Global Warming, real or fallacy? Science vs pseudo science

Arts & Sciences Science & Nature
81

What’s amazing is the level of ignorance displayed by the fossil fuel industry tools here. This comment is a good example. In 1824, carbon dioxide was discovered to be a greenhouse gas. In the 1880s Arrhenius first pointed out that humans must inevitably warm the world if they pumped CO2 into the atmosphere:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arr … use_effect

Arrhenius thought warming would be good, but then he thought it would take thousands of years, not a century, to happen. In any case as the Wiki piece notes, some of his formulae are still in use today. Human-driven global warming is not a “theory” but a fact derived from physics and chemistry (from theories and models in those sciences). Since Arrhenius pointed this out, the issue is not whether humans would destroy the earth if we continued to burn fossil fuels, but when. Thus the last century of climate research has not been to “prove” a theory (another ignorant comment; nothing is ever proven in science) but to determine the speed of warming and the trends – data collection and model refining. The first important modern paper on this is Plass’ 1956 paper, as I’ve mentioned before. This science has a long pedigree and is very robust.

[quote]Vorsokian, for example: I’d no sooner believe his links than those of Fred Smith. They’re so far from objective – both of them – that it simply boils down to a couple of blowhards with a bunch of links trying to shout each other down. Tiresome and irritating.
I really wish there was some unbiased stuff out there we could read.[/quote]

There is sandman: the scores of papers that I and others have linked to (you obviously haven’t paid the slightest attention to my links or you would know that). There are excellent collections of science papers at RealClimate and ClimateProgress, and all the climate journals are online and accessible. Start reading! There’s a century of unbiased research on this, which is why all the world’s scientific organizations affirm that global warming is occurring because of human activities.

Think about that: all the world’s major scientific organizations affirm AGW. Do you think they are all ideologically-driven? Or bought by Al Gore? Or what?

And on this issue, sandman, I am not Fred Smith’s opposite due to ideology but because I am driven by methodology. What you’re looking at in the clash between Smith and I is not competing ideologies but ideology vs methodology. If you want to sort out who is right in an argument about the nature of some aspect of reality, find out who has the best (most reliable and valid) methodology.

The great thing about being on the methodologically-supported side is that you don’t have to take my word for it. You can check that for yourself very easily, sandy. Just start reading the climate science papers, and check the data sets. All the temperature data is online, and all the papers are publicly accessible. If you like I can easily put together a list of key papers for you to read.

I’ve been following this issue for 19 or so years, since 1991 when I was hired by a Japanese economic mag in Washington DC to follow and prepare reports on US energy policy. The arguments that people like Zennor and Smith and TC think are all clever and fresh and new are the same ones that were used back then on global warming, run by the same “institutes” and funded by the same fossil fuel dollars, and recycled from previous DuPont-funded arguments on ozone, which were just winding down at that time.

There is no difference of opinion among scientists – the “debate”, like previous industry-fueled debates on ozone, tobacco, second-hand smoke, etc – is taking place in the media and among laypersons. In those cases the science was clear, but industry was fighting regulations – just like with AGW. In the global warming case the crowd that used to work on ozone and tobacco and GM food on behalf of industry, people like S Fred Singer and Tom Berinelli and Gerhard Gerlich, have been moved to this newer issue. Their purpose was to block regulation by making the issue ideological – why is a scientific question ideological? Because it was reconstructed that way by industry specialists and PR firms hired to attack the scientists – since the science is unassailable – it was settled in the 19th century. It is curious that when the Tobacco Institute carried out a campaign to attack tobacco-cancer science the public at large disbelieved them. It is curious that other anti-science campaigns, such as the Creationist/ID campaigns, which are very similar to the anti-science campaign industry is carrying out against AGW – again, sometimes using the same people, such as Roy Spencer – don’t get support in the media. But when the George C. Marshall Institute and the Heartland Institute carry out the exact same type of Denialist campaign against AGW science, often using the same PR firms and the same individuals, the public splits and a section of them buys into the assaults. Quite interesting.

Vorkosigan

82

Ahh…the sweet refrains of desperation…
"…level of ignorance displayed by the fossil fuel industry tools here. "
“(another ignorant comment; nothing is ever proven in science)”…Oh really?
“If you like I can easily put together a list of key papers for you to read.”…of course you can…of course you can.
“There is no difference of opinion among scientists …”… :roflmao:… at least among the ‘scientists’ you care to quote. They all tow the party line.
“blah blah talking point blah…carry out the exact same type of Denialist campaign against AGW science, often using the same PR firms and the same individuals, the public splits and a section of them buys into the assaults.”…smells like a…c o n s p i r a c y…don’t it…(get the ‘victim-card’ ready)

meanwhile…a good read to illustrate The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory.

The truth is out there…somewhere…hell, we might be standing on it.

83

between is a preposition. Please use “me” not “I.”

As to this debate about “science,” we are finding out that the East Anglia data was used as the basis for much of the “proof” of climate change. Now, well, the IPCC (and good on it) is going back over data for the past 140 years. I do note, however, that while you disputed Tigerman’s article (submission), you have not responded to mine nor to the Pacific Island 12 studies. I note (unless I missed this and then I apologize) that Meltdown Mick has not countered the question of how his incomplete data could result in the kind of globally comprehensive data that he so frequently demands when dismissing the results of temperature sensors that are located “only in the US.” Then, there is the issue of satellite data and what the findings are showing. I posted a link and an article to this and do not believe that I have received a response to this either. As to the mixing of satellite and sea level gauge data… no no no… back to Meltdown Mick and his incomplete data. So, the number of Britons who believe in anthropogenic global warming is down from 41 percent to 26 percent and falling. Are they, too, subject to the rightwing, religious nut ramblings of Rush Limbaugh? How cute… I had no idea that his international audience had reached such epic proportions and that the Europeans are now just as stupid as the Americans… How else can we address this “evidence?”

84

between is a preposition. Please use “me” not “I.”

As to this debate about “science,” we are finding out that the East Anglia data was used as the basis for much of the “proof” of climate change. Now, well, the IPCC (and good on it) is going back over data for the past 140 years. I do note, however, that while you disputed Tigerman’s article (submission), you have not responded to mine nor to the Pacific Island 12 studies.[/quote]

Because, Fred, you used Morner, whose work is nonsense, rejected by his fellow scientists. As I noted. In my response.

There are scores of paper on sea level rise, and all agree sea level rise is occurring. See this USGS report: climatescience.gov/Library/s … inalreport. So you pick one study from a clown who can’t tell the difference between instrument error and real data, who leaves out key references, and whose work is rejected by his peers. Now – think hard, strange as that may be for you – which side would any rational person pick – the side with hundreds of papers from across the scientific world documenting sea level rises, or a single set of papers from a crank? The USGS? Or a crank? Morner’s work might be worth something if anyone had replicated it. But they couldn’t, because it is garbage.

The East Anglia “data” are from the global temperature data, which are national temp data, collected, all online. They are supported by analyses across all the earth sciences. You can easily explore them, but that would entail reading actual scientific papers, not ideologically driven crank denier crap. You can easily find out that East Anglia’s analyses are robust, but again, that would require moving out of your current ideologically-driven, close-minded position. In fact, they are lowball:

climateprogress.org/2010/02/25/m … re-record/

[ul]"The Met Office has called for a re-examination of more than 150 years of global temperature records as part of a new comprehensive approach for analysing temperature data – to better assess the risks posed by changes in extremes of climate.

Great idea, especially since an independent December 2009 analysis found “The global temperature rise calculated by the Met Office’s HadCRUT record is at the lower end of likely warming.”

Everybody but the anti-science disinformers has known for a long time that the Hadley/CRU (Climatic Research Unit) temperature data UNDERestimates — not OVERestimates — the recent global temperature rise. Why?"[/ul]

Here’s an image from a NOAA report Global Climate Change Impacts in United States, released last year:

ClimateProgress has a good post on it with many links

From the report:
climateprogress.org/2009/06/15/u … ed-states/
“By century’s end, extreme [i.e. peak] temperatures of up to 122°F would threaten most of the central, southern, and western U.S. Even worse, Houston and Washington, DC could experience temperatures exceeding 98°F for some 60 days a year.”

Kansas could be above 90F for 60 days a year, meaning day after day of temps above 100. That will occur after the aquifers are depleted and most of rocky mountain glaciers have melted.

All that is preventable: stop burning fossil fuels.

Vorkosigan

85

Hi everybody. I’m a fossil fuel industry tool.
Please ignore my BSc in meteorology and my ongoing research into Pacific typhoons.

Thank you.

Good day.

86

Hi everybody. I’m a fossil fuel industry tool.
Please ignore my BSc in meteorology and my ongoing research into Pacific typhoons.
Thank you.
Good day.[/quote]

Lots of people with science degrees are fossil fuel industry tools, Zen. The issue isn’t what degree you have, but what attitude you take toward the science. You became one when you elected ideology over methodology.

87

Where do you get off on accusing me of being a fossil fuel tool? Being skeptical about a science that is not proven (not even a skeptic - skeptic means that you disbelieve something that is proven or taken as fact) is vastly different from ones ideas on whether green energy should be used and fossil fuels phased out.
What you are saying then is that one cannot both believe in the concept of green energy and yet disagree with the concept of AGW. Your simplistic mentality astounds me.

For very different reasons, I support the development of alternative energy. There are many, many environmental issues that are affected by the burning of fossil fuels and other pollution, but I don’t believe that the climate is being changed wholly by man’s emissions; or as widely as the politicians and their highly paid scientists would have everybody believe IF climate is being changed by man at all.

You haven’t answered my original questions:

You believe that with a scientific problem - any scientific problem - that scientists should not try to disprove a hypothesis, but should set out to prove an idea is actually true, therefore changing the whole system of how science is undertaken?

You also believe that AGW is a settled science, in line with all of the climate scientists who support the case of AGW?

88

Still on about incomplete data Fred? I posted a paper with links to data from that region, which along with several other papers reaches the conclusions consistent with IPCC. There is even more data worldwide to use to substantiate claims sea level is rising.

But for fun lets draw an analogy. In the UK one well known shop is saying boob size has increased over the past 10 years from 34B to 36C, according to their sales. Hence the claim, womens tits are getting bigger in recent years. They obviously don’t have all the sizes of everyones breasts over a period of time, so the data is incomplete. Does that invalidate the claim?

Well add to that, According to The Penguin Atlas of Human Sexual Behavior, breasts across Asia grew from 34A to 34C between 1980 and 2000. As well as A lingerie manufacturer projects that a quarter of their bra sales are in the D cup range (double two years ago) and a trend starts to emerge, as it does for those studying water level rises.

The causes are controversial, just as the case for global warming, yet according to experts, from dieticians to gynaecologists, the reasons why our breasts are getting bigger are complex and range from obesity to hormones, and alcohol to environmental factors. As with sea level rise, the general consensus is not to argue “if” it is happening, based on incomplete data they are arguing over the cause.

As with sea level rise, there is also a small minority that doesnt accept this is happening, pointing to changes in fabric which would cause errors in calculating size or trends in ladies behavior in choice of size.

If you wanted to see if peoples heights were increasing over time in China, how many samples do you need? All the population? Of course not. Statistical analysis is not some sort of voodoo science, we use it all the time, effectively.

The question is , with the data available, is it possible to draw meaningful conclusions. The paper I provided and dozens of others all reach the same conclusion and roughly the same figures. Now neither you nor I are qualified to state the data was not sufficient to reach those conclusions. You squawking like a demented parrot (again and again and again) “incomplete data, incomplete data, polly want a cracker” is meaningless since you dont have a clue from a scientific standpoint. You would need to find or show there was opposing views, and those views held credibility and that they demonstrated the data was incomplete for statistical purposes.

So what have you got? Dr. Morner vs everyone else. If you are truly a skeptic, why are you not skeptical of Dr. Morners work? Shouldn’t we show the same healthy skepticism towards all subject matter? But we all know the answer, which makes the boob analogy even more appropriate.

89

[quote=“Zennor”]Where do you get off on accusing me of being a fossil fuel tool? Being skeptical about a science that is not proven (not even a skeptic - skeptic means that you disbelieve something that is proven or taken as fact) is vastly different from ones ideas on whether green energy should be used and fossil fuels phased out.
What you are saying then is that one cannot both believe in the concept of green energy and yet disagree with the concept of AGW. Your simplistic mentality astounds me.[/quote]

Hello! Who is disagreeing with your position on green energy? But denial of AGW is a corporate anti-science stance.

You’re not skeptical when you take the anti-AGW side, you’re ideologically committed. Huge difference. Skepticism has to be methodologically driven, or else it is merely a struggle of competing ideologies. Science IS skepticism, rigorously applied.

Who said climate is being changed WHOLLY by man’s emissions? The primary driver of the current and inevitably destructive warming trend is humans pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Other climate changes no doubt have other causes.

“the politicians and their highly paid scientists” ROFL. Yes, Al Gore aka Dr. Evil took advantage of that secret DARPA project in time travel to go back and tell Arrhenius to get the ball rolling on global warming. Then he stopped in the 1950s and got the first papers and CO2 measures out. Then it was into the late 1950s and 60s with the first scientific panel warnings. DARPA’s current teleportation project enables him to sweep the ice of the world’s mountains and thin the ice sheets in Antarctica at the same time. He wants to be in charge of the latter because he doesn’t want his Fortress of Solitude found.

Zennor, greenhouse effect is old science and it is basic physics and chemistry, well known not only on earth but also on other planets (see Venus). The first predictions about what would happen on earth were made a century ago. Those predictions are outmoded because human Co2 dumping was much faster than the early scientists predicted. The model/hypothesis testing currently underway is aimed at gathering data and testing predictions about how fast and with what effects the current human-driven warming trend is. This is because, as I said, the greenhouse effect is settled science. Nobody disputes that CO2 warms the earth (are you seriously claiming that the greenhouse effect is in doubt?). So the issue for our generation is: how? and how fast? and how much?

No one is “proving” anything in science. Proof is impossible in scientific work, because it is based on chains of inferences. How much Philosophy/History of science background went into your BSC? Have you read Popper? Duhem? Latour? Lakatos?

Yes, AGW is settled science. Not only do 97% of climate scientists, virtually all not in the pay of fossil fuel firms, agree with that, but so all of the world’s major scientific bodies. Many of the details are being filled in, and new things are being learned all the time. Exciting time to be doing science.

For the figures on scientists, see Doran and Zimmerman in Eos. A summary from the AGU site:
agiweb.org/gap/legis111/climate.html#jul09c

[ul]Another recent survey by two scientists at the University of Illinois in Chicago polled 3,146 scientists on their opinion of climate change. Dr. Peter Doran and former graduate student Maggie Kendall Zimmerman presented their findings in the American Geophysical Union’s publication Eos in January. The results showed that 90 percent of the polled scientists believe that mean global temperature has risen since 1800, and 82 percent agree that human activity is a significant contributing factor. Of the climate specialists polled, 97 percent agreed that humans have contributed to the mean global temperature rise. The study concluded that there is an overall consensus among scientists that humans are causing climate change.[/ul]

The paper is online here: tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

So…I can go with the paid liars for corporate power, the same names I’ve been seeing since the 1980s on tobacco, ozone, GM foods, and many similar issues, or, I can go with the overwhelming majority of the world’s climate scientists.

Do you believe evolution is settled science? How about germ theory? Relativistic physics? Gravitational theory? Plate tectonics? All equally supporting by overwhelming majorities of scientists in the respective fields. Same situation here, same pedigree of decades of scientific work, yet suddenly you dump the science for some ideological commitment to a purblind skepticism that is entirely model-free (where is the Denialist model that explains the current warming? There.isn’t.one.) If your position is not driven by sound methodology and reliable data, why are you adhering to it?

Vorkosigan

90

from the UK:

The UK’s Institute of Physics submits its official memo to Parliament. With this, we see the opinion of a significant by of physicists that will play a role in the Climategate investigation.
This group has a Royal Charter and does the accreditation of University physics programs in UK and Ireland.

[quote]The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia

The Institute of Physics is a scientific charity devoted to increasing the practice, understanding and application of physics. It has a worldwide membership of over 36,000 and is a leading communicator of physics-related science to all audiences, from specialists through to government and the general public. Its publishing company, IOP Publishing, is a world leader in scientific publishing and the electronic dissemination of physics.

The Institute is pleased to submit its views to inform the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee’s inquiry, ‘The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia’.

The submission details our response to the questions listed in the call for evidence, which was prepared with input from the Institute’s Science Board, and its Energy Sub-group.

What are the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research?

  1. The Institute is concerned that, unless the disclosed e-mails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised(sic) in this context.

  2. The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable(sic) scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This extends well beyond the CRU itself - most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the IPCC’s conclusions on climate change.

  3. It is important to recognise(sic) that there are two completely different categories of data set that are involved in the CRU e-mail exchanges:

· those compiled from direct instrumental measurements of land and ocean surface temperatures such as the CRU, GISS and NOAA data sets; and

· historic temperature reconstructions from measurements of ‘proxies’, for example, tree-rings.

  1. The second category relating to proxy reconstructions are the basis for the conclusion that 20th century warming is unprecedented. Published reconstructions may represent only a part of the raw data available and may be sensitive to the choices made and the statistical techniques used. Different choices, omissions or statistical processes may lead to different conclusions. This possibility was evidently the reason behind some of the (rejected) requests for further information.

  2. The e-mails reveal doubts as to the reliability of some of the reconstructions and raise questions as to the way in which they have been represented; for example, the apparent suppression, in graphics widely used by the IPCC, of proxy results for recent decades that do not agree with contemporary instrumental temperature measurements.

  3. There is also reason for concern at the intolerance to challenge displayed in the e-mails. This impedes the process of scientific ‘self correction’, which is vital to the integrity of the scientific process as a whole, and not just to the research itself. In that context, those CRU e-mails relating to the peer-review process suggest a need for a review of its adequacy and objectivity as practised(sic) in this field and its potential vulnerability to bias or manipulation.

  4. Fundamentally, we consider it should be inappropriate for the verification of the integrity of the scientific process to depend on appeals to Freedom of Information legislation. Nevertheless, the right to such appeals has been shown to be necessary. The e-mails illustrate the possibility of networks of like-minded researchers effectively excluding newcomers. Requiring data to be electronically accessible to all, at the time of publication, would remove this possibility.

  5. As a step towards restoring confidence in the scientific process and to provide greater transparency in future, the editorial boards of scientific journals should work towards setting down requirements for open electronic data archiving by authors, to coincide with publication. Expert input (from journal boards) would be needed to determine the category of data that would be archived. Much ‘raw’ data requires calibration and processing through interpretive codes at various levels.

  6. Where the nature of the study precludes direct replication by experiment, as in the case of time-dependent field measurements, it is important that the requirements include access to all the original raw data and its provenance, together with the criteria used for, and effects of, any subsequent selections, omissions or adjustments. The details of any statistical procedures, necessary for the independent testing and replication, should also be included. In parallel, consideration should be given to the requirements for minimum disclosure in relation to computer modelling(sic).

Are the terms of reference and scope of the Independent Review announced on 3 December 2009 by UEA adequate?

  1. The scope of the UEA review is, not inappropriately, restricted to the allegations of scientific malpractice and evasion of the Freedom of Information Act at the CRU. However, most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other leading institutions involved in the formulation of the IPCC’s conclusions on climate change. In so far as those scientists were complicit in the alleged scientific malpractices, there is need for a wider inquiry into the integrity of the scientific process in this field.

  2. The first of the review’s terms of reference is limited to: “…manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice…” The term ‘acceptable’ is not defined and might better be replaced with ‘objective’.

  3. The second of the review’s terms of reference should extend beyond reviewing the CRU’s policies and practices to whether these have been breached by individuals, particularly in respect of other kinds of departure from objective scientific practice, for example, manipulation of the publication and peer review system or allowing pre-formed conclusions to override scientific objectivity.

How independent are the other two international data sets?

  1. Published data sets are compiled from a range of sources and are subject to processing and adjustments of various kinds. Differences in judgements(sic) and methodologies used in such processing may result in different final data sets even if they are based on the same raw data. Apart from any communality of sources, account must be taken of differences in processing between the published data sets and any data sets on which they draw.

The Institute of Physics

February 2010[/quote]

IOP’s website:
iop.org/

A thorough review of this official memo shows a clearly stated position of distaste for the use of false science and political intimidation done under the flag of science.

91

[quote]Zennor, greenhouse effect is old science and it is basic physics and chemistry, well known not only on earth but also on other planets (see Venus). The first predictions about what would happen on earth were made a century ago. Those predictions are outmoded because human Co2 dumping was much faster than the early scientists predicted. The model/hypothesis testing currently underway is aimed at gathering data and testing predictions about how fast and with what effects the current human-driven warming trend is. This is because, as I said, the greenhouse effect is settled science. Nobody disputes that CO2 warms the earth (are you seriously claiming that the greenhouse effect is in doubt?). So the issue for our generation is: how? and how fast? and how much?
[/quote]

The greenhouse effect is a necessary part of the earth’s environment in order that life is to cotinue. Without GHG’s the surface temperature of the earth would be at least 30 DEG cooler than it is with greenhouse gasses.
The first predictions were made a century ago, actually by Fournier, although the first root paper was published by Arrhenious. Those first predictions are essentially flawed not because of the amount of Co2 being pumped into the atmosphere by humans, but because of the manner in which the experiments Arrhenius conducted his experiments.

ΔF = α ln(C/C0)

There is little dooubt that the basic idea of the relationship holds true, however Arrhenius’ predictions were criticised at the time by several of his peers because he failed to seperate the absorbtion rates of Co2 from that of WV, which means that his prediction was fundamentally wrong. Add this to his flawed assumptions concerning spectroscopic data.
A second observation of Arrhenius’ formula is that the value of alpha is unknown - it is an estimated value.
I find it hard to comprehend how the IPCC can hinge all their AGW science on one formula. of which part is an unknown value, and he fact that Arrhenius derived his results from the combined absorbtion rates of WV and Co2.
The validity, or otherwise, of Arrenhius’s paper is one of the fundamental building blocks of the theory of AGW. Although we have come a long way since that paper was written it is still a crucial part of AGW theory. If it is wrong in any way then there will be knock-on effects further down the line.

[quote]Yes, AGW is settled science. Not only do 97% of climate scientists, virtually all not in the pay of fossil fuel firms, agree with that, but so all of the world’s major scientific bodies. Many of the details are being filled in, and new things are being learned all the time. Exciting time to be doing science.

[/quote]

No, Vorkosigan, AGW science is not a settled science. Climatology is not even a settled science. AGW science is still in it’s infancy. There are myriad things we do not know about how or why our climate behaves like it does. It is sold as settled science, and “most scientists agree.” (sorry who are “most scientists??”)) - and what is an agreement other than just that - a scientific certainty? Not quite - it’s just an agreement or consensus based on available information, which are usually just correlations which show that somme data points towards another set of data or results. It doesn’t actually conform or prove anything. You’ve kind of said it yourself. Nothing in science can be proven, it’s all a chain of inferences, and so therefore is not settled. How can a science be settled if we are learning a lot about it all the time? You’re contradicting yourself.

[quote]Do you believe evolution is settled science? How about germ theory? Relativistic physics? Gravitational theory? Plate tectonics? All equally supporting by overwhelming majorities of scientists in the respective fields. Same situation here, same pedigree of decades of scientific work, yet suddenly you dump the science for some ideological commitment to a purblind skepticism that is entirely model-free (where is the Denialist model that explains the current warming? There.isn’t.one.) If your position is not driven by sound methodology and reliable data, why are you adhering to it?
[/quote]

The warmist model does not give an explanation of the current warming - it just gives a list of questionable and often withdrawn scientific models, adjusted or just plain made up figures about some areas of warming and provides nasty looking graphs about how humans are warming up the planet, but does not give categoric proof to support its case. Plus it lied about glaciers, polar bears and eskimos (much of this research in these areas was not research carried out by scientists anyway) to support its scaremongering tactics and was found out about it’s behind the scenes data manipulation.
If an agency has settled science based on facts, why make up and manipulate data if it is correct? Why lie? Why fail to disclose data or simply lose data that models and predictions are based on? These are all things the IPCC has admitted to, by the way.

So, until you find for me the value of alpha, Vorkosigan, perhaps you should refrain from stipulating that my position is not driven by sound methodology and reliable data.
The IpCC’s data cannot be trusted - much of the data it has used to form predictions is not reliable - they’ve admitted to it - and this incudes flaws in Arrhenius’s original theories. So why are you adhering to it?

There are plenty of other theories about the causes of the current warming trend, including but not limited to the effects of la nina, El nino, sun spot activity and cosmic flux. All offer explanations which are as entirely possible as AGW and all of the research is conducted by respected scientists.

92

The Crock of the Week is a pretty good series. This one is about the basic facts.

93

A rather long involved paper on the various scientific methods that were abused and neglected by the ‘warmist’ crowd pushing the GlobalWarming/Climate Change/AGW mantra to those unwilling to see and understand the facts.
This is a rather info rich piece that may require some, such as myself, a long time to digest.

[quote]The Great Global Warming Hoax?
(in excerpt:)
"Our planet has been slowly warming since last emerging from the “Little Ice Age” of the 17th century, often associated with the Maunder Minimum. Before that came the “Medieval Warm Period”, in which temperatures were about the same as they are today. Both of these climate phenomena are known to have occurred in the Northern Hemisphere, but several hundred years prior to the present, the majority of the Southern Hemisphere was primarily populated by indigenous peoples, where science and scientific observation was limited to non-existent. Thus we can not say that these periods were necessarily “global”.

However, “Global Warming” in recent historical times has been an undisputable fact, and no one can reasonably deny that.

But we’re hearing far too often that the “science” is “settled”, and that it is mankind’s contribution to the natural CO2 in the atmosphere has been the principal cause of an increasing “Greenhouse Effect”, which is the root “cause” of global warming. We’re also hearing that “all the world’s scientists now agree on this settled science”, and it is now time to quickly and most radically alter our culture, and prevent a looming global catastrophe. And last, but not least, we’re seeing a sort of mass hysteria sweeping our culture which is really quite disturbing. Historians ponder how the entire nation of Germany could possibly have goose-stepped into place in such a short time, and we have similar unrest. Have we become a nation of overnight loonies?
Sorry folks, but we’re not exactly buying into the Global Hysteria just yet. We know a great deal about atmospheric physics, url=http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html#bio[/url] and from the onset, many of the claims were just plain fishy. The extreme haste with which seemingly the entire world immediately accepted the idea of Anthropogenic ( man-made ) Global Warming made us more than a little bit suspicious that no one had really taken a close look at the science. We also knew that the catch-all activity today known as “Climate Science” was in its infancy, and that atmospheric modeling did not and still does not exist which can predict changes in the weather or climate more than about a day or two in advance."[/quote]

94

[quote]The evolutionist model does not give an explanation of the current diversity of species - it just gives a list of questionable and often withdrawn scientific models, adjusted or just plain made up figures about some areas of warming and provides nasty looking graphs about how humans are warming up the planet, but does not give categoric proof to support its case. Plus it lied about Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Minnesota Iceman, (much of this research in these areas was not research carried out by scientists anyway) to support its scaremongering tactics and was found out about it’s behind the scenes data manipulation.
If an agency has settled science based on facts, why make up and manipulate data if it is correct? Why lie? Why fail to disclose data or simply lose data that models and predictions are based on? These are all things evolutionary scientists have admitted to, by the way.[/quote]

I knew I had seen these arguments before. Ah yes:

95

You started your post quite well, but ended up with some far fetched claims. To suggest cosmic flux or the effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation is just as possible as AGW is purely fallacious. This is one of the most controversial and least accepted theories. In addition, the sun is at an all time low in activity, so expect to see increases in temperature on top of what we have now, when the sun is in a warmer cycle.

Occam's razor leads us to examine closely our greenhouse emissions in relation to temperature rise. As you already state, there's no argument over "if" we are warming, or "if" CO2 should contribute at some level, or "if" indeed CO2 has been increasing and as you also note, a relationship between CO2 concentrations and temperature rise has been theorized for more than 100 years.

The IPCC apparently claims with regard a doubling of CO2.

Which is not exactly precise. If the exact relationship with CO2 and temperature were known, such large ranges would not need to be offered, we would be looking at an exact number. However, to provide doubt over the accuracy of the science in exactly how much warming should be observed, is not enough. In this case to demand science provide an absolute number with 100% certainty which can be demonstratably proven as easily as Ohms law is a strawman argument.

The issue is mans influence on the climate of our planet, the consequences of which future generations will have to live with for centuries (if the theory of AGW is true) and what effects we may see at this point are purely speculation to some extent, but may involve some terrible natural disasters. In such cases the precautionary principle should be adhered to. This is to say, the onus is on those who resist action based on what science we have today to prove increased CO2 emissions would not have the estimated temperature rises suggested. So while those supporting AGW might not be able to produce an exact figure, the denialists are even less able to “prove” the estimated temperature rises are not correct.

96

Fortigurn,

The idea that a higher being has created the universe has shaped human thought since humans were capable of reasoning and rational thought. It is only very recently in terms of human developments and beliefs that we have been able to use science to prove that the species on earth have evolved over time.
Religion has shaped the way we live, interact, reproduce, do business, travel and fight- it is an integral part of everybody’s life and society as a whole and it is extremely difficult to shake off something which has had such a profound effect on human nature.
It is therefore not surprising that there are groups who do not support the theory of eveolution, as this theory completely contradicts their belief system.

That being said, it would be interesting to note how many IPCC scientists believe in the creationalist side of the story.

To compare what is essentially religion to science, even though unfortunately the two are linked to a very high degree both now and through history, shows perhaps a shallow understanding of the subject as a whole.

Warmists believe that their science is the right one and produce proof to back up their assertions. The fact is, though, there is a lot of evidence to support that the earth is being warmed through other methods - methods which are known to have a huge impact - sorry, not huge impact - are known to drive the earth’s meteorological system - and suddenly all of these methods are brushed aside in favour of AGW driving the warming of the earth.
Now I can concede that man may be warming the earth to a very small degree - indeed, me just breathing out has a immeasurably slight effect on the atmosphere - but man’s impact will be slight and almost un-noticeable. The world’s temeperature cycles will go on rising and falling regardless of whether we burn fossil fuels or not. We are not driving the climate.

Would you care to question any other of the points I have made above, or are you just cherry-picking the arguments that seem easier for you to debate.
How about Arrhenius’ lack of distinction between the effect of Co2 and WV?
How about the unknown value of a constant in Arrhenius’ fomula, of which AGW science is based on?

97

My point was about the rhetoric of denialism. I don’t care who does it, it’s still fallacious.

I actually identified the fact that the foundation of your post was not science, but ideology. To put it simply:

This being the case, no discussion of the science will change your mind.

[quote]How about Arrhenius’ lack of distinction between the effect of Co2 and WV?
How about the unknown value of a constant in Arrhenius’ fomula, of which AGW science is based on?[/quote]

How does this alter the observable scientific facts? I read this section of your post several times, but I fail to see how it can possibly constitute a valid dismissal of the wealth of interdisciplinary evidence for AGW. Predictably, no actual scientific explanation of the observable data was forthcoming.

98

It’s pretty warm today. I guess Al Gore has been vindicated. He must be smiling and dancing. They should have a temperature indicator made out of a picture of Al Gore. When it’s hot, he is smiling and dancing, when it is cold, he is sad and trying to hide. For those of us who are not intelligent enough to know the difference between weather and climate.

I’m sweating!

99

This is not a fact, to state it as such is dishonest. This is a belief some scientists have, who I accept are more than qualified to argue the case.

The only way you can categorically state with certainty mans impact will be slight or we are not driving the climate. Is if you could prove that to be the case, which obviously is not the case. It would be like me stating the moon is made of cheese, no one would get angry or upset, they would take me to one side and prove to me I was wrong.

What is true is that you also have dismissed the belief of those scientists who do believe we are driving the warming and our effects are noticeable. The denialists get all upset when the IPCC doesn’t include the views of every scientist who has alternate theories, yet gives no weight whatsoever to claims of AGW. Such double standards are common for the right wing press, but not very scientific wouldn’t you agree?

100

[quote]The only way you can categorically state with certainty mans impact will be slight or we are not driving the climate. Is if you could prove that to be the case, which obviously is not the case. It would be like me stating the moon is made of cheese, no one would get angry or upset, they would take me to one side and prove to me I was wrong.
[/quote]

All we have are observable effects of warming and correlating data. Occam’s razor, maybe, but does that mean that other theories should be dismissed out of hand?

[quote]We are not driving the climate

This is not a fact, to state it as such is dishonest. This is a belief some scientists have, who I accept are more than qualified to argue the case.
[/quote]

I’m sorry if I presented it that way. It was personal opinion, not meant to be represented as fact.

[quote]The only way you can categorically state with certainty mans impact will be slight or we are not driving the climate. Is if you could prove that to be the case, which obviously is not the case.
[/quote]

Correct. but judging by this statement, the reverse should also be true?

[quote]What is true is that you also have dismissed the belief of those scientists who do believe we are driving the warming and our effects are noticeable.
[/quote]

The fact is that I haven’t dismissed the belief of the scientists that support the notion of global warming, but I take issue with much of the data provided to explain warming and I really take issue with how that data has been presented.

I agree. But again, the left wing press is full of ridicule for scientists with alternative views. And to that point, so is the IPCC, especially according to some of their leaked e-mails.

[quote]How does this alter the observable scientific facts? I read this section of your post several times, but I fail to see how it can possibly constitute a valid dismissal of the wealth of interdisciplinary evidence for AGW. Predictably, no actual scientific explanation of the observable data was forthcoming.

[/quote]

Many of the “observable scientific facts” have been shown to be false. Much of the data has been shown to be faulty - and it is the IPCC which has had to admit to this. You could say that the agencies responsible for “independently” collecting the data for the IPCC may agree with the IPCC and the other agencies that confirm their own results, yet much of the data was collected from exactly the same sources, with conferring between agencies.
There may be evidence for AGW - and that’s fine. But you have to show me unbiased, raw data which hasn’t been manipulated, marked up or held back.
In any other scientific field, evidence based on manipulated or false data, dodgy formulas and convenient correlations alone would be thrown out. However, with climate science, there seems to be an exception to the rule.

[quote]as likely to be in the range 2 to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C. Values substantially higher than 4.5°C cannot be excluded, but agreement of models with observations is not as good for those values

[/quote]

With respect to doubling of Co2, my concern is that Arrhenius doesn’t appear to go into the physics of why the relationship is a logarithmic one.
The IPCC Report 2007, similarly, only mentions the logarithmic relationship’s existence in passing and offers no explanation why. The important thing, though, is that all of the major sources appear unanimously agreed on the logarithmic relationship- including the IPCC. Why is this, and why is there no information concerning this?
When one really delves into the data - I mean really looks at the mathematics behing the evidence for AGW, one can find some glaring inadequacies behind the processes and techniques used for climate modelling and predictions. I admit that my mathematics are very worser than it was, but even so, I can still just about understand the logic and therefore some of the flaws.

It is not right wing papers that influence my thinking, it is my own personal research and interest in the science of the climate which is driving my skepticism. Some things just don’t make sense. The important thing is that I am ready to accept AGW if the data can be presented in an honest way and in a way that the layman can understand. This is one of the reasons why I am no longer a supporter of the AGW stance on climate change.

[quote]This is to say, the onus is on those who resist action based on what science we have today to prove increased CO2 emissions would not have the estimated temperature rises suggested. So while those supporting AGW might not be able to produce an exact figure, the denialists are even less able to “prove” the estimated temperature rises are not correct.
[/quote]

The law of dimishing returns regarding Co2 forcing would be a good place to start. So are the experiments quietly taking place at CERN with regards to the solar amplication theory - which I mentioned earlier - you dismissed it out of hand, but I believe it is an important field worth looking in to. It’s a relatively new science, and it takes a lot of time and money to disprove a theory, especially if that theory is already accepted in the mainstream. I anticipate there to be more reasons behind global warming and I expect that Co2 will certainly be in the ranks, but I doubt it will be leading the platoon.