We'll need at least the next decade of data to assign credibility to the competing climate theories, but it's pretty clear who won the first round.
Round 1 to Joe Bastardi & Company
- Thread starter Tony Crocker
- Start date
We'll need at least the next decade of data to assign credibility to the competing climate theories, but it's pretty clear who won the first round.
Patrick
Well-known member
Tony Crocker":174134ii said:
Global... :dead horse: ](*,)
Get some data from the Canadian Upper Latitudes and other places. Snow doesn't necessarily mean colder either. I'm not going to start again. 99% of climatologist studying elements of the climate agree and believe that is happening. Period. Not going to waste my time on this again.
Patrick":2tvtkd0x said:
No, not period. In fact, that's
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_petition
You can start here for a sampling of those who disagree:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sc ... al_warming
A few choice quotes from that link:
# Richard Lindzen,Pubs Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences: "We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 °C higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds). But – and I cannot stress this enough – we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to CO2 or to forecast what the climate will be in the future."[5] "[T]here has been no question whatsoever that CO2 is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas – albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in CO2 should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed."[6][7]
# Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute: "The blind adherence to the harebrained idea that climate models can generate 'realistic' simulations of climate is the principal reason why I remain a climate skeptic. From my background in turbulence I look forward with grim anticipation to the day that climate models will run with a horizontal resolution of less than a kilometer. The horrible predictability problems of turbulent flows then will descend on climate science with a vengeance."[9]
# William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus and head of The Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University: "This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood. Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential."[21] "I am of the opinion that [global warming] is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people."[22] "So many people have a vested interest in this global-warming thing—all these big labs and research and stuff. The idea is to frighten the public, to get money to study it more."[23]
# William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology: "There has been a real climate change over the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries that can be attributed to natural phenomena. Natural variability of the climate system has been underestimated by IPCC and has, to now, dominated human influences."[25]
# Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: global warming "is the biggest scientific hoax being perpetrated on humanity. There is no global warming due to human anthropogenic activities. The atmosphere hasn’t changed much in 280 million years, and there have always been cycles of warming and cooling. The Cretaceous period was the warmest on earth. You could have grown tomatoes at the North Pole"[27]
# John Christy, Pubs professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports: "I'm sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see. Rather, I see a reliance on climate models (useful but never "proof") and the coincidence that changes in carbon dioxide and global temperatures have loose similarity over time."[46]
riverc0il
New member
Counting the hits and ignoring the misses. Isolated anomalies are singular instances whereas climate change is about long term change. You can't cite localized high snow pack as data against a global long term trend. I have seen a preponderance of evidence supporting climate change. But I have a scientific enough mind that I see there are valid scientific disputes as well. However, anytime someone trots out a singular instance (either in support or in contradiction of established climate change evidence) it is a 100% crock of shit. Climate change (or lack thereof, if you prefer to see it that way) IS NOT ABOUT SINGULAR EVENTS!!!
:dead horse: :dead horse: :dead horse:
I don't care which scientific theories you subscribe to. I do care about any suggestion that a singular event in a specific area supports either conclusion. Admin argues with words from the skeptics and I can appreciate that.
:dead horse: :dead horse: :dead horse:
I don't care which scientific theories you subscribe to. I do care about any suggestion that a singular event in a specific area supports either conclusion. Admin argues with words from the skeptics and I can appreciate that.
Patrick
Well-known member
Admin":2ucy372m said:
What was my quote?
Patrick":2ucy372m said:
A list of scientists and research with some meteorologists and maybe a the odd climatologists.
1) Meteorology isn't the same as Climatology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatolog ... eteorology
2) Maybe not 99%, but somewhere between 95-99%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific ... ate_change
:dead horse:
It's like arguing with Tony in the Eastern corn artificial snow debate. It's not his level of expertize. He might think he's right, but has little experience in it. :dead horse:
No time to waste on this...it's all been debated and the scientific evidence is there.
Found the easy quotes on Wiki, because it's late and there is no used to actually find (again) the actual stuff that we've discussed many times again.
Patrick":25gkr8oj said:
Nor is it the same as cartography.
Patrick":25gkr8oj said:
Nor do you in climatology. And please don't trot out again that you took some climatology course in college. :roll: I took a course in Eastern Religions while in college but that doesn't make me the Buddha.
Patrick":25gkr8oj said:
The author of that passage you quoted apparently chooses to disregard views held by Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences, or the esteemed Dr. William Gray, Professor Emeritus and head of The Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University, or other noted climatologists. Note, Patrick, that those are climatologists of the highest credentials. According to the author of that quote, however, they apparently don't "understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes." Otherwise the author would have been forced to acknowledge that the "debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity" is not "largely nonexistent."
That quote is therefore nothing but a sweeping generalization borne of convenient omission to suit an underlying agenda, i.e. "an inconvenient truth." Kinda like the processes followed by the IPCC. :lol: Quotes like that earn no credibility whatsoever.
Patrick":25gkr8oj said:
But the thing is that the scientific evidence is absolutely not "there." Now here's where I can't understand how a guy as intelligent as you can't seem to understand the difference between an unequivocal fact and an unproven scientific theory. "Global warming" is nothing more than the latter, and there are competing scientific theories out there that are equally valid. Absolutely nothing here is a foregone conclusion no matter how much you want it to be, so there's no point in acting as if it is.
Remember that in 1492 the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community was that the world was flat, but that didn't make it right. At the time it was nothing but an unproven scientific theory, just like global warming is at this moment. The minority of the scientific community in 1492 had an alternate theory that indeed turned out to be correct.
Agree. That's why I saidRiverc0il":3pd7jbu4 said:
Tony Crocker":3pd7jbu4 said:
PDO, La Nina do tend to lower temperatures on a global scale, as they did most recently in 2008. The AGW advocates a year ago were crowing that 2010 was going to be clear cut warmest year on record because the first 4 months were. El Nino was in force those early months and by the end of the year La Nina had come on strong and brought the overall year down below 1998 and 2005.Patrick":3pd7jbu4 said:
Patrick
Well-known member
Admin":rmr1qdih said:
Not really, geography.
Admin":rmr1qdih said:
No, never said I was a expert on the subject. I mentioned that I had one course in university by someone known for his work on global warming and this was back in 1986. Also mentioned that I had two friends from university, one in the Masters' program, the other working on his PhD a the time both in Climatology. The subject has been discussed in an informal basis back then, we were all after all post-graduate students in the same Geography building after all.
However I tend to give more credence to people that actually study and are specialize in the field than those you don't. :dead horse:
How can you guys live in SLC? It's nothing more than a sprawling suburb with fast-food restaurants and big-box stores.
rfarren
New member
There are many scientists who study that field who are very skeptical of man's contribution to climate change. Joe Bastardi didn't invent the the PDO, in fact, his argument is supported by many reputable climatologists.Patrick":3fv1mpl7 said:
One of the argument against much of climate science is that it is based almost entirely on computer models. None of the models are able to recreate the climate observations made in the last 30 years (satellite data) given their parameters. In fact, many of the models predicted doomsday scenarios all by the year 2010. Anthony Watt's websitehttp://wattsupwiththat.com had a great list of predictions that failed heartily.
Another major problem with climate science is the funding. Scientist who refute the IPCC report are often denied funding from universities because of the bad press they will receive. The press shouldn't have a say in science, as science should be open. Worse yet, climategate showed how many who are in the APGW camp view those outside it, and even worse, showed that these "pillars" in the field refused to show their data (which was later seen to be fudged). I'm sorry but that isn't science.
The climate is always in flux. It is my understanding that since 1998 the earth is cooling and since 1650 the earth is warming and since 0 AD years ago the the climate is cooling and since 15,000 years ago the climate has warmed and since 55 million years ago the earth has experienced drastic cooling etc... Most serious APGW scientists don't attribute the warming up to about 1970 to man (Co2 numbers don't support it by their calculations). They do however, attribute all subsequent warming to manmade causes.
In order to say that Co2 is the driving force of global warming you have to assume that cloud cover stays the same. That is the only way that the earth warms, if could cover increases or water vapor increases, the effect of Co2 is mitigated. Those in the APGW camp understand that. The problem is that scientists don't know what will happen with cloud cover or water vapor.
The science seems sound, Co2 = warmer climate, because elevated Co2 levels in the environment in the past have been seen during warmer periods. But Co2 is a lagging indicator of the climate not a leading (we do know that humans are responsible for a fairly small percentage of the Co2 in the evironment). The only problem is that the climate doesn't conveniently peg itself to Co2. The correlation of past climate observations has been more closely aligned with the PDO and sun activity. Furthermore, more that 90% of the earth's energy is stored in the oceans. Co2 is less that .04% of the atmosphere's makeup. Therefore, it makes sense that the PDO should be a more active participant in the climate's direction.
Eugenics, too, was born out of a seemingly simple scientific principle (the assumption that westerners are superior, based on the observation that western civilization had superior technology). Ultimately eugenics was understood to be culturally driven and not scientifically driven and as we have seen that combined with public policy was very dangerous.
There is a large cultural component behind APGW theory (i.e. an inconvenient truth, a movie which projected a doomsday scenario, that even the most ardent APGW scientists have said is entirely out of scale. Gore won a nobel peace prize for his work with the film, and the film won many awards, even though science behind it wasn't particularly sound.) The APGW movement panders to feelings of guilt, responsibility and altruism. It is therefore no wonder that the science has been politicized to the extant it has. The pragmatist in me really thinks this whole thing is a very strong meme.
Ultimately, there are many theories that propose responsibility for the climate change in the last 30 years. We shouldn't subscribe to the IPCC report wholeheartedly, as anybody who has done any research will realize it was an extremely politicized document and not backed by sound science. It is worth reading theories on the environment that refute the APGW camp, even if you don't agree with them. Finally, one shouldn't believe that the APGW theory is infallible. We needn't forget that TIME magazine 30 years ago was telling everyone that the earth was cooling (this was based on sound science :lol: ).
rfarren":1llbt0ib said:
Here, let me finish that sentence for you: "...that were fed fudged data to make them produce the outcome that the study authors wanted them to show."
rfarren":1llbt0ib said:
Bingo. When in doubt, follow the money. I wonder how many of the 76 of 77 climatologists surveyed and referenced by Patrick depend upon this phenomenon's existence to continue their research funding gravy train? Given the source of the study I wonder how many of them feared being blackballed if they dared to disagree? Given that's their field of expertise I'm guessing that the answer to either question is a rather healthy proportion of those surveyed. Just like anything else, phrase the survey questions a certain way and you can almost guarantee the survey's outcome...just like fudging climate data and then disposing of the original data to intentionally prevent proper peer review.
Just to make my own personal position clear in case this debate has obfuscated it: I don't know whether or not AGW exists. As far as I'm concerned, neither does anyone else. Despite Patrick's bleating to the contrary, at this point it's merely an unverified scientific hypothesis, as is the position of skeptical climatologists. In fact, through the leaked scandals at the IPCC we've seen that the data actually didn't fit their prediction models and had to be falsified in order to support the predictions of AGW proponents. We've also seen that those who are AGW's most ardent supporters, people like Gore and Pachauri, have positioned themselves to make enormous financial gains if the "solutions" they propose to counteract AGW are enacted.
As far as I'm concerned there's no point in building public policy based upon this house of cards until such theories can be confirmed or refuted.
rfarren
New member
I'm in total agreement with you on this point. Building public policy on AGW right now would be like quitting your job and giving your life savings away because you expect to be raptured.Admin":ckce41k4 said:
Ultimately good science should be independent and have open sources which can be properly peer reviewed and seen. More importantly it shouldn't have an agenda.
marcski
New member
Also, isn't the reliable scientific data for climate change and earth's temperature are only what, about 100 years old? That is nothing compared to the age of the earth itself. Therefore, for anyone to make bold statements without any degree of doubt, seems a bit skeptical to me on either side of this debate.
Geoff
New member
Admin":2v1mzmdq said:
Computer modeling has gotten pretty good at predicting hurricane storm tracks but it took decades of tuning to get the model right. Computer models to predict climate change have no history or repetitions to correct the model as new data comes in. They're little better than a Ouija board. Belief in global warming is little different from the belief that the messiah is coming.
That said, there's nothing wrong with playing it safe since we have no idea whether CO2 emissions have much impact on climate. I have no idea whether the impact of man ends up warming the climate or cooling it. I kind-a like things the way they are so I'd like to minimize whatever impact we are having. If you want to minimize CO2, you have to stop burning fossil fuels. The mix is 1/3 electricity generation, 1/3 transportation, 1/3 residental heating + commercial + industrial. The only viable alternative is nuclear power supplemented with a blend of things like solar hot water panels, geothermal heat pumps, tidal, wind, and hydrogen. The lesson from Japan is that you need to put the reactors in geologically stable places far from major population centers.
So the Federal government needs to adopt a 20 year program to phase out fossil fuel eletricity generation. That immediately gets rid of 1/3 of the CO2 emissions. The next step is to get us into electric cars that have a way to quickly recharge them during long trips.... either swapping the battery pack at a 'gas station' or some kind of fast charge battery technology that doesn't exist today. Move long distance commercial transportation from trucks and airplanes to electric rail.
This ain't gonna happen since everybody is afraid of nukes so we're going to continue to spew CO2 at the same rate.
pointpeninsula
New member
I suppose I should know better than to get involved, but read the book Merchants of Doubt.
I heartily endorse the statement 'follow the money'. Of these researchers, ask four questions:
1) In what studies or experiments are you actively involved?
2) In what peer-reviewed journals have you published?
3) Who funds those studies?
4) What other studies have you been involved in?
For example, Fred Singer was one of the early climate deniers, and he has credentials all over the place. He also worked for the tobacco industry, trying to convince us that 'sick building syndrome', not secondhand smoke, was responsible for disease. His gang also coined the phrase 'junk science' while in the employ of the tobacco industry. His comments when called out about the source of his funding?
CBC said that tobacco money had paid for Singer's research and for his promotion of it, and that it was organized by APCO. Singer told CBC it made no difference where the money came from. "They don't carry a note on a dollar bill saying 'This comes from the tobacco industry,'" he said. "In any case I was not aware of it, and I didn't ask APCO where they get their money. That's not my business
That seems a little disingenuous to me. It most certainly was his business, and he knows it. Now they're attacking climate science, while in the employ of the petroleum industry.
More from Wikipedia:
Rachel White Scheuering writes that, when SEPP began, it was affiliated with the Washington Institute for Values in Public Policy, a think tank run by Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church.[50] A 1990 article for the Cato Institute identifies Singer as the director of the science and environmental policy project at the Washington Institute for Values in Public Policy, on leave from the University of Virginia.[52] Scheuering writes that Singer cut ties with Moon, and is funded by foundations and oil companies.[50] She writes that he has been a paid consultant for many years for ARCO, ExxonMobil, Shell, Sun Oil Company, and Unocal, and that SEPP has received grants from ExxonMobil. Singer has said his financial relationships do not influence his research. Scheuering argues that his conclusions concur with the economic interests of the companies that pay him, in that the companies want to see a reduction in environmental regulation.[53]
According to Sourcewatch, on SEPP funding:
"... S. Fred Singer, acknowledged during a 1994 appearance on the television program Nightline that he had received funding from Exxon, Shell, Unocal and ARCO. He did not deny receiving funding on a number of occasions from the Rev. Sun Myung Moon." [19]
In 2000 SEPP wrote on their web site:
"SEPP does not solicit financial support from either industry or governmental sources. Income is derived mainly from charitable foundations and private individuals. Some income is derived also from SEPP conference fees and the sale of books and reports to the public. As a non-profit educational and research 501(c) 3 organization, accepting tax-deductible contributions, SEPP is required to file an annual report with the IRS. SEPP operates on a modest budget; its officers and associated scientists do not receive salaries but contribute their services on a pro bono basis." [20] (emphasis added)
ExxonMobil donated $10,000 to SEPP both in 1998 [21] and 2000 [22].
So, in my opinion, believe what you want, but unless you're a trained scientist, be careful when people trot out results of studies and quotes from scientists. A lot of data can be taken out of context, 'theory' doesn't mean to a scientist what it means to Joe six-pack, and correlation and causation are often confused for each other by non-scientists.
I guess that's enough flame-fanning for now.
Tom
I heartily endorse the statement 'follow the money'. Of these researchers, ask four questions:
1) In what studies or experiments are you actively involved?
2) In what peer-reviewed journals have you published?
3) Who funds those studies?
4) What other studies have you been involved in?
For example, Fred Singer was one of the early climate deniers, and he has credentials all over the place. He also worked for the tobacco industry, trying to convince us that 'sick building syndrome', not secondhand smoke, was responsible for disease. His gang also coined the phrase 'junk science' while in the employ of the tobacco industry. His comments when called out about the source of his funding?
CBC said that tobacco money had paid for Singer's research and for his promotion of it, and that it was organized by APCO. Singer told CBC it made no difference where the money came from. "They don't carry a note on a dollar bill saying 'This comes from the tobacco industry,'" he said. "In any case I was not aware of it, and I didn't ask APCO where they get their money. That's not my business
That seems a little disingenuous to me. It most certainly was his business, and he knows it. Now they're attacking climate science, while in the employ of the petroleum industry.
More from Wikipedia:
Rachel White Scheuering writes that, when SEPP began, it was affiliated with the Washington Institute for Values in Public Policy, a think tank run by Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church.[50] A 1990 article for the Cato Institute identifies Singer as the director of the science and environmental policy project at the Washington Institute for Values in Public Policy, on leave from the University of Virginia.[52] Scheuering writes that Singer cut ties with Moon, and is funded by foundations and oil companies.[50] She writes that he has been a paid consultant for many years for ARCO, ExxonMobil, Shell, Sun Oil Company, and Unocal, and that SEPP has received grants from ExxonMobil. Singer has said his financial relationships do not influence his research. Scheuering argues that his conclusions concur with the economic interests of the companies that pay him, in that the companies want to see a reduction in environmental regulation.[53]
According to Sourcewatch, on SEPP funding:
"... S. Fred Singer, acknowledged during a 1994 appearance on the television program Nightline that he had received funding from Exxon, Shell, Unocal and ARCO. He did not deny receiving funding on a number of occasions from the Rev. Sun Myung Moon." [19]
In 2000 SEPP wrote on their web site:
"SEPP does not solicit financial support from either industry or governmental sources. Income is derived mainly from charitable foundations and private individuals. Some income is derived also from SEPP conference fees and the sale of books and reports to the public. As a non-profit educational and research 501(c) 3 organization, accepting tax-deductible contributions, SEPP is required to file an annual report with the IRS. SEPP operates on a modest budget; its officers and associated scientists do not receive salaries but contribute their services on a pro bono basis." [20] (emphasis added)
ExxonMobil donated $10,000 to SEPP both in 1998 [21] and 2000 [22].
So, in my opinion, believe what you want, but unless you're a trained scientist, be careful when people trot out results of studies and quotes from scientists. A lot of data can be taken out of context, 'theory' doesn't mean to a scientist what it means to Joe six-pack, and correlation and causation are often confused for each other by non-scientists.
I guess that's enough flame-fanning for now.
Tom
rfarren
New member
pointpeninsula":25pfgd4e said:
That goes both ways: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/...uments-confirm-wegmans-hypothesis/#more-40474