Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Left Coast Kratom Premium Bali Kratom Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   North Spore Cultivation Supplies   Original Sensible Seeds High THC Strains

Jump to first unread post Pages: < First | < Back | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | Next >
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
Re: A continuation of the HadCrut graph discussion [Re: AnonymousRabbit]
    #8345320 - 04/30/08 08:09 AM (15 years, 8 months ago)

I disagree that the science "cannot be separated from the politics" here. It most certainly can be.

The problem isn't that the politics can't be separated from the science, but that the Warmenists claim the science has been decided, when in fact it hasn't been decided. They assert there is "consensus" when there isn't, simultaneously ignoring the fact that science isn't decided by consensus in the first place.

Very early in the thread, at http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/7781889#Post7781889 Diploid posted some excerpts from an article in a Canadian newspaper. It appears you skipped this post, so with apologies to Diploid, I'll post the link again -- http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/968

Before reading this article, though, you really should go to Diploid's post and read it. He made some excellent points.

I'll go further than just posting the link this time -- I'll also post the entire article, because I have found few people rarely take the trouble to click links. Here it is --

********************************************************************
IPCC must come clean on real numbers of scientist supporters

The UN Climate Change Numbers Hoax
By Tom Harris: John McLean Friday, December 14, 2007

It’s an assertion repeated by politicians and climate campaigners the world over – ‘2,500 scientists of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) agree that humans are causing a climate crisis’.

But it’s not true. And, for the first time ever, the public can now see the extent to which they have been misled. As lies go, it’s a whopper. Here’s the real situation.

Like the three IPCC ‘assessment reports’ before it, the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) released during 2007 (upon which the UN climate conference in Bali was based) includes the reports of the IPCC’s three working groups. Working Group I (WG I) is assigned to report on the extent and possible causes of past climate change as well as future ‘projections’. Its report is titled “The Physical Science Basis”. The reports from working groups II and II are titled “Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability” and “Mitigation of Climate Change” respectively, and since these are based on the results of WG I, it is crucially important that the WG I report stands up to close scrutiny.

There is, of course serious debate among scientists about the actual technical content of the roughly 1,000-page WG I report, especially its politically motivated Summary for Policymakers which is often the only part read by politicians and non-scientists. The technical content can be difficult for non-scientists to follow and so most people simply assume that if that large numbers of scientists agree, they must be right.

Consensus never proves the truth of a scientific claim, but is somehow widely believed to do so for the IPCC reports, so we need to ask how many scientists really did agree with the most important IPCC conclusion, namely that humans are causing significant climate change--in other words the key parts of WG I?

The numbers of scientist reviewers involved in WG I is actually less than a quarter of the whole, a little over 600 in total. The other 1,900 reviewers assessed the other working group reports. They had nothing to say about the causes of climate change or its future trajectory. Still, 600 “scientific expert reviewers” sounds pretty impressive. After all, they submitted their comments to the IPCC editors who assure us that “all substantive government and expert review comments received appropriate consideration.” And since these experts reviewers are all listed in Annex III of the report, they must have endorsed it, right?

Wrong.

For the first time ever, the UN has released on the Web the comments of reviewers who assessed the drafts of the WG I report and the IPCC editors’ responses. This release was almost certainly a result of intense pressure applied by “hockey-stick” co-debunker Steve McIntyre of Toronto and his allies. Unlike the other IPCC working groups, WG I is based in the U.S. and McIntyre had used the robust Freedom of Information legislation to request certain details when the full comments were released.

An examination of reviewers’ comments on the last draft of the WG I report before final report assembly (i.e. the ‘Second Order Revision’ or SOR) completely debunks the illusion of hundreds of experts diligently poring over all the chapters of the report and providing extensive feedback to the editing teams. Here’s the reality.

A total of 308 reviewers commented on the SOR, but only 32 reviewers commented on more than three chapters and only five reviewers commented on all 11 chapters of the report. Only about half the reviewers commented more than one chapter. It is logical that reviewers would generally limit their comments to their areas of expertise but it’s a far cry from the idea of thousands of scientists agreeing to anything.

Compounding this is the fact that IPCC editors could, and often did, ignore reviewers’ comments. Some editor responses were banal and others showed inconsistencies with other comments. Reviewers had to justify their requested changes but the responding editors appear to have been under no such obligation. Reviewers were sometimes flatly told they were wrong but no reasons or reliable references were provided. In other cases reviewers tried to dilute the certainty being expressed and they often provided supporting evidence, but their comments were often flatly rejected. Some comments were rejected on the basis of a lack of space – an incredible assertion in such an important document. The attitude of the editors seemed to be that simple corrections were accepted, requests for improved clarity tolerated but the assertions and interpretations that appear in the text were to be defended against any challenge.

An example of rampant misrepresentation of IPCC reports is the frequent assertion that ‘hundreds of IPCC scientists’ are known to support the following statement, arguably the most important of the WG I report, namely “Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely caused most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years.”

In total, only 62 scientists reviewed the chapter in which this statement appears, the critical chapter 9, “Understanding and Attributing Climate Change”. Of the comments received from the 62 reviewers of this critical chapter, almost 60% of them were rejected by IPCC editors. And of the 62 expert reviewers of this chapter, 55 had serious vested interest, leaving only seven expert reviewers who appear impartial.

Two of these seven were contacted by NRSP for the purposes of this article - Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand and Dr. Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph, Canada. Concerning the “Greenhouse gas forcing …” statement above, Professor McKitrick explained “A categorical summary statement like this is not supported by the evidence in the IPCC WG I report. Evidence shown in the report suggests that other factors play a major role in climate change, and the specific effects expected from greenhouse gases have not been observed.”

Dr. Gray labeled the WG I statement as “Typical IPCC doubletalk” asserting “The text of the IPCC report shows that this is decided by a guess from persons with a conflict of interest, not from a tested model.”

Determining the level of support expressed by reviewers’ comments is subjective but a slightly generous evaluation indicates that just five reviewers endorsed the crucial ninth chapter. Four had vested interests and the other made only a single comment for the entire 11-chapter report. The claim that 2,500 independent scientist reviewers agreed with this, the most important statement of the UN climate reports released this year, or any other statement in the UN climate reports, is nonsense.

“The IPCC owe it to the world to explain who among their expert reviewers actually agree with their conclusions and who don’t,” says Natural Resources Stewardship Project Chair climatologist Dr. Timothy Ball. “Otherwise, their credibility, and the public’s trust of science in general, will be even further eroded.”

That the IPCC have let this deception continue for so long is a disgrace. Secretary General Ban Kai-Moon must instruct the UN climate body to either completely revise their operating procedures, welcoming dissenting input from scientist reviewers and indicating if reviewers have vested interests, or close the agency down completely. Until then, their conclusions, and any reached at the Bali conference based on IPCC conclusions, should be ignored entirely as politically skewed and dishonest.

John McLean is climate data analyst based in Melbourne, Australia. Tom Harris is the Ottawa-based Executive Director of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (nrsp.com).

************************************************************************

From a political point of view, the question is -- which scientists should we believe? There are some very credible scientists indeed who believe CO2 is not the main forcer of terrestrial surface temperature increase. You -- supernovasky -- can assert that these scientists are wrong in their beliefs, but you can't truthfully assert there are no such scientists.

We could then engage ourselves in an argument over what percentage of climate scientists fall on one side or the other of the question, and I could then dig up a lot more articles like the one above, showing there are a hell of a lot more scientists in the "denier" camp than the Warmenists will admit. But so what? The truth (or falsity) of a scientific proposition is not determined by the number of its adherents. History is replete with examples of debunked hypotheses which at one time enjoyed the "consensus" stamp of scientific approval. The Warmer's stance is no more scientific than "there are more of us than there are of you, so we win the argument". So sorry, supernovasky, but that is not how real science is done.

Having said all that, is it possible that the main driver of climate change this time around is concentration of atmospheric CO2? Yep. It is possible. I think it unlikely, for several different reasons which have been pointed out earlier in this thread, but I would never deny that it is possible. The thing is, before enacting the draconian legislation advocated by the AG Warmers, we need something a lot more solid than possibility. We need virtual certainty, because the measures they are calling for are demonstrably harmful to humans.

And -- despite the protestations of the AGW crowd, we do not yet have certainty. Or anywhere close to certainty, for that matter. Because of the thorny issue of falsifiabilty, we may never achieve certainty.

But -- from a political perspective -- it doesn't matter. Because the trend has been for quite some time now to move away from burning stuff to produce energy anyway! There are enough other excellent reasons to change over to other forms of energy production that it is not necessary to enact a single piece of legislation. The transition will not be speeded by legislation. In fact, it can be argued that the process will be slowed by government meddling.

If scientists want to argue over the causes of climate change, they will get no objection from me. I applaud and encourage their efforts. But if politicians want to interfere even more in my life than they already do because they believe the scientists with the best public relations team, then I do have an objection.

And so should you.



Phred


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
Re: A continuation of the HadCrut graph discussion [Re: Seuss]
    #8345359 - 04/30/08 08:26 AM (15 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Personally, I think it would make more sense to move the thread to S&T and start a political thread here, if warranted - as you said, there is a lot of information in this thread and it is oriented towards science rather than politics. I leave it up to the moderators to decide what to do.




There is certainly now enough political argument in the thread as a whole to allow it to stay here. And most of the participants are Political Discussion forum regulars, so it seems unfair somehow to transfer it to S&T at such a late date, particularly when it is not the fault of those regulars that I allowed things to get out of hand. Partially due to my own mishandling of the situation once supernovasky entered the discussion, it became far too science oriented for far too long, but a review of the first ten pages and the last one or two shows there is certainly enough political argument for it to stay here -- if we all follow the rules from this point forward and not allow ourselves to be tempted to revert to "dueling experts" mode.

If the thread were three or four pages long, sure, I would have no qualms moving it to Science and Technology. But I think we're long past that point now. An awful lot of regulars have invested an awful lot of time and energy into this beast by now. Rightly or wrongly, it has become a creation of Political Discussion denizens, not Science and Technology denizens.

If Diploid feels strongly otherwise, I won't kick up a fuss if he moves it to S&T, though.



Phred


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTheCow
Stranger

Registered: 10/28/02
Posts: 4,790
Last seen: 15 years, 6 months
Re: A continuation of the HadCrut graph discussion [Re: Phred]
    #8345868 - 04/30/08 12:45 PM (15 years, 8 months ago)

you amuse me :shoosh:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAnonymousRabbit
Comrade
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,993
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
Re: A continuation of the HadCrut graph discussion [Re: Phred]
    #8345904 - 04/30/08 12:59 PM (15 years, 8 months ago)

Phred, when will you learn? I am not your normal Global warming debater. I am probably one of the most educated on the issue you will ever face in the realms of shroomery.com, and as such, I am not afraid to call you on your bullshit, mod or not, especially when you keep posting hogwash that has long since been debunked. I can't believe you posted something from McLean and Harris. I imagine to someone else watching that this is about to get comical.

Quote:

In total, only 62 scientists reviewed the chapter in which this statement appears, the critical chapter 9, "Understanding and Attributing Climate Change". Of the comments received from the 62 reviewers of this critical chapter, almost 60% of them were rejected by IPCC editors. And of the 62 expert reviewers of this chapter, 55 had serious vested interest, leaving only seven expert reviewers who appear impartial.




First, there were much more than 62 reviewers for chapter 9. McLean and Harris have only counted the reviewers of the second order draft and ignored the more numerous comments on the first order draft.

Furthermore, HERE is where it gets funny:

He misleads people by giving the impression that 60% of the reviewers disagreed with the IPCC, but half of the comments (572 of them!) were made by Vincent Gray, with 97% of them rejected. Only 16% of the comments by other reviewers were rejected. Gray was also responsible for most the rejected comments on the first order draft. Examples of Gray's rejected comments include:

Quote:



Insert after "to" "the utterly ridiculous assumption of"




Quote:


Insert after "Bayesian" "(or super-guesswork)"




Quote:


Insret before "Calibrated" "Bogus"





You can read a more a more detailed analysis seen here of Gray's comments -- 50 of them were Gray repeatedly asking for "anthropogenic" to be replaced with "human-induced".

Now onto this BS about vested interest...

How do you think Harris and McLean come up with their assertion that 55 of the reviewers are "serious vested interest" and compromised? You can read McLean's details in this report by the SPPI (an oil industry funded think tank that apparently does not count as a vested interested to McLean). He declared scientists to have a vested interest if they were an IPCC author, or an IPCC author of a previous assessment, or if any of their work was cited by the report, or if they worked for a government, or if they work for an organization that gets government funding, or if they have a "possible commercial vested interest in the claim of man-made warming". Humorously, that leaves amateurs like Gray and McKitrick. In fact, want to see some vested interest? In one of his comments Gray asked them to cite one of his Energy and Environment papers. Fortunately for him, it was rejected, or he would have been ruled out as well.

Quote:

John McLean is climate data analyst based in Melbourne, Australia.




No, he is not. While the National Post awarded him a Ph.D. he actually has no scientific qualifications at all, just a Bachelor of Architecture.

So once again, please stop posting misleading stuff.


--------------------
.


Edited by AnonymousRabbit (04/30/08 01:40 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
Re: A continuation of the HadCrut graph discussion [Re: AnonymousRabbit]
    #8346083 - 04/30/08 02:01 PM (15 years, 8 months ago)

"It is a fundamental principle of science that support for a hypothesis means nothing because everything depends on whether the hypothesis can be proved wrong. Settling an unresolved scientific matter is normally done by trying to break various hypotheses and continuing until one is found that cannot be broken, at which point the hypothesis is provisionally accepted.

"These matters are not settled by consensus but by dogged testing. Science and its near neighbour medicine are replete with examples of maverick individuals rejecting the consensus of the day and proposing new theories that subsequently proved to be correct. This is not to say that the mavericks are always right but it does illustrate that consensus does not confer "truth" on a scientific theory."


Do you agree with the above two paragraphs? Do they present an accurate description of the scientific method?

If not, why not? What is wrong with the two paragraphs? What part of them do you challenge?




Phred


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTheCow
Stranger

Registered: 10/28/02
Posts: 4,790
Last seen: 15 years, 6 months
Re: A continuation of the HadCrut graph discussion [Re: Phred]
    #8346393 - 04/30/08 03:51 PM (15 years, 8 months ago)

you argue around the point, but never the point. True at various times some scientists have challenged science and been shown to be correct, therefore.... what is your point exactly however


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAnonymousRabbit
Comrade
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,993
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
Re: A continuation of the HadCrut graph discussion [Re: TheCow]
    #8346544 - 04/30/08 04:43 PM (15 years, 8 months ago)

You're getting into mental gymnastics, now, Phred. What you are hinting at, presenting, or saying has no relevance to the debate that has gone on over the last several pages. If you want to lambaste the peer review process and throw eggs at respectable peer reviewed journals, go ahead, I'll leave it to readers to decide where your biases are and what kind of respect you have for peer reviewed science. The consensus of a handfull of scientists do not make something a fact, but the consensus and observation and reobservation of a several facts does make something a tested theory.

Peer review helps ensure that papers like the ones you have presented, you know, the kind with OUTRIGHT LIES, do not get published.


Edited by AnonymousRabbit (04/30/08 04:45 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
Re: A continuation of the HadCrut graph discussion [Re: AnonymousRabbit]
    #8346621 - 04/30/08 05:15 PM (15 years, 8 months ago)

> Peer review helps ensure that papers like the ones you have presented, you know, the kind with OUTRIGHT LIES, do not get published.

Actually, that is a very inaccurate description of what peer review is about. Peer review is about ethics and methodology, not accuracy of results. There are plenty of peer reviewed journal papers that are complete rubbish. However, peer review does filter out "research" that does not conform to the scientific method, that is unethical, or has suspect methodology.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAnonymousRabbit
Comrade
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,993
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
Re: A continuation of the HadCrut graph discussion [Re: Seuss]
    #8346664 - 04/30/08 05:28 PM (15 years, 8 months ago)

I will contend we are both right on this, Seuss. The Peer review process does ensure that the results of calculations are accurate, and does compare the results of the paper to the results of other papers to see if any red flags are raised. If a red flag is raised, such as research COMPLETELY conflicting other longstanding research, a peer reviewed journal will normally require a strong and verifiable argument with accurate calculations. I've had colleagues get papers outright rejected from peer reviewed journals because of small, but significant, mathematical and scientific errors, so I'll definitely default to that Peer Reviewed Journals, at least, some of the stronger, more influential ones, strongly focus on accuracy.


--------------------
.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
Re: A continuation of the HadCrut graph discussion [Re: AnonymousRabbit]
    #8346691 - 04/30/08 05:36 PM (15 years, 8 months ago)

"It is a fundamental principle of science that support for a hypothesis means nothing because everything depends on whether the hypothesis can be proved wrong. Settling an unresolved scientific matter is normally done by trying to break various hypotheses and continuing until one is found that cannot be broken, at which point the hypothesis is provisionally accepted.

"These matters are not settled by consensus but by dogged testing. Science and its near neighbour medicine are replete with examples of maverick individuals rejecting the consensus of the day and proposing new theories that subsequently proved to be correct. This is not to say that the mavericks are always right but it does illustrate that consensus does not confer "truth" on a scientific theory."


Do you agree with the above two paragraphs? Do they present an accurate description of the scientific method?

If not, why not? What is wrong with the two paragraphs? What part of them do you challenge?

As Seuss points out, "peer-reviewed" is not a synonym for "factual".

I do not disdain the peer-review process -- far from it. As I have noted earlier, Hockey Stick Mann's shenanigans were eventually exposed by reviewers (albeit not without prodigious effort in the face of intransigent resistance from Mann every step of the way). It is instructive to note that the usual set of peers completely missed Mann's con game, and it wasn't till an "outsider" got involved that the cat was let out of the bag, but it still counts in my book as a victory for the peer review process.

But you see, super, what gets the AGW crowd all bent out of shape is that the review process has been broadened (in this internet age) to include pretty much anyone who understands statistical analysis or the scientific method or even just basic experimental design. Much less cronyism than there was in the past. And this definitely sticks in the craw of some (not all, granted) of those who previously considered themselves the elite.

Either the science can stand up or it can't -- it doesn't matter what the credentials are of the reviewer who points out a problem. If it turns out that the majority of comments to the editor of an IPCC report were made by a single contributor, so what? Would the comments have had any more (or any less) validity if Gray had divided them into four equal clumps, then submitted one clump under his own name, one under the name of one of his grad students, one under the name of his neighbor, etc.? Nope. The worth of the commentary is independent of the name under which it is submitted.

I repeat -- the implications of the punitive legislation policy makers are considering are not trivial. This is serious shit we're talking about. It has to be based on a heck of a lot more than "possibility".



Phred


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAnonymousRabbit
Comrade
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,993
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
Re: A continuation of the HadCrut graph discussion [Re: Phred]
    #8346770 - 04/30/08 06:02 PM (15 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

I do not disdain the peer-review process -- far from it. As I have noted earlier, Hockey Stick Mann's shenanigans were eventually exposed by reviewers (albeit not without prodigious effort in the face of intransigent resistance from Mann every step of the way). It is instructive to note that the usual set of peers completely missed Mann's con game, and it wasn't till an "outsider" got involved that the cat was let out of the bag, but it still counts in my book as a victory for the peer review process.




I've already thoroughly debunked this lie, and it becomes a strong lie that now you continue to perpetuate it. Mann's graph was correct, and no cat was out of the bag, and only one peer reviewed study (that was corrected a year after it came out and completely disproven by a wealth of other studies) showed any error in it. The error itself results in less than a 1% change in the graph, as I showed earlier in this thread, and the implication of the graph itself was confirmed by over 15 different peer reviewed journal papers written after the disproved "error paper."

Quote:


Either the science can stand up or it can't -- it doesn't matter what the credentials are of the reviewer who points out a problem. If it turns out that the majority of comments to the editor of an IPCC report were made by a single contributor, so what? Would the comments have had any more (or any less) validity if Gray had divided them into four equal clumps, then submitted one clump under his own name, one under the name of one of his grad students, one under the name of his neighbor, etc.? Nope. The worth of the commentary is independent of the name under which it is submitted.




Oh my god, Phred. 50 of the comments were to change the word Anthropogenic to "man-made"! They were all made by a man who has not published anything in 17 years! If you can't see why the significance of the MAJORITY of the rejected comments being from one author, who was not credentialed, who had no evidence according to other scientists for his claims, and who'se comments read as follows:

Quote:


Insert after "Bayesian" "(or super-guesswork)"

Insert after "Callibrated" "Bogus"

Insert after "to" "the utterly rediculous assumption of"





If you cant see the difference between these comments, and actual scientific comments other scientists were making, then you've got a problem.

the majority of comments from MOST scientists were accepted.
That's another, more accurate way to read the claim.


--------------------
.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTheCow
Stranger

Registered: 10/28/02
Posts: 4,790
Last seen: 15 years, 6 months
Re: A continuation of the HadCrut graph discussion [Re: Seuss]
    #8346909 - 04/30/08 06:35 PM (15 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Seuss said:
> Peer review helps ensure that papers like the ones you have presented, you know, the kind with OUTRIGHT LIES, do not get published.

Actually, that is a very inaccurate description of what peer review is about.  Peer review is about ethics and methodology, not accuracy of results.  There are plenty of peer reviewed journal papers that are complete rubbish.  However, peer review does filter out "research" that does not conform to the scientific method, that is unethical, or has suspect methodology.



Eh, generally the high level journals are quite good.  Id be hard pressed to find anything in Physical Review Letters, or Nature Materials that was rubbish.  Though one paper I felt their conclusion was wrong in Natural Materials based off the evidence they presented.  However publications generally are considerably longer originally, and get shortened significantly for publications.  Its no fun editing down your publication to fit in a few pages, makes me very :sad:
edit: just rambling


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
Re: A continuation of the HadCrut graph discussion [Re: AnonymousRabbit]
    #8347411 - 04/30/08 08:58 PM (15 years, 8 months ago)

"It is a fundamental principle of science that support for a hypothesis means nothing because everything depends on whether the hypothesis can be proved wrong. Settling an unresolved scientific matter is normally done by trying to break various hypotheses and continuing until one is found that cannot be broken, at which point the hypothesis is provisionally accepted.

"These matters are not settled by consensus but by dogged testing. Science and its near neighbour medicine are replete with examples of maverick individuals rejecting the consensus of the day and proposing new theories that subsequently proved to be correct. This is not to say that the mavericks are always right but it does illustrate that consensus does not confer "truth" on a scientific theory."


Do you agree with the above two paragraphs? Do they present an accurate description of the scientific method?

If not, why not? What is wrong with the two paragraphs? What part of them do you challenge?

As Seuss points out, "peer-reviewed" is not a synonym for "factual".

Either the science can stand up or it can't -- it doesn't matter what the credentials are of the reviewer who points out a problem. Either he has identified a problem or he hasn't.

So when I see AGW acolytes dismissing criticisms by people like Anthony Watts or Ross McKitrick or Steven MacIntyre or Richard Lindzen or dozens of others because "these guys aren't scientists" or "these guys have their own agenda" or "these guys are stooges of the oil companies", my bullshit detector goes off. That's ad hominem, not science

Like it or not, there are many, MANY scientists with credentials every bit as valid as those on the AGW side of the fence who don't agree with the conclusions of the IPCC. Many of these scientists have also produced peer-reviewed articles on the subject. Their methodologies are every bit as sound as those of the AGW camp. Yet they reach different conclusions.

So no, the science isn't settled. Far from it. If it were, I wouldn't take the position I do. My beef with you isn't with your zealotry for the cause. It's with your intellectual dishonesty. You claim to be a scientist, yet your entire input to this thread is nothing more than an extended and elaborate dance around the fact that the science is far from settled. This will be the third time I have asked the questions in italics at the top of the post. Will this be the third time you dodge them?



Phred


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAnonymousRabbit
Comrade
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,993
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
Re: A continuation of the HadCrut graph discussion [Re: Phred]
    #8347528 - 04/30/08 09:30 PM (15 years, 8 months ago)

Phred, I answered it in the first reply to your post:

Quote:

You're getting into mental gymnastics, now, Phred. What you are hinting at, presenting, or saying has no relevance to the debate that has gone on over the last several pages.




Yes, that paragraph is a pretty fair portrayal of the way science works, but I take issue with one thing that it says:

Quote:

Settling an unresolved scientific matter is normally done by trying to break various hypotheses and continuing until one is found that cannot be broken, at which point the hypothesis is provisionally accepted.




That is not how science works. The idea behind science is not "something is true until you prove it wrong." Rather, its the opposite. "Something is wrong until you can prove it is true."

The bad thing for you is that so far, to date, the AGW hypothesis has not been broken. It's a theory with so much support for it, I doubt anyone will EVER find a way to break it. The physics behind it has been tested, the chemistry behind it has been tested, the correlations have been tested, the sources have been tested. They not only have been tested, but they have been QUANTIFIED.

Peer reviewed is not a synonym for factual, it is a noun in and of itself, referring to a process at which papers are vetted, checked for accuracy, recalculated, and passed around scientists to do exactly what your first paragraph suggest scientists should do: Try to find something that disproves it. If there is nothing, then it is accepted, as long as it is accurate and supported by other research and good data.

Quote:

But you see, super, what gets the AGW crowd all bent out of shape is that the review process has been broadened (in this internet age) to include pretty much anyone who understands statistical analysis or the scientific method or even just basic experimental design. Much less cronyism than there was in the past. And this definitely sticks in the craw of some (not all, granted) of those who previously considered themselves the elite.




Phred, don't even get me started on your arm-chair scientist approach to science, because that is EXACTLY what is wrong with science in this day in age. There is not a true peer-review process on the internet. Instead, articles with blatant lies, like the ones YOU have posted and the ones I have debunked for several pages in this thread are passed around like memes, hoarded over, fawned over, because they support your point of view but contained too many errors to appear in even a low-ranked peer reviewed journal. It is for this reason alone that You cannot trust just anything you see on the internet: There are LIES in what you are presenting, and I have documented them, shown them to this forum, and trust me, they do not go unobserved.

So you want to talk about intellectual dishonesty? Before you point that finger at me, turn it around to yourself. People like Anthony Watts or Ross McKitrick or Steven MacIntyre or Richard Lindzen are out to mislead you. If that isn't more obvious than by the posts I have posted over the last 2 pages, like the claim that the IPCC rejected 60% of the comments by the scientist (WITHOUT letting you know that in actuality, the vast majority of those comments were made by a chemist who offered no evidence for his claims and had not published something for 17 years... comments like 50 of them changing anthropogenic to "man made". Gee, do you think THAT might have been an important thing to let us know?). It's all hogwash, man, your people that you keep fawning over are MISLEADING you INTENTIONALLY. I have pointed out the lies in their research. How about you point out the lies and dishonesty in mine? How about you point out exactly where I have been intellectually dishonest, once, in this entire thread? I haven't, and many people realize that. I make it a CORE VALUE of mine to not be intellectually dishonest, and to call out intellectual dishonesty when I see it.

Phred, I am calling you out.

Quote:

Like it or not, there are many, MANY scientists with credentials every bit as valid as those on the AGW side of the fence who don't agree with the conclusions of the IPCC. Many of these scientists have also produced peer-reviewed articles on the subject. Their methodologies are every bit as sound as those of the AGW camp. Yet they reach different conclusions.




SHOW ME THE MONEY! I'm calling you out. SHOW me these peer-reviewed articles on the subject, ANY peer reviewed article from a major scientific journal that disagrees fundamentally with the conclusion that Anthropogenic CO2 has a forcing of 1.62 watts per square meter, that disagrees that it is Anthropogenic CO2 that is causing the current warming trend, that has not already been shown to be faulty by an article coming after it. Remember, this is how you believe science works.. someone has a hypothesis, and it is up to others to show why that hypothesis is wrong. Well, there are no articles that you can link me to that state this, no peer reviewed articles, that have not been proven wrong by a scientist examining his or her data at a later time.

But thats not all I'm calling you out for.

I'm calling you out for YOUR intellectual dishonesty, because you're a cardboard intellectual, you claim that you are angry at me for my intellectual dishonesty. I will leave it to those reading this thread to determine who truly IS intellectually dishonest. Here are just a small sample of Phred's more glaring intellectually dishonest posts:

1)
Quote:

Phred: It [The hockey stick chart] has been dropped by the IPCC. It appears nowhere in their 2007
report. Even the IPCC could no longer support it, and that's saying something!




Why this is a lie: http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

Read chapter 6
Go to page 467 of the report. Any reader here can disprove exactly what you just said.

2)
Quote:

Phred:
if
you can look at that graph and with a straight face tell us that this represents an
increasing trendline, I need say not another word for the readers of the thread to draw
their own conclusions about your bias.




Why this is a lie:


Nothing more to say on this lie.

3)
Quote:

Phred: There is more supporting evidence for both those eras [Medieval warming and cooling] than there is room to list in ten pages of references.




Why this is a lie: Why doesn't he list these evidences in 10 pages of reference, then? Heh heh.

4)
Quote:

Phred: Phred: Wrong.

I'm on a borrowed computer, so don't have access to my bookmarks, but maybe zappisgod will reprint the corrected GISS numbers. You are still linking to the faulty ones.

NOAA/GISS was forced a few months ago to shamefacedly admit they'd fucked up the numbers for the "ten hottest years of the century". There wasn't much publicity about this, of course, since it doesn't fit the Global Warmenist agenda, but the corrected numbers are out there somewhere now. As I say, I have them bookmarked on my own computer which is awaiting a part. Maybe zappaisgod still has the link, or can remember which thread the corrected numbers were posted in and can bump it, because that thread has the links in it.



Phred




Zappa then responded:

Quote:

Here's what we know: The National Climatic Data Center reported in mid-January that 2006 was the hottest year on record. Then, in May, it revised the numbers, concluding that 1998, in fact, was the hottest on record. NASA's old numbers echoed that last contention. But last week, it emerged that NASA had quietly restated its numbers, without fanfare or so much as a press release, after a blogger pointed out faulty methodology. Now, per NASA: 1934 is hottest, followed by 1998, 1921, 2006 and 1931.




Why this is a lie: You can read about it in this thread, but basically, the numbers that they are using for the NASA temperature revisions that supposedly make 2005 less hot than 1934, were US based only, and because the US only covers 3% of the globe, its teperature is dictated by el nino and la nina cycles. The actual error affected planet-wide tempreature records by, get this, .003 degrees and certainly did not make 1934 the hottest on record. 2005 still VERY much takes that title.

Here is a bonus funny part to this lie: The US has seen warming, but very little compared to the sea surface temperatures and warming in urban areas. That's right, the place where Phred claims the urban heat island affect would make the numbers seem warmer than they really are, is cooler as far as anomolies go than the world average anomoly. So much for urban heat island contamination, huh?

Whenever you see a trait so strongly in someone else, and it is not there, there is a word for that, Phred.

You're projecting.


--------------------
.


Edited by AnonymousRabbit (04/30/08 10:53 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAnonymousRabbit
Comrade
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,993
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
Re: A continuation of the HadCrut graph discussion [Re: AnonymousRabbit]
    #8349555 - 05/01/08 12:43 PM (15 years, 8 months ago)

In fact, this discussion about something being "true until you prove it wrong" brings up the link between the AGW "skeptic" crowd and the creationist crowd. There are plenty of parallels to be drawn here. Namely, that the god hypothesis is true until it is proven wrong (which everybody knows is bull, there is no way to prove or disprove god). Also, it reminds me of my old days debating creationism and creationists would come in the thread with some new pseudo-scientific piece...

I'd claim that the piece did not appear in any peer reviewed journals, and pointed out its many errors just like I did with your pieces in this thread, Phred. They would then shoot back and get into a convoluted, intricate discussion about peer review and engage in mental gymnastics, asserting the same thing you are asserting right now: That peer review isn't as important as I would assert it was, and that these armchair scientists with their faulty publications were just as right as the hard data that appeared in evolutionary biology journals, and any test of the credibility of a scientist was an ad-hominem attack.

The parallels, as much as those arguing against AGW, are quite strong, and nowhere more obvious than in the latest back and forth between Phred and I.

This being said, I'd like to thank all of the people who had kind words to say about my arguments here in this thread. All of these people gave me a 5 shroom rating for my arguments here:

Quote:

Zorbman: Good, sound arguments based upon logic.

Unwelcome in this forum.

More than welcome in my book!




Quote:

Joker Man: Smart man




Quote:

Virus_with_shoes: Utter and thorough pwnage of global warming sceptics. You built yourself quite an ironclad argument here. Very sharp guy
http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/8097608#Post8097608




Quote:

Carbon_hoots: Liked your stuff in P&L.




Quote:

Johnmn214: A rare person that will stike it out in political forum for the long haul, and bring evidence to back his position.




Quote:

Boomer_q: standard bearer for truth. all it takes to deny global warming is a closed mind. you obviously pwnd those idiot deniers handily with facts, thats how to handle those dumb bitches



(now the part about dumb bitches, I'd take issue with, but these are his words, not mine. I'll just maintain the proper way to refer to the skeptics are mislead and misguided).

Quote:

fireworks_god: Thanks for your contributions to the global warming thread and your presence at the Shroomery in general. I have a much greater understanding now of the subject than I had entering into it, from doing my own research to better express a point of view in response to you, but mostly from reading your posts. Your graphs and the understanding that came with them won in my book.




Quote:

Entheogenic_peace: Great posts ...in the climate change thread. Information was much more thorough & exhaustive than anything I posted (though I do think some of mine were pretty good ). You really know many areas of science very well.




Quote:

dill705: You give sides to arguments I wish I could give. 5 for you




Quote:

Sage.Phish: Backing dill705's comment. I wish i had your reading skills.




Quote:

phl1618: Just read part of the climate change thread. Wow! You did a lot of work there. Worth 5 from me, at least.




Quote:

Baby_Hltler: supernovasky 4 mod in the political forum. I'd vote for you.




Quote:

Gluke Bastid: 5 more for you. Great to read your posts. Thank you for all of your hard work, your posting in Political Discussion is down-right Educational.




Thank all of you for your support and patience in this thread. I'm glad that I am having a positive influence on peoples perspective of a science that has been muddied and soiled by cardboard skeptics.


--------------------
.


Edited by AnonymousRabbit (05/01/08 03:04 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
Re: A continuation of the HadCrut graph discussion [Re: AnonymousRabbit]
    #8350128 - 05/01/08 03:05 PM (15 years, 8 months ago)

I repeat, the science is not settled. Your continued insistence that it is settled is not proof... hell, it's not even an argument! It's just you saying over and over and over again "Is so! Is so! Is so!"

You know damn well there are many, MANY scientists every bit as qualified and well credentialed as Michael Mann and James Hansen who reject the "anthropogenic CO2 as main driver of climate change" hypothesis. Yet you pretend that these scientists are either not scientists, or crackpots, or stooges of the oil companies. That is intellectual dishonesty.

The science is not settled. There are prominent, intelligent, intellectually honest experts on both sides of the fence -- and you know this is true. Yet you pretend it isn't. Why do you persist in this easily disprovable quackery?

Quote:

Before you point that finger at me, turn it around to yourself. People like Anthony Watts or Ross McKitrick or Steven MacIntyre or Richard Lindzen are out to mislead you.




Incorrect. They are out to be objective. It is charlatans like Mann and Hansen who are out to mislead us.

But if you don't like what folks like Watts or McKitrick or MacIntyre or Pielke have to say, how about these guys --

Dr. Edward Wegman--former chairman of the Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics of the National Academy of Sciences--demolishes the famous "hockey stick" graph that launched the global warming panic.

Dr. David Bromwich--president of the International Commission on Polar Meteorology--says "it's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now."

Prof. Paul Reiter--Chief of Insects and Infectious Diseases at the famed Pasteur Institute--says "no major scientist with any long record in this field" accepts Al Gore's claim that global warming spreads mosquito-borne diseases.

Prof. Hendrik Tennekes--director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute--states "there exists no sound theoretical framework for climate predictability studies" used for global warming forecasts.

Dr. Christopher Landsea--past chairman of the American Meteorological Society's Committee on Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones--says "there are no known scientific studies that show a conclusive physical link between global warming and observed hurricane frequency and intensity."

Dr. Antonino Zichichi--one of the world's foremost physicists, former president of the European Physical Society, who discovered nuclear antimatter--calls global warming models "incoherent and invalid."

Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski--world-renowned expert on the ancient ice cores used in climate research--says the U.N. "based its global-warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false."

Prof. Tom V. Segalstad--head of the Geological Museum, University of Oslo--says "most leading geologists" know the U.N.'s views "of Earth processes are implausible."

Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu--founding director of the International Arctic Research Center, twice named one of the "1,000 Most Cited Scientists," says much "Arctic warming during the last half of the last century is due to natural change."

Dr. Claude Allegre--member, U.S. National Academy of Sciences and French Academy of Science, he was among the first to sound the alarm on the dangers of global warming. His view now: "The cause of this climate change is unknown."

Dr. Richard Lindzen--Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T., member, the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, says global warming alarmists "are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right."

Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov--head of the space research laboratory of the Russian Academy of Science's Pulkovo Observatory and of the International Space Station's Astrometria project says "the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations."

Dr. Richard Tol--Principal researcher at the Institute for Environmental Studies at Vrije Universiteit, and Adjunct Professor at the Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions of Global Change, at Carnegie Mellon University, calls the most influential global warming report of all time "preposterous . . . alarmist and incompetent."

Dr. Sami Solanki--director and scientific member at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, who argues that changes in the Sun's state, not human activity, may be the principal cause of global warming: "The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures."

Prof. Freeman Dyson--one of the world's most eminent physicists says the models used to justify global warming alarmism are "full of fudge factors" and "do not begin to describe the real world."

Dr. Eigils Friis-Christensen--director of the Danish National Space Centre, vice-president of the International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, who argues that changes in the Sun's behavior could account for most of the warming attributed by the UN to man-made CO2.

There's a hundreds (thousands, more likely) more scientists with similar views, but that very short list will do for now.

So you've got guys saying CO2 is the culprit, and I've got guys saying it isn't. Your only "trump card" is that you've got more guys willing to declare their position publicly than I have. But you, as a self-proclaimed scientist, know full well the validity of a scientific hypothesis bears no relation to the number of its adherents at a given point in time. And that's why I can truthfully point out you are being intellectually dishonest.




Phred


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #8350273 - 05/01/08 04:01 PM (15 years, 8 months ago)

Sooner or later you global warmists will have to acknowledge that not only is the science NOT settled but that many can't make up their mind. Perhaps then you'll have to admit that this is just another "control and tax the people" scam.



NASA: Solar cycle may cause “dangerous” global cooling in a few years time

Posting and reposting a ridiculous number of graphs and charts merely show that you have bought into the hype. As has been pointed out, we don't know what an ideal temp is. We don't know that warmer will not be better. We don't know that CO2 is the cause. Fact is, we haven't been around long enough and we aren't smart enough.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: A continuation of the HadCrut graph discussion [Re: AnonymousRabbit]
    #8350284 - 05/01/08 04:04 PM (15 years, 8 months ago)

Don't strain your arm patting yourself on the back there Captain Happy.

Leading the gullible isn't necessarily something to be proud of.

A bit of class would have you deleting the majority of that self-congratulatory drivel.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAnonymousRabbit
Comrade
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,993
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
Re: A continuation of the HadCrut graph discussion [Re: Phred]
    #8350382 - 05/01/08 04:28 PM (15 years, 8 months ago)

You've got some gall, Phred. You list a big consensus of scientists that say that things are responsible for global warming. You provide a list with scientists OPINIONS. And then, you have the ironic idea to say this:

Quote:

But you, as a self-proclaimed scientist, know full well the validity of a scientific hypothesis bears no relation to the number of its adherents at a given point in time. And that's why I can truthfully point out you are being intellectually dishonest.




Hypocrisy?

Luckily for me, the validity of a theory has nothing to do with the number of scientists. The validity of a theory has everything to do with the number of facts. So far, I have been the one supporting all of my claims with actual research and results. You, on the other hand, have been making baseless, even outright wrong assertions, through this entire thread.

I think any reader can tell the difference between my alleged intellectual dishonesty, which you have not shown to exist factually, and your REAL intellectual dishonesty, your TANGIBLE intellectual dishonety. But, just in case they CANNOT tell, let me repost it for them. Each time you try to call me out on it, I'll add one more to the list, and trust me, I've got a reservoir that has been filling up for this entire thread:

Here are just a small sample of Phred's more glaring intellectually dishonest posts:

1)
Quote:

Phred: It [The hockey stick chart] has been dropped by the IPCC. It appears nowhere in their 2007
report. Even the IPCC could no longer support it, and that's saying something!




Why this is a lie: http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

Read chapter 6
Go to page 467 of the report. Any reader here can disprove exactly what you just said.

2)
Quote:

Phred:
if
you can look at that graph and with a straight face tell us that this represents an
increasing trendline, I need say not another word for the readers of the thread to draw
their own conclusions about your bias.




Why this is a lie:


Nothing more to say on this lie.

3)
Quote:

Phred: There is more supporting evidence for both those eras [Medieval warming and cooling] than there is room to list in ten pages of references.




Why this is a lie: Why doesn't he list these evidences in 10 pages of reference, then? Heh heh.

4)
Quote:

Phred: Phred: Wrong.

I'm on a borrowed computer, so don't have access to my bookmarks, but maybe zappisgod will reprint the corrected GISS numbers. You are still linking to the faulty ones.

NOAA/GISS was forced a few months ago to shamefacedly admit they'd fucked up the numbers for the "ten hottest years of the century". There wasn't much publicity about this, of course, since it doesn't fit the Global Warmenist agenda, but the corrected numbers are out there somewhere now. As I say, I have them bookmarked on my own computer which is awaiting a part. Maybe zappaisgod still has the link, or can remember which thread the corrected numbers were posted in and can bump it, because that thread has the links in it.



Phred




Zappa then responded:

Quote:

Here's what we know: The National Climatic Data Center reported in mid-January that 2006 was the hottest year on record. Then, in May, it revised the numbers, concluding that 1998, in fact, was the hottest on record. NASA's old numbers echoed that last contention. But last week, it emerged that NASA had quietly restated its numbers, without fanfare or so much as a press release, after a blogger pointed out faulty methodology. Now, per NASA: 1934 is hottest, followed by 1998, 1921, 2006 and 1931.




Why this is a lie: You can read about it in this thread, but basically, the numbers that they are using for the NASA temperature revisions that supposedly make 2005 less hot than 1934, were US based only, and because the US only covers 3% of the globe, its teperature is dictated by el nino and la nina cycles. The actual error affected planet-wide tempreature records by, get this, .003 degrees and certainly did not make 1934 the hottest on record. 2005 still VERY much takes that title.

5)
Quote:

Phred: The Earth's atmosphere at sea level is in fact completely opaque to all frequencies of infrared light originating off-planet.




Why this is intellectually dishonest: A modern spectrograph shows a set of peaks and valleys superimposed on each band, even at sea-level pressure. In cold air at low pressure, each band resolves into a cluster of sharply defined lines, like a picket fence. There are gaps between the H2O lines where radiation can get through unless blocked by CO2 lines. That showed up clearly in data compiled for the U.S. Air Force, drawing the attention of researchers to the details of the absorption, especially at high altitudes. Moreover, researchers working for the Air Force had become acutely aware of how very dry the air gets at upper altitudes—indeed the stratosphere has scarcely any water vapor at all. By contrast, CO2 is fairly well mixed all through the atmosphere, so as you look higher it becomes relatively more significant.

You can read about this here:


Kaplan, Lewis D. (1952). "On the Pressure Dependence of Radiative Heat Transfer in the Atmosphere." J. Meteorology 9: 1-12.

Plass, G.N. (1956). "The Influence of the 15 Band on the Atmospheric Infra-Red Cooling Rate." Quarterly J. Royal Meteorological Society 82: 310-29.


So Phred, I'll say it again.

There is a word for whenever you see a trait in someone else, but any outside observer realizes that the trait is actually in YOU.

You're projecting.


--------------------
.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAnonymousRabbit
Comrade
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,993
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #8350451 - 05/01/08 04:54 PM (15 years, 8 months ago)

Luvedmushrooms:

John L. Casey looks like a one-man-band apparently pushing consulting services based on some climate theory he has.

His address is 4700 Millenia Blvd #175 Orlando FL, and if you Google that, you will discover an amazing number of companies that seem to be located in that office suite.

That’s because the suite in this this impressive building isn’t even Casey’s own office, but is occupied by: Intelligent Office :

Quote:

“Intelligent Office locates your business in one of the best buildings in town. You’ll have a prestigious business address for your mail, your stationery and your advertising, as well as an impressive place to meet your clients. Your address with us will have your company’s name, not ours, and if you work from home, this is a great way to protect your privacy.”




There is nothing obvious in Casey’s background to establish any particular expertise in climate science, no obvious presence in Google Scholar, no peer reviewed research of his own, and this latest assertion does not even appear in a journal, and nothing before a recent press release. The info sounds like yet another “I’ve discovered cycles” thing, which happens all the time.

The NASA item referenced by Casey is about cycle 25, not the upcomming cycle, the Mayeau cycle, which is about a different 200-year cycle [which is usually called the de Vries or Suess Cycle, although Casey talks like he found it himself], which is NOTHING like the maunder minimum. In neither case was NASA telling people to expect another Maunder Minimum within the next decade or two, and this whole debate can be seen here, in this forum, which once again, I've ALREADY had! The following shows sources MORE up to date than Casey's, that are ACTUALLY peer reviewed, that show that the next cycle is on pace to be strong:

NOAA: New Sunspot Cycle Has Begun
Where another poster, seemingly caught between the sides, makes a good argument and comes to the conclusion that solar forcing is not responsible for modern heating, and that CO2 is a better correlation
Another post where I showed a lack of correlation with solar irradiance
Where I post two charts, showing lack of correlation with both Irradiance and Sunspot Numbers, and correlation with increasing CO2
Where I show why PDO, sunspot number, and solar irradiance have bad correlations on graphs
If the sun were to remain "stuck" in its present minimum for several decades, as has been suggested (e.g., Independent story) in analogy to the solar Maunder Minimum of the seventeenth century, that negative forcing would be balanced by a 5-year increase of GHGs.
Where I show with sources that we are in the trough of a cycle, which is why sunspot number is low right now


--------------------
.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < First | < Back | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | Next >

Shop: Left Coast Kratom Premium Bali Kratom Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   North Spore Cultivation Supplies   Original Sensible Seeds High THC Strains


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Good article on global warming.
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
luvdemshrooms 4,997 86 06/10/03 04:56 AM
by Innvertigo
* A look at global warming.
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
luvdemshrooms 13,994 119 02/27/04 01:07 AM
by EchoVortex
* Global Warming, Facts Challenge Hysteria
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Evolving 5,177 75 05/04/03 08:07 PM
by luvdemshrooms
* Global warming nothing but pretend communist conspiracy
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
question_for_joo 10,911 112 08/31/04 07:48 PM
by Gijith
* Global Warming?
( 1 2 all )
luvdemshrooms 2,409 37 07/18/03 06:49 PM
by Innvertigo
* More fantasies about global warming carbonhoots 994 17 11/01/03 02:44 PM
by d33p
* Blair must tackle global warming Xlea321 463 1 05/28/04 10:30 AM
by phi1618
* "The Threat of Global Terrorism" - Tony Blair
( 1 2 all )
Phred 2,887 20 03/14/04 12:45 PM
by silversoul7

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
39,558 topic views. 2 members, 5 guests and 7 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.029 seconds spending 0.006 seconds on 13 queries.