of comments. But I don't think it's particularly valuable since you could just go and read it yourself. I haven't yet seen anything in the emails that's particularly controversial- taken in context the quotes are pretty banal considering that they represent the best case that could be mined from a decade's worth or correspondence.

If you like I can summarise the defence made of any particular emails- where do you want me to start?

How do you know that those emails "represent the best case that could be mined from a decade's worth or correspondence"? Why not "tip of the iceberg"?

Anyway, start with the cherry picking of data to make up stats. Tell us a tale about yamal trees and such...

PS: Too late for Al Gore, I'm afraid. It appears he's moving on from CO2... using his private plane, of course. How many of those at Copenhagen, btw?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you know that those emails "represent the best case that could be mined from a decade's worth or correspondence"? Why not "tip of the iceberg"?

Well, only time will answer that. But it seems to me given the data has been available for nearly 3 weeks that if there were further "revelations" someone would have found them. I spent about 4 hours last night trawling trough them and it's mostly routine correspondence. It's not impenetrable though. It's clear that whoever leaked the data had an agenda to push so it doesn't seem unreasonable that they would lead with the best they had.

We'll see.

Anyway, start with the cherry picking of data to make up stats. Tell us a tale about yamal trees and such...

Which specific email concerns you? I'm not deliberately trying to be obtuse (I manage that easily enough anyway) but I just want to know which specific bit I should focus on. The list of the notable ones is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climategate .

PS: Too late for Al Gore, I'm afraid. It appears he's moving on from CO2... using his private plane, of course. How many of those at Copenhagen, btw?

Well there I disagree with the more lunatic fringes of environmental activism. I've never held held a belief that world leaders should be forced to lead by example in this regard. They are paid to keep busy not sit on buses. I'd be quite happy if they all took private planes providing they were not used to fly to the shops. Al Gore on the other hand should ride a bike for the rest of his life.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may as well start with the first one. The criticism of the use of a "trick" is pretty disingenuous IMO. I have a trick for doing long division in my head- that is a perfectly reasonable thing to say. I used to use a trick I was taught by a colleague to analyze NMR spectrums. It doesn't mean my results are invalid- it's just one of a number of popssible meanings of the word "trick".

The divergence problem referred to in the email as I understand it is not a new thing- it has been noted for decades. This paper has a few suggestions about what may cause it:

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~liepert/pdf/DArrigo_etal.pdf

But the science here is fairly irrelevant- the email isn't telling us anything new about the divergence problem or that there was any subterfuge. It's poorly and lazily worded but it's important to keep in mind that these emails were not intended for publication- there was thus no need for a clarification on the use of the words "trick" (to mean useful method) and "hidden" (i.e. removed due to the divergence problem).

Therefore the question becomes not "why has the data been hidden" (since it was not), but "if divergence means tree rings are no longer of value why should they be of value historically". The answer is that until the 50s they matched up very well with other sources. Here's an interesting post:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/past-reconstructions/

This doesn't mean we should ignore the divergence problem and hope it goes away- it means we need to find out why the records diverge and see if there's any way to control for the cause.

Edited by Oli

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I could reiterate the hundreds of posts available in the comments section at:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/

...in which the climatologists concerned are having a nice long argument over about 50 pages of comments. But I don't think it's particularly valuable since you could just go and read it yourself. I haven't yet seen anything in the emails that's particularly controversial- taken in context the quotes are pretty banal considering that they represent the best case that could be mined from a decade's worth or correspondence.

If you like I can summarise the defence made of any particular emails- where do you want me to start?

So your defence of climategate is driven from RealClimate, which is known to be the main lobbying point for the scientists confirmed. Hardly objective.

Sorry Oli. You are being naieve. You can make up excuses for the email and twist the words but anyone looking at it objectively would see that all is not well.

Suppression of data, losing of data, collaborating to misinform, a peer review process that is not open/objective, preventing people from submitting articles. Come on Oli I don't see how anyone can see that as being right. At best it is unprofessional and unethical, worst probably illegal.

And what about Yamal? Got any good excuses for how the scientists cherry-picked tree-ring data to suit their cause?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hence the reason I suggest reading the entire comments section which is a debate between both sides of the fence. But I'm sure you've already done that and read the full thread of messages surrounding each hand-picked quote. If not I suggest you do your research before you claim I'm being naieve (sic)....

I'm not particularly fussed about defending the emails because it doesn't make any difference to either side. Those who don't believe AGW such as yourself will paint any explanation as an "excuse"- the word you yourself use above. Those who do believe in AGW will accept such explanations as being more likely than a shadowy conspiracy perpetrated for decades for no discernible reason. You see it as a victory; I see it as an irrelevance. Time will tell who is right but it's a political question rather than a scientific one.

The only question arising from these emails is that of the FOI. Whilst it does not require Jones et al to reveal their data the public perception is that it should. Their perception is that it shouldn't. The CRU have set up an independent enquiry into whether any wrongdoing occurred which is their only real option, although I can't really see what good it would do since even if it exonorated those involved it would be decried as a whitewash. And so it goes on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, my friend, not a victory. I'm afraid right there you are profoundly mistaken.

This is just for fun. Ultimately, it would not matter either way... to me.

But I can recognize bad science when I see it and, in particular, manipulation in and from the academia. It's my business, you see, and I've been around a long, long, very long time.

As someone posted earlier... "The magical faraway tree: a larch in the Yamal Peninsula in Siberia, sampled by Dr Keith Briffa, has been called 'the most influential tree in the world'". Are you aware of the 'scandal' regarding this particular piece of data manipulation (true cherry picking) and, if so, what do you make of it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You see it as a victory; I see it as an irrelevance.

No Oli. You know funny thing is I am not anti GW. I am anti-bad science. If there was proof beyond doubt GW exists and the model worked I would be a believer.

But there is not and I am not. GW appears from the outside almost like a religion with disciples of either clan berating the others.

I object to media treatment of GW - why is BBC refusing as a policy decision to publish anti GW stories? Surely shouldn't we have balance?

I object to the bad science of the CRU. Sorry don't accept the weak excuses they are coming up with - as Mandy Rice-Davies said: "well they would say that wouldn't they".

Pro GW supporters should not accept the excuses and demand an explanation for their unprofessional behaviour. This is not an attack on GW its a expose of unethical and unscientific processes. These processes must stop.

The scientific world is not covering itself in glory on this one and really needs to clean its act up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as an aside, you rarely have genuine balance in the media, or anywhere else for that matter. Balance is a question of opinion and judgement. The BBC has all kinds of policies on its coverage of all kinds of issues. Usually it's politically correct rather than honest for example - in the case of the BBC I can see some justification for doing this, even if would be patronising to its viewers if they figured it out. Or sometimes they give coverage to every side of an argument no matter how daft or factually incorrect, and other times they pick winners for political reasons. I'd imagine the Beeb's mandate includes such aims as 'not offending anyone' and 'educating the public', which is taken as license to guide and shape the public's opinions on controversial issues by promoting one point of view that experts have deemed correct.

If there was proof beyond doubt GW exists and the model worked I would be a believer.

I'm not really big into GW. People's thinking is much more interesting to me. It seems to me that this is really where we disagree. I think this way of thinking is very dangerous. It's unrealistic to expect scientists to understand absolutely everything before warning us of risks. There are many cases when it would be folly to not act just because our understanding of something was incomplete.

Edited by Max Mosley

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