or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Another setback for Teh Global Warming™
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Another setback for Teh Global Warming™ - Page 7

post #241 of 333
Looks like the models have problems...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1211101623.htm
post #242 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic View Post

Again, beliefs are not science.



It's not about who "wins" It's about proper Science.



climate modeling is a VERY young science. Surely you aren't suggesting that there is nothing new to learn.




So, all errors are irrelevant and All voices of dissent (even scientific ones) are distortions the facts?

Again, Climate modeling is a VERY young science.

The First Climate Model

[CENTER]
Quote:
In the late 1960s, NOAAs Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in Princeton, New Jersey, developed the first-of-its-kind general circulation climate model that combined both oceanic and atmospheric processes. Scientists were now able to understand how the ocean and atmosphere interacted with each other to influence climate. The model also predicted how changes in the natural factors that control climate such as ocean and atmospheric currents and temperature could lead to climate change. The model still stands today as a breakthrough of enormous importance for climate science and weather forecasting. Earlier knowledge of the oceanic and atmospheric circulation, and their interactions, was based purely on theory and observation.

Quote:
Two scientists from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, Drs. Syukuro Manabe and Kirk Bryan, published the model results in 1969. By the 1970s, general circulation models emerged as a central tool in climate research. Dr. Manabe and Mr. Dick Wetherald later used this original model to simulate the first three-dimensional experiment to test the notion of global warming. Their groundbreaking results were published in 1975.

Quote:
Thirty-seven years (2006) and tens of models later, GFDL recently developed the next generation in modeling infrastructurethe Flexible Modeling System, which provides a common platform for diverse research activities, from weather to seasonal prediction to anthropogenic (man-made) climate change. With this new system, GFDL scientists developed, and now are using, two world-class climate models that have significantly enhanced capabilities relative to the worlds first revolutionary climate model that GFDL scientists ran over three decades ago.

[/CENTER]

AR4 GCM data

17 centers ran as many as 8 scenarios each to develop the results shown in Chapter 10 of the IPCC WG1 AR4 Report. This year marks the 40th anniversary of the first GCM, I'm guessing that's ~3 times your mental age.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #243 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

... therefore we are to take the 2007 IPCC AR4 WG1. WG2 and WR3 reports as being the most authoritative, objective, peer reviewed, and thorough international study on global climate change conducted to date, involving hundreds of subject matter experts (SME), and thousands of SME reviewers.

Actually we ought to take it as what it is, a UN sponsered panel charged with producing a document that somehow fuses very diverse political and science agendas and policy objectives into a compromise that the majority of science oversight leaders and nations who sent representatives can sign onto.

It is not science, it is not a peer review of the literature (which would be more balanced), it is a UN created committee charged with UN assumption that human caused warming is real AND that something should be done about it, if at all possible.

Many people participate in the process, including many skeptics. But what comes out is, by necessity, those opinions that the majority can agree on...not minority views.

In short, this is a political work about a scientific question.
post #244 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic View Post

Looks like the models have problems...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1211101623.htm

Where?
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #245 of 333
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #246 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

Actually we ought to take it as what it is, a UN sponsered panel charged with producing a document that somehow fuses very diverse political and science agendas and policy objectives into a compromise that the majority of science oversight leaders and nations who sent representatives can sign onto.

It is not science, it is not a peer review of the literature (which would be more balanced), it is a UN created committee charged with UN assumption that human caused warming is real AND that something should be done about it, if at all possible.

Many people participate in the process, including many skeptics. But what comes out is, by necessity, those opinions that the majority can agree on...not minority views.

In short, this is a political work about a scientific question.

Hey, look who's back, MaxPariah the n00b strikes back™, after a long absence, whence I thoroughly crushed 'em!

Please remind us all again how much you love and worship Al Gore.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #247 of 333
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

And yet that's my point: there are indeed "various scientists" that challenge such conclusions, but they are massively outnumbered by those that provided the data to reach such conclusions in the first place.

If by "unbalanced" you mean "fails to give due weight to the tiny minority of people, many of them directly funded by the oil industry, who disagree", then I guess we'll have to differ on the meaning of "balance".

And see that's just it...there are many scientists that disagree who are not funded by the oil industry. And those counted in the "2,500+" scientists that make-up the mythical "consensus" often had little or nothing to do with providing data to the IPCC.

Quote:

It accepts it as fact because that is the consensus of the experts in the field.

If by consensus you mean plurality, fine. But significant numbers of scientists disagree, some of whom are quite high profile. These people are utterly ignored. They are ostracized. Because everyone knows Teh Global Warming™ is coming to get us. Anyone who disagrees is a Flat Earther.

Quote:

Their predications may or may not pan out, but that is what they are charged with doing: assembling the best available evidence,

Mission failed.

Quote:
as provided by the vast majority of experts in the field,

While ignoring all other theories, such as the ones that involve climate change having something to do with, you know, that ball of fire in the sky that's 109 times larger than Earth?

Quote:
attempt to extrapolate what that might mean for member countries long term,

In other words, make batshit predictions about death and destruction, using highly questionable methods of calculation and estimating.

Quote:

and recommend policy based on that.

As long as those policies consolidate UN power, hurt the United States, and ignore China and Russia.

Quote:
There's nothing "ridiculous" about it, once you get past the idea that climate change itself is some bizarre conspiracy to take away your SUV.

I don't drive and SUV. But once again, one can't ignore all other possible motivations-political and financial-of those who embrace TGW™

Quote:

That speaks against the reality of climate change, how, exactly? You want to conflate the messy business of crafting long term policy (which is political and sociological) with the science of climate change, which isn't.

It speaks to the credibility of the IPCC, which you apparently feel is unquestionable.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #248 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

And see that's just it...there are many scientists that disagree who are not funded by the oil industry. And those counted in the "2,500+" scientists that make-up the mythical "consensus" often had little or nothing to do with providing data to the IPCC.



If by consensus you mean plurality, fine. But significant numbers of scientists disagree, some of whom are quite high profile. These people are utterly ignored. They are ostracized. Because everyone knows Teh Global Warming is coming to get us. Anyone who disagrees is a Flat Earther.



Mission failed.



While ignoring all all theories.



In other words, make batshit predictions about death and destruction, using highly questionable methods of calculation and estimating.



As long as those policies consolidate UN power, hurt the United States, and ignore China and Russia.



I don't drive and SUV.



It speaks to the credibility of the IPCC, which you apparently feel is unquestionable.

As long as you continue to ignore the science contained within the IPCC WG1 AR4, why ask why?
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #249 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Hey, look who's back, MaxPariah the n00b strikes back™, after a long absence, whence I thoroughly crushed 'em!

Please remind us all again how much you love and worship Al Gore.

Well, even someone of my manifest learning needs a break to slum every now and then, so here I am.

I see my last missionary visit has at least gotten you to read...but alas, the material is merely the pagan earth worshiper's bible, IPCC's 4AR. I would not hold it to close - it will not light on fire but it is not particularly reliable when it comes to a robust understanding of, or response to, alleged climate change.

To assist:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/sp...eerreview.html
http://www.fnu.zmaw.de/fileadmin/fnu...tol/RM7422.pdf
post #250 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

Well, even someone of my manifest learning needs a break to slum every now and then, so here I am.

I see my last missionary visit has at least gotten you to read...but alas, the material is merely the pagan earth worshiper's bible, IPCC's 4AR. I would not hold it to close - it will not light on fire, but it is not particularly reliable when it comes to a robust understanding of an appropriate understanding or response to alleged climate change.

To assist:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/sp...eerreview.html
http://www.fnu.zmaw.de/fileadmin/fnu...tol/RM7422.pdf

Interesting. I'd never heard of the SPPI.

I'm just glad that Dr. Professor Richard Tol doesn't look like an economist:



What an awesome picture. I swear to God that if I had any hair, I would totally want my faculty picture to look like that.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #251 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Interesting. I'd never heard of the SPPI.

I'm just glad that Dr. Professor Richard Tol doesn't look like an economist:



What an awesome picture. I swear to God that if I had any hair, I would totally want my faculty picture to look like that.

Totally agree on the picture. I've read some of his stuff sometime ago and he struck me as a "I'm a iconoclast and barely aware of it", even though a committed environmentalist and sustainable future type.

He has been to a few universities, leaving tenured track spots at Carnegie Mellon and a German University for new experiences. His latest sojourn has put him in Ireland, where the (dutch born) economist is highly honored as "Ireland's great economist" in public newspaper praise.

But anyone who poses for a picture with hair like that obviously seems pretty cool - somebody you'd like to share a beer with.

PS - You would'nt guess he is among the top 5 (or fewer) enivronmental economists (Nordhaus being number 1 in that specialty).
post #252 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

Totally agree on the picture. I've read some of his stuff sometime ago and he struck me as a "I'm a iconoclast and barely aware of it", even though a committed environmentalist and sustainable future type.

He has been to a few universities, leaving tenured track spots at Carnegie Mellon and a German University for new experiences. His latest sojourn has put him in Ireland, where the (dutch born) economist is highly honored as "Ireland's great economist" in public newspaper praise.

But anyone who poses for a picture with hair like that obviously seems pretty cool - somebody you'd like to share a beer with.

PS - You would'nt guess he is among the top 5 (or fewer) enivronmental economists (Nordhaus being number 1 in that specialty).

Seriously. He looks like he's just some stoner dude. But a stoner dude with a friggin' wikipedia page and who also shares the Nobel peace prize for his work on the IPCC.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #253 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

Well, even someone of my manifest learning needs a break to slum every now and then, so here I am.

I see my last missionary visit has at least gotten you to read...but alas, the material is merely the pagan earth worshiper's bible, IPCC's 4AR. I would not hold it to close - it will not light on fire but it is not particularly reliable when it comes to a robust understanding of, or response to, alleged climate change.

To assist:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/sp...eerreview.html
http://www.fnu.zmaw.de/fileadmin/fnu...tol/RM7422.pdf

ROTFLMAO!

Science and Public Policy Institute

[CENTER]
Quote:
The Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI), formerly the Center for Science and Public Policy for the Frontiers of Freedom [1], is a conservative think tank founded by former Republican senator Malcolm Wallop[2].

[/CENTER]

Science and Public Policy Institute

Energy and Environment

[CENTER]
Quote:
The journal is not listed in the ISI's Journal Citation Reports indexing service for academic journals.[1]. According to the WorldCat.org database, the journal can be found at 26 libraries worldwide, mostly at universities.
.
.
.
The journal's peer-review process has at times been criticised for publishing substandard papers.
.
.
.
Numerous people considered climate skeptics or contrarians have published in the journal. The debate on the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was initiated by E&E.[citation needed] Skeptics on the journal's editorial staff include Boehmer-Christiansen herself and anthropologist Benny Peiser. Some of the journal's articles opposing the scientific consensus on climate change have been quoted by policy makers known to be skeptical of the subject, such as U.S. Senator James Inhofe and U.S. Congressman Joe Barton.[6] When asked about the publication of these papers Boehmer-Christiansen replied, "I'm following my political agenda -- a bit, anyway. But isn't that the right of the editor?"

[/CENTER]

And then?
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #254 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

Totally agree on the picture. I've read some of his stuff sometime ago and he struck me as a "I'm a iconoclast and barely aware of it", even though a committed environmentalist and sustainable future type.

He has been to a few universities, leaving tenured track spots at Carnegie Mellon and a German University for new experiences. His latest sojourn has put him in Ireland, where the (dutch born) economist is highly honored as "Ireland's great economist" in public newspaper praise.

But anyone who poses for a picture with hair like that obviously seems pretty cool - somebody you'd like to share a beer with.

PS - You would'nt guess he is among the top 5 (or fewer) enivronmental economists (Nordhaus being number 1 in that specialty).

Well according to this list Tol ranks #349 as of February 2008.

William Nordhaus isn't even on that list!

Quote:
Nordhaus is the author of many books. He is the co-author of the textbook Economics, the original editions of which was written by Nobel Laureate Paul Samuelson.

Hey, I had a copy of Samuelson's Economics, in junior college back in 1973! Pretty basic stuff as I recall.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #255 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic View Post

Again, beliefs are not science.

Oh for Christ's sake. When I say believe, do you think I mean "just sort of intuit, sans any particular research?" Belief as in reached conclusions from looking at the data.

Quote:
It's not about who "wins" It's about proper Science.

Oh dear God. IT'S AN ANALOGY.

Quote:
climate modeling is a VERY young science. Surely you aren't suggesting that there is nothing new to learn.

Of course not. I was reacting to your assertion that all the big advances in science come from minority, contrarian positions. To the extant that's even true, it tends to be true of the big paradigm shifts in fundamental disciplines. Climate modeling is an unlikely candidate for this model.

And, as I said, "contrarians" in the climate change arena aren't doing anything to suggest even interesting new avenues of exploration, much less paradigm busting break-throughs. Or is it your contention that all scientific knowledge be held in contempt, because someone might come along with a new idea?

Quote:
, all errors are irrelevant and All voices of dissent (even scientific ones) are distortions the facts?

Again, Climate modeling is a VERY young science.

Errors are irrelevant if they don't materially effect the general model. Voices of dissent have to make sense and supply some coherent critiques. They don't get a seat at the table just because they are "dissenters" and we're supposed to have some kind of automatic respect for iconoclasts.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #256 of 333
It just occurred to me that the position that the global warming skeptics are like persecuted scientists of old is pretty bizarre, since the contrarians are essentially saying "Nu uh!" as opposed to the persecuted scientists, who were proposing radical and new ways of thinking about the world.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #257 of 333

Now there you go again. I give you a chance to tear yourself away from your "precious" ICPP report, and the global warming shmegal spits and snarls logical fallacies to the arguments presented.

ERROR 1: Red Herring - Ad Hom. You attacked E and E as a journal. Unfortunately for you they did not did not author the article, Dr. Richard Tol did. You failed to address the validity of his observations and his argument and chose to attack the his professional credibility because of where his paper appeared.

Although ad homs and personal attacks are some of the most basic logical fallacies, it should be noted that Dr. Tol is speaking from experience. He was a lead author in prior IPCC annual reports, and has established himself as a leading environmental economist. Midnight has taken the time to look up his C.V., rather than offering intellectual yahooism at the first suggestion of dissenting views...here is about 5 percent of his publications (the rest can be read at the following link):

http://www.fnu.zmaw.de/Publications....tml?&L=3#c1912

Quote:
Books
Hans von Storch, Richard S.J. Tol and Goetz Floeser (eds.) (2007), Environmental Crises: Science and Policy, Springer, Berlin.

Thomas E. Downing, Alexander A. Olsthoorn and Richard S.J. Tol (eds.) (1998), Climate Change and Risk, Routledge, London.

On the damage costs of climate change

Tol,R.S.J. (forthcoming), ‘Climate, Development and Malaria: An Application of FUND’,Climatic Change. This paper uses FUND.

Bosello, F., R. Roson and R.S.J. Tol (2007), 'Economy-wide Estimates of the Implications of Climate Change: Sea Level Rise', Environmental and Resource Economics, 37, 549-571. This paper uses ICES.

Tol, R.S.J. (2006), 'The Stern Review of the Economics of Climate Change: A Comment', Energy & Environment, 17 (6), 977-981.

Tol, R.S.J. and G.W. Yohe (2006), 'A Review of the Stern Review', World Economics, 7 (3), 233-250. See also R.S.J. and G.W. Yohe (2007), 'A Stern Reply to the Reply of the Review of the Stern Review', World Economics, 8 (2), 153-159.

Berritella, M., A. Bigano, R. Roson and R.S.J. Tol (2006), ‘A General Equilibrium Analysis of Climate Change Impacts on Tourism’, Tourism Management, 27 (5), 913-924. This paper uses ICES.

Bosello, F., R. Roson and R.S.J. Tol (2006), ‘Economy-wide estimates of the implications of climate change: Human health’, Ecological Economics, 58, 579-591. This paper uses ICES.

Guo, J.K., C. Hepburn, R.S.J. Tol and D. Anthoff (2006), ‘Discounting and the Social Cost of Carbon: A Closer Look at Uncertainty’, Environmental Science and Policy, 9, 205-216. This paper uses FUND.

Roson, R. and R.S.J. Tol (2006), ‘An Integrated Assessment Model of Economy-Energy-Climate– The Model Wiagem: A Comment’, Integrated Assessment Journal, 6(1), 75-82.

Fankhauser, S. and R.S.J. Tol (2005), ‘On Climate Change and Economic Growth’, Resource and Energy Economics, 27, 1-17.

Tol, R.S.J. (2005), ‘The Marginal Damage Costs of Carbon Dioxide Emissions: An Assessment of the Uncertainties’, Energy Policy, 33 (16),2064-2074. This paper attracted the attention of Bjorn Lomborg. See also our reaction,which Politiken declined to publish without giving a reason.

Tol, R.S.J. (2002), ‘New Estimates of the Damage Costs of Climate Change, Part I: Benchmark Estimates’, Environmental and ResourceEconomics, 21 (1), 47-73. This paper uses FUND.

Tol, R.S.J. (2002), ‘New Estimates of the Damage Costs of Climate Change, Part II: Dynamic Estimates’, Environmental and ResourceEconomics, 21 (2), 135-160. This paper uses FUND.

Darwin, R.F. and R.S.J. Tol (2001), ‘Estimates of the Economic Effects of Sea Level Rise’, Environmental and Resource Economics, 19 (2), 113-129.

Smith, J.B., H.-J. Schellnhuber, M.M.Q. Mirza, S.Fankhauser, R. Leemans, E. Lin, L. Ogallo, B. Pittock, R.G. Richels, C. Rosenzweig, R.S.J. Tol, J.P. Weyant and G.W. Yohe (2001), ‘Vulnerability to Climate Change and Reasons for Concern: A Synthesis’, Chapter 19, pp.913-967, in J.J. McCarthy, O.F. Canziani, N.A. Leary, D.J. Dokken and K.S.White (eds.), Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability,Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Tol, R.S.J. (2001), ‘Impacts of Climate Change: An Economist’s Perspective’, in B. Parthier and D. Simon (eds.), Climate Impact Research: Why, How and When?, Akademie Verlag, Berlin.

Tol, R.S.J., S. Fankhauser, R.G. Richels and J.B.Smith (2000), ‘How Much Damage Will Climate Change Do? Recent Estimates’, World Economics,1 (4), 179-206.

Tol, R.S.J. (1999), ‘The Marginal Costs of Greenhouse Gas Emissions’, The Energy Journal, 20(1), 61-81. This paper uses FUND.

Beniston, M. and R.S.J. Tol (1998), ‘Potential Impacts of Climate Change in Europe’,Energy and Environment, 9 (4), 365-381.

Beniston,M., R.S.J. Tol, R. Delecolle, G. Hoermann, A. Iglesias, J. Innes, A.J.McMichael, W.J.M. Martens, I. Nemesova, R.J. Nicholls and F.L. Toth (1998),‘Europe’, Chapter 5, pp.149-185, in R.T Watson, M. Zinyowera and R.H. Moss(eds.), The Regional Impacts of Climate Change -- An Assessment ofV ulnerability, A Special Report of IPCC Working Group II, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

ERROR 2# The computer ranking you proffered was someone's iexperimental idea (Tol's?) of the most published and cited of ALL economists. It was NOT a listing of a ranking within a specialized field, environmental economics. Within that field Nordhaus is often considered the most distinguished (he created the DIME prediction model used by all the others) followed by a handful of others...among them is Tol. And what you intentionally left out (which is dishonest) is that the ranking puts him within the top 5% of all published economists (world-wide).

But you'd know that if you knew the field and/or prefered to honor the truth, or perhaps did a bit of checking out without mining for a reason to dismiss his point.

ERROR 3# Another Red Herring Ad Hom against an organization. By virtue of its forum, SPPI you argue against the author's paper. This kind of fallacy is frequently used in politics "You can't say A=A, because it was published by a group who has a point of view".

Indeed, if we were to take your argument from rebuke seriously, by what standard would WE be even reading your opinion...published at "Appleinsider-Outsider"? LOL...perhaps we are on to something.
post #258 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

It just occurred to me that the position that the global warming skeptics are like persecuted scientists of old is pretty bizarre, since the contrarians are essentially saying "Nu uh!" as opposed to the persecuted scientists, who were proposing radical and new ways of thinking about the world.

So if there were scientists who were not convinced of the steady-state theory (which was prior to the big bang), or philosgen BUT did not have another model other than prior experience, then they were "bizarre"?
post #259 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

So if there were scientists who were not convinced of the steady-state theory (which was prior to the big bang), or philosgen BUT did not have another model other than prior experience, then they were "bizarre"?

Sound familiar?

Please see Georges Lemaître for the truth, something you know nothing about.

See also History of the Big Bang theory

Your strength isn't science, that's for sure!

See also Steady state theory;

[CENTER]
Quote:
In cosmology, the Steady State Theory (also known as the Infinite Universe Theory or continuous creation) is a model developed in 1948 by Fred Hoyle, Thomas Gold, Hermann Bondi and others as an alternative to the Big Bang theory (known, usually, as the standard cosmological model).

[/CENTER]
and Fred Hoyle

BTW, what's "philosgen" anyway? Google gives it only seven hits and suggests "philogen" which gives 11,700 hits, or maybe you were referring to Phylogenetics which gives 986,000 English pages for Phylogenetics via Google. Boy, you definitely don't know what your talking about when it comes to science! And that's a FACT!

Care to display your science n00bness some more?
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #260 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

Now there you go again. I give you a chance to tear yourself away from your "precious" ICPP report, and the global warming shmegal spits and snarls logical fallacies to the arguments presented.

ERROR 1: Red Herring - Ad Hom. You attacked E and E as a journal. Unfortunately for you they did not did not author the article, Dr. Richard Tol did. You failed to address the validity of his observations and his argument and chose to attack the his professional credibility because of where his paper appeared.

Although ad homs and personal attacks are some of the most basic logical fallacies, it should be noted that Dr. Tol is speaking from experience. He was a lead author in prior IPCC annual reports, and has established himself as a leading environmental economist. Midnight has taken the time to look up his C.V., rather than offering intellectual yahooism at the first suggestion of dissenting views...here is about 5 percent of his publications (the rest can be read at the following link):

http://www.fnu.zmaw.de/Publications....tml?&L=3#c1912



ERROR 2# The computer ranking you proffered was someone's iexperimental idea (Tol's?) of the most published and cited of ALL economists. It was NOT a listing of a ranking within a specialized field, environmental economics. Within that field Nordhaus is often considered the most distinguished (he created the DIME prediction model used by all the others) followed by a handful of others...among them is Tol. And what you intentionally left out (which is dishonest) is that the ranking puts him within the top 5% of all published economists (world-wide).

But you'd know that if you knew the field and/or prefered to honor the truth, or perhaps did a bit of checking out without mining for a reason to dismiss his point.

ERROR 3# Another Red Herring Ad Hom against an organization. By virtue of its forum, SPPI you argue against the author's paper. This kind of fallacy is frequently used in politics "You can't say A=A, because it was published by a group who has a point of view".

Indeed, if we were to take your argument from rebuke seriously, by what standard would WE be even reading your opinion...published at "Appleinsider-Outsider"? LOL...perhaps we are on to something.

The truth speaks volumes about these groups.

E&E isn't a respectable journal by any respected climate scientist, heck by ANY SCIENTIST, and that's the truth. The editor admits a POLITICAL BIAS! Nothing more needs to be stated with respect to that "rag." In fact, if you want me to, I'll dig up your pouting from the last time I shot down E&E, you remember, before you ran away last springtime?

Sh!t, I've shot them down 4 or 5 times now, and I will continue to do so regardless of YOUR opinion as to what constitutes a logical fallacy!

I could care less about economists, particularly someone as unremarkable as Tol, since he's not a scientist to begin with, he doesn't speak for climate scientists! D'oh!

Oh, and since we do have PO archives maybe I'll go back and dig up all of MaxPariah's greatest hits, with respect to Al Gore, I'm sure you'd like your own definitions thrown back up in your own face? Yes, I'm sure you would!

Oh, and what's you fixation, I would even call it Idolatry, with economists anyway? I'll take an educated guess in assuming you have a degree in economics? Have I hit a sore spot by dissin' your field as it's only considered a "social" science, meaning it's all softcore and not hardcore like the physical sciences?

And what's ICPP? I think someone is rattled, and it isn't yours truly!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #261 of 333
Even though there's evidence, there's not enough irrefutable evidence to support human influence on global climate change. Right.

Meanwhile... you go to church every Sunday.

Got it.

Let's just keep polluting the environment. God will clean it up if it is His plan to do so.
post #262 of 333
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Even though there's evidence, there's not enough irrefutable evidence to support human influence on global climate change. Right.

Correct.

Quote:

Meanwhile... you go to church every Sunday.

Got it.

Let's just keep polluting the environment. God will clean it up if it is His plan to do so.

Though I'm not an evangelical or even regular church attendee, I've honestly seen more evidence that God is real than I have evidence that supports TGW. In fact, I think there is more evidence that disproves TGW than evidence that disproves the existence of God.

But that's an argument that will go on forever. I think it's invalid to compare faith to any worldly issue (no pun intended) anyway. Faith is just that. It doesn't require scientific proof. This is, of course, why you mock any person of faith.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #263 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I've honestly seen more evidence that God is real than I have evidence that supports TGW. In fact, I think there is more evidence that disproves TGW than evidence that disproves the existence of God.

This is, of course, why you mock any person of faith.

No, you'll get mocked for the above two sentences.
post #264 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

So if there were scientists who were not convinced of the steady-state theory (which was prior to the big bang), or philosgen BUT did not have another model other than prior experience, then they were "bizarre"?

That is not what I said. I said it is bizarre to try to draw an analogy between scientists who proposed radical new ideas and people who are global warming skeptics, since the skeptics aren't actually proposing anything other than "nu uh!"
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #265 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

That is not what I said. I said it is bizarre to try to draw an analogy between scientists who proposed radical new ideas and people who are global warming skeptics, since the skeptics aren't actually proposing anything other than "nu uh!"

Ahhhh, well in that case you are correct. Skeptics of error are invisible to popular history, as can be many of the error makers. For example, the ozone chemistry that generated the ozone hole was taken as a virtual certainty, recent experimental findings are now suggesting a major blunder about the chemistry and the contribution of fluorocarbons.

Do we recall the skeptics?

Or the skeptics who disagreed with the environmentalist scientists regarding the Alaska Pipeline destroying migration and ecology along its swath?

We all know Paul Ehrlich and his doomsday predictions, do we know of the skeptics which are now largely vindicated?
post #266 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Sound familiar?

Please see Georges Lemaître for the truth, something you know nothing about.

Your strength isn't science, that's for sure!

BTW, what's "philosgen" anyway? Google gives it only seven hits and suggests "philogen" which gives 11,700 hits, or maybe you were referring to Phylogenetics which gives 986,000 English pages for Phylogenetics via Google. Boy, you definitely don't know what your talking about when it comes to science! And that's a FACT!

Care to display your science n00bness some more?

Thank you for the sweet missive, I stand clarified. What I intended to note was not the formal steady state theory of Fred Hoyle, but the prior 19th century presumption of a static universe. Even with the advent of relativity in the early 20th century, Einstein felt compelled to introduce the cosmological constant.

However, I am surprised that a man who taunts others about their knowledge of the history of science would have NO clue as to what I might be referring to. My misspelling of Philosgen is not Phylogen, Pylogenetics, or Philogen.

I was referring to Phlogiston, a popular theory in the very early history of Chemistry. Usually noted in intro high school chemistry books it is:

"Phylogiston - The theory holds that all inflammable materials contain phlogiston, a substance without colour, odour, taste, or mass that is liberated in burning. Once burned, the "dephlogisticated" substance was held to be in its "true" form, the calx."

Glad to be of assitance...

Max
post #267 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

The truth speaks volumes about these groups.

E&E isn't a respectable journal by any respected climate scientist, heck by ANY SCIENTIST, and that's the truth. The editor admits a POLITICAL BIAS! Nothing more needs to be stated with respect to that "rag." In fact, if you want me to, I'll dig up your pouting from the last time I shot down E&E, you remember, before you ran away last springtime?

Sh!t, I've shot them down 4 or 5 times now, and I will continue to...

I could care less about economists, particularly someone as unremarkable as Tol, since he's not a scientist to begin with, he doesn't speak for climate scientists! D'oh!

Oh, and since we do have PO archives maybe I'll go back and dig up all of MaxPariah's greatest hits, with respect to Al Gore, I'm sure you'd like your own definitions thrown back up in your own face? Yes, I'm sure you would!

Oh, and what's you fixation, I would even call it ...with economists...Idolatry, with And what's ICPP? I think someone is rattled, and it isn't yours truly!

My goodness, another hysterical rant attacking a journal. How novel of you. Of course, if it were our thread topic it would be redundant, it was already settled by the essentials provided by me - it is among the thousands of boutique journals that is peer reviewed and citable in academic literature. What more needs be said that is not obsessively irrelevant? Hmm?

Of course, the topic is not the journal (no matter how much it vexes you) so once more you are trying to derail the discussion about the IPCC with Red Herrings. The question is, just how 'robust' is the IPCC process and how 'scientific' is its product?

I understand 'you could care less about economists' - remind me to alert the press. In the meantime, note that the IPCC cares about environmental economists, which is why their province is WG3 which deals with the climate change's economic impacts and policy options, and provides feedbacks to climate change model scenarios. What many IPCC groupies often miss is that were several working groups, of which WG1 was one. Beyond the question of global warming causing climate change, the report deals with the environment-ecology, technical options/solutions, forecasts of emissions, and economic impacts and strategies.

So FS may not give a hoot about any other issue than warming and climate, but the IPCC does. But then again, per FS - "What's the fixation with economists"...hmmm, why don't you write the IPCC and ask?
post #268 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

Thank you for the sweet missive, I stand clarified. What I intended to note was not the formal steady state theory of Fred Hoyle, but the prior 19th century presumption of a static universe. Even with the advent of relativity in the early 20th century, Einstein felt compelled to introduce the cosmological constant.

However, I am surprised that a man who taunts others about their knowledge of the history of science would have NO clue as to what I might be referring to. My misspelling of Philosgen is not Phylogen, Pylogenetics, or Philogen.

I was referring to Phlogiston, a popular theory in the very early history of Chemistry. Usually noted in intro high school chemistry books it is:

"Phylogiston - The theory holds that all inflammable materials contain phlogiston, a substance without colour, odour, taste, or mass that is liberated in burning. Once burned, the "dephlogisticated" substance was held to be in its "true" form, the calx."

Glad to be of assitance...

Max

I mean seriously, let's take a looooooooong walk down history to see what humans concocted, in the absence of enabling technologies.

There's something called the (modern) scientific method based on empirical and observational data, that either supports or contradicts proposed or existing theories.

Based on this link,

Timeline of the history of scientific method

it would appear that the mid-1960's would constitute the start of the current "modern" scientific method.

Oh, and thanks for correcting your own spelling error. D'oh!

BTW, I took chemistry in college, and that word was never discussed. That's because it was a chemistry course and not a history of chemistry course. D'oh!

Please see correlation does not imply causation with respect to your logical fallacy that all historical scientific theories are eventually proved wrong, or whatever it is you appear to be stating.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #269 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

My goodness, another hysterical rant attacking a journal. How novel of you. Of course, if it were our thread topic it would be redundant, it was already settled by the essentials provided by me - it is among the thousands of boutique journals that is peer reviewed and citable in academic literature. What more needs be said that is not obsessively irrelevant? Hmm?

Of course, the topic is not the journal (no matter how much it vexes you) so once more you are trying to derail the discussion about the IPCC with Red Herrings. The question is, just how 'robust' is the IPCC process and how 'scientific' is its product?

I understand 'you could care less about economists' - remind me to alert the press. In the meantime, note that the IPCC cares about environmental economists, which is why their province is WG3 which deals with the climate change's economic impacts and policy options, and provides feedbacks to climate change model scenarios. What many IPCC groupies often miss is that were several working groups, of which WG1 was one. Beyond the question of global warming causing climate change, the report deals with the environment-ecology, technical options/solutions, forecasts of emissions, and economic impacts and strategies.

So FS may not give a hoot about any other issue than warming and climate, but the IPCC does. But then again, per FS - "What's the fixation with economists"...hmmm, why don't you write the IPCC and ask?

Why right here of course!

So you engage in a straw man fallacy, in assuming that I'm unaware of WG2 and WG3, while WG1, is in fact, the base of the IPCC pyramid, without WG1 there would be no WG2 or WG3, there would in fact be no IPCC for that matter, without WG1 providing the scientific framework for the other working groups.

I have shown the bias inherent in E&E, that is a fact. Is it convinient for you to ignore that fact? Of course, because it undermines the very basis for establishing the credibility of said "journal."

[CENTER]
Quote:
Credibility is the objective and subjective components of the believability of a source or message. Traditionally, credibility is composed of two primary dimensions: trustworthiness and expertise, which have both objective and subjective components. That is, trustworthiness is a receiver judgment based on subjective factors. Expertise can be similarly subjectively perceived but includes relatively objective characteristics of the source or message as well (e.g., source credentials or information quality).
.
.
.
Credibility online has become an important topic since the mid-1990s, as the web has increasingly become an information resource.

[/CENTER]

Oh, how convienient, that last half of that last sentence should read "as the web has increasingly become a disinformation resource" with respect to the AGW contrarian point of view.

Now on to the E&E article by Tol. It reads like "cry me a river" or it brings to mind, on my part, mock sympathy via several people playing "air violins."

Tol's E&E "op-ed" hit piece is appropriately titled (from said BIASED journal), "Biased Policy Advice from the IPCC." Funny thing is, any individual would have to consider the process biased, from their singular point of view, since no one individual would be 100% behind the decision making process, unless of course that one individual made all the decisions themselves in the absence of all other participants. D'oh! It's termed a non sequitur, yet another logical fallacy on your part.

Hmm, that brings up the fact that Tol is the sole author of said "article" so apparently he did make all the decisions as to the content of said "article." So Tol get's to be his own monopoly with respect to said "article" something he seems all too myopic about when defining the so called IPCC "monopoly." That is truly the definition of irony.

The Tol article is 9 pages in total, including a cover sheet. so that leaves 8 pages for the body of Tol's "rant-screed-manifesto" broken down as follows, ~1.5 pages for one table and one figure, ~ 3 pages of text, and ~3.5 pages of references. Hmm, interesting that there are more pages of references that there are pages of text.

There are a total of 50 references, let me repeat that, there are a total of 50 references!

Now of those 50 references, not a single one references the IPCC AR4 reports, now that's a clear indication of the inherent biases of both Tol and E&E, to not cite the IPCC reports, that Tol is criticizing, specifically the WG3 report.

And the citations are written out in the text body, so that if I were to substitute a numbered referencing system, I seriously doubt the text body would exceed two and a half pages.

The text itself reads more like one person's opinion (which, in fact it is), and focuses entirely on WG3 in a very subjective single person's point of view. D'oh! WG3 != WG2 != WG1, D'oh-D'oh.

In other words, you are attempting to lump in the entire IPCC process based on the association fallacy, based on one person's subjective opinion on WG3. In fact, Tol appears to imply (by omission) that WG1 (the science) was less biased than WG3, so I don't see where this article undermines WG1 in any substitutive way, unless one tries to invoke the association fallacy, as you are all too apparently trying to do.

[CENTER]
Quote:
The Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of Working Group 3 (WG3) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a case in point. Many things can be said about this. Having been involved in AR2 and AR3, and having watched AR4, I cannot escape the impression that WG3 has become more political and less academic, and that overall quality has declined. In some countries, political affiliation seemed to override academic standing as a selection criterion for authorship, while in WG3 the most influential positions went those who tend to support the environmentalists’ agenda. Such things are fiendishly hard to prove, and I will not attempt this here. The above is just a personal impression.

[/CENTER]

In fact, if you were to go to the IPCC website and look at the lists of reviewers and contributing authors, Tol is listed in WG2 as a contributing author and reviewer, and is listed as a reviewer only in WG3, and is nowhere to be seen in WG1, and is listed in the IPCC Synthesis Report under the List of Reviewers and Review Editors.

So it appears that Tol did not play any roll in WG1, had a role in WG2, and acted only as a reviewer in WG3. So it appears that Tol was mostly an "outsider" in the AR4 process. This kind of smacks of envy, or jealousy, or spite, or animus, or enmity, or some other subjective emotional character flaw associated with Tol himself.

The remainder of the text essentially goes on to espouse the sentiments that Tol claims he wants to avoid in the last sentence I outlined above. D'oh!

And as usual, in the subjective contrarian lexicon, the "article" offers only subjective opinionated destructive criticism, and offers up nary a shred of constructive criticism, which is to be expected, since after all, this is E&E we are talking about.

And then?
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #270 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

So you engage in a straw man fallacy, in assuming that I'm unaware of WG2 and WG3, while WG1, is in fact, the base of the IPCC pyramid, without WG1 there would be no WG2 or WG3, there would in fact be no IPCC for that matter, without WG1 providing the framework for the other working groups.

I made no assumption about your knowledge or ignorance of the other working groups. Rather I noted that you don't give a hoot about economists in the IPCC process, and that the IPCC does.

More amusing however, is your selective adoration of your bible. All three WG's are critical to the IPCC mission and the final fusion product, the AR4 synthesis report (no need to reassure us you were aware of that too). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fo...nthesis_Report

Quote:
The six topics[41][42] addressed in the Synthesis Report are:

Observed changes in climate and its effects (Working Groups 1-2).
Causes of change (WGs 1, 3).
Climate change and its impacts in the near and long term under different scenarios (WGs 1-3).
Adaptation and mitigation options and responses, and the inter-relationship with sustainable development, at global and regional levels (WGs 2-3).
The long term perspective: scientific and socio-economic aspects relevant to adaptation and mitigation, consistent with the objectives and provisions of the Convention [sic], and in the context of sustainable development (WGs 1-3).
Robust findings, key uncertainties (WGs 1-3).

So, as you can see, WG3 is involved in every process but 'observed changes and its effects', including the causes of the change, climate change, and the impact under different scenarios (which require economic models and feed back to SRES).

Quote:
have shown the bias inherent in E&E, that is a fact. Is it convenient for you to ignore that fact? Of course, because it undermines the very basis for establishing the credibility of said "journal."

Another red herring attack on a journal? Didn't I warn you that one more comment would be flirting with the obsessive? Let's move it along to the subject at hand, shall we?

Quote:
Now on to the E&E article by Tol. It reads like "cry me a river" or it brings to mind, on my part, mock sympathy via several people playing "air violins."

Thanks for the entertainment review. Let's move it along to the subject at hand, shall we?

Quote:
...Funny thing is, any individual would have to consider the process biased, from their singular point of view, since no one individual would be 100% behind the decision making process, unless of course that one individual made all the decisions themselves in the absence of all other participants. D'oh!

If so, then you must think that every individual who participated in the process thinks the document is biased? That's quite an assumption about individuals - a pretty absurd one.

The reality is that some people think the IPCC did a pretty fair job, and some think it's seriously flawed...this includes both participants and non participants.

Now, let's move it along, what of Tol's criticism's, which you've avoided discussing for several posts? Hmmm?

Quote:
Hmm, that brings up the fact that Tol is the sole author of said "article" so apparently he did make all the decisions as to the content of said "article." So Tol get's to be his own monopoly with respect to said "article" something he seems all to myopic about when defining the so called IPCC "monopoly." That is truly the definition of irony.

Permit me to rephrase it for you for clarity: 'Tol wrote an article criticizing the IPCC "monopoly", and because he wrote his article without a co-author HE is a monopolist, so look at the IRONY!'

Funny, even when re-phrased it still sounds like a stupid comment. Sorry, FC I did my best.

Quote:
The Tol article is 9 pages in total, including a cover sheet. so that leaves 8 pages for the body of Tol's "rant-screed-manifesto" broken down as follows, ~1.5 pages for one table and one figure, ~ 3 pages of text, and ~3.5 pages of references. Hmm, interesting that there are more pages of references that there are pages of text.

And we STILL wait for you to address his criticisms...(crickets chirping).

Quote:
There are a total of 50 references, let me repeat that, there are a total of 50 references!

Now of those 50 references, not a single one references the IPCC AR4 reports, now that's a clear indication of the inherent biases of both Tol and E&E, to not cite the IPCC reports, that Tol is criticizing, specifically the WG3 report.

And we STILL wait for you to address his criticisms...(crickets chirping).

Quote:
In fact if you were to go to the IPCC website and look at the lists of reviewers and contributing authors, Tol is listed in WG2 as a contributing author and reviewer, and is listed as a reviewer only in WG3, and is nowhere to be seen in WG1, and is listed in the IPCC Synthesis Report under the List of Reviewers and Review Editors.

And the citations are written out in the text body, so that if I were to substitute a numbered referencing system, I seriously doubt the text body would exceed two and a half pages.

And we STILL wait for you to address his criticisms...(crickets chirping).

Quote:
The text itself reads more like one person's opinion (which, in fact it is), and focuses almost entirely on WG3 in a very subjective single person's point of view. D'oh! WG3 != WG2 != WG1, D'oh-D'oh.

(crickets chirping...crickets chirping....yawn, is it dawn yet?)

Quote:
In other words, you are attempting to lump in the entire IPCC process based on the association fallacy, based on one person's subjective opinion on WG3. In fact, Tol appears to imply that WG1 (the science) was less biased than WG3, so I don't see where this article undermines WG1 in any substitutive way, unless one tries to invoke the association fallacy, as you are all too apparently trying to do.

The IPCC process spans all WG's and their synthesis (AR4). The IPCC process is being questioned, ergo, the experience of any participant in any working group can provide evidence of a flawed process. YOU seem to want to pretend the IPCC is composed of only those members and questions addressed by one of three working groups.

And, by the way, Yes folks...

We STILL wait for you to address his criticisms...(dawn breaking).

Quote:
So it appears that Tol did not play any roll in WG1, had a role in WG2, and acted only as a reviewer in WG3. So it appears that Tol was mostly an "outsider" in the AR4 process. This kind of smacks of envy, or jealousy, or spite, or some other subjective emotional character flaw associated with Tol himself.

Well, no more time to listen to an aimless rant. So far we've heard you carp about his excessive number of references, his not having had a co-author, the WG's he participated on, and the structure of his paper. We've heard you allege his motivations, characterize his style, and suggest his character flaws.

One thing we have not heard is you do is address his criticisms.

Why are we not surprised?

P.S. FS, don't bother to reply. It is clear that you are incapable of addressing the issues raised by either the SPPI study or Dr. Tol. I have no interest in reading another of your baited screeds on everything BUT the issues. And clown shows must end.

So I'll report what critics have said, with comments. Should you bring yourself to the point you maturely address them I will be happy to reply.
post #271 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

I made no assumption about your knowledge or ignorance of the other working groups. Rather I noted that you don't give a hoot about economists in the IPCC process, and that the IPCC does.

More amusing however, is your selective adoration of your bible. All three WG's are critical to the IPCC mission and the final fusion product, the AR4 synthesis report (no need to reassure us you were aware of that too). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fo...nthesis_Report



So, as you can see, WG3 is involved in every process but 'observed changes and its effects', including the causes of the change, climate change, and the impact under different scenarios (which require economic models and feed back to SRES).

Another red herring attack on a journal? Didn't I warn you that one more comment would be flirting with the obsessive? Let's move it along to the subject at hand, shall we?

Thanks for the entertainment review. Let's move it along to the subject at hand, shall we?

If so, then you must think that every individual who participated in the process thinks the document is biased? That's quite an assumption about individuals - a pretty absurd one.

The reality is that some people think the IPCC did a pretty fair job, and some think it's seriously flawed...this includes both participants and non participants.

Now, let's move it along, what of Tol's criticism's, which you've avoided discussing for several posts? Hmmm?

Permit me to rephrase it for you for clarity: 'Tol wrote an article criticizing the IPCC "monopoly", and because he wrote his article without a co-author HE is a monopolist, so look at the IRONY!'

Funny, even when re-phrased it still sounds like a stupid comment. Sorry, FC I did my best.



And we STILL wait for you to address his criticisms...(crickets chirping).



And we STILL wait for you to address his criticisms...(crickets chirping).



And we STILL wait for you to address his criticisms...(crickets chirping).



(crickets chirping...crickets chirping....yawn, is it dawn yet?)



The IPCC process spans all WG's and their synthesis (AR4). The IPCC process is being questioned, ergo, the experience of any participant in any working group is evidence of a flawed process. YOU seem to want to pretend the IPCC is composed of only those members and questions addressed by one of three working groups.

And, by the way, Yes folks...

We STILL wait for you to address his criticisms...(dawn breaking).



Well, no more time to listen to an aimless rant. So far we've heard you carp about the excessive number of his references, his not having had a co-author, which WG's he participated on, and the structure of his paper. We've heard you allege motivations, characterize his style, and suggest his character flaws.

One thing we have not heard is you addressing his criticisms.

Why are we not surprised?

Sorry if the truth damages beyond repair Tol's commentary. So the game apparently is to site one reference (e. g. Tol's) in some stupid game of your doing, gravitating around what your definition of criticism is?

Sorry, but homey don't play dat. No one could pick up that article and make any sense of it, you included, simple because it has an obscene number of references, and because it is highly opinionated and subjective in nature. Anyone reading it would get the gist of Tol's frustrations as an "outsider" to the IPCC AR4 processes. That much is obvious.

In fact, and this is quite funny, I missed the FIVE references Tol did have in his reference list (four for WG3 and one for WG1).

What's so funny about that, you ask? Well, you didn't even notice my error!

It's an article you referenced, yet you don't even bother to do any fact checking!

And your dismissive tone is obvious and evasive regarding Tol's paper.

Let me ask you, have you read all 50 references Tol cited, and lets say each of those has 20 references, have you read them also. 50 * 20 = 1,000 references!

It appears that you've lost this argument simply because of your dismissive attitude, on the substitutive points that I raised.

As to Tol's criticisms, given the poor quality of the E&E urinal, and the apparent lack of a true peer-review process, he's entitled to his subjective OPINIONS!

BTW, I already have copies of all the IPCC AR4 documents, and I do mean all.

Oh, and quid pro quo to you to, as your just going to list AGW contrarian disinformation!

As I've already stated, it is obvious that you have no scientific expertise, and are only capable of repeating other AGW contrarian talking points.

Go figure. \
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #272 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Sorry if the truth damages beyond repair Tol commentary...In fact, and this is quite funny, I missed the FIVE references Tol did have in his reference list (four for WG3 and one for WG1)...What's so funny about that, you ask? Well, you didn't even notice my error!

It's an article you referenced, yet you don't even bother to do any fact checking!

And your dismissive tone is obvious and evasive regarding Tol's paper.

Let me ask you, have you read all 50 references Tol cited, and lets say each of those has 20 references, have you read them also. 50 * 20 = 1,000 references!...It appears that you've lost this argument simply because of your dismissive attitude, on the substitutive points that I raised.

As to Tol's criticisms, given the poor quality of the E&E urinal, and the apparent lack of a true peer-review process, he's entitled to his subjective OPINIONS!

BTW, I already have copies of all the IPCC AR4 documents, and I do mean all.

Perhaps you think it impresses to call a journal "urinal"; or to lace dialog with Homer Simpson D'ohs, or to carry on about too many references, or to taunt over having mssed your rrelevant counting errors - rest assured, it does not.

What would impress if you disputed any of his professional opinions of, or actual experiences in, the IPCC process; equally impressive would be a robust understanding and defense of IPCC procedures, as yet un demonstrated.

Is such a sophisticated approach beyond your ability? Seriously?

In the meantime, as I said, I will shortly post my own reading of his comments. Perhaps that will set an example for the H.Simpson groupies.
post #273 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

Perhaps you think it impresses to call a journal "urinal"; or to lace dialog with Homer Simpson D'ohs, or to carry on about too many references, or to taunt over having mssed your rrelevant counting errors - rest assured, it does not.

What would impress if you disputed any of his professional opinions of, or actual experiences in, the IPCC process; equally impressive would be a robust understanding and defense of IPCC procedures, as yet un demonstrated.

Is such a sophisticated approach beyond your ability? Seriously?

In the meantime, as I said, I will shortly post my own reading of his comments. Perhaps that will set an example for the H.Simpson groupies.

But first to answer you questions. Yes! Definitely! Because you are not to be taken seriously, nor have I ever taken you seriously, you do not convey a sharp intellect, and you tend to box yourself into inextricable positions, from which you cannot escape. And these are all of your doing.

Just exactly how many disgruntled people who have been involved in the current or previous IPCC processies, are there exactly, not counting known AGW contrarians?

Tol was largely left out of the AR4 processes this time, so I'm not the least bit surprised that this is the sort of missive that he would try to publish, and thanks to the poor journalistic and peer review processes at E&E, he essentially has an open invitation to publish and distort things to the AGW contrarians own ends.

So, in summary if I had to choose between the IPCC and E&E (and the rest of the AGW contrarian screed), it's isn't even close, E&E, et. el. isn't worth the used toilet paper it's written on.

And a final point, NO I refuse to allow you to dictate the form of this debate, you have a major deficiency in the tone of your replies, and I am above taking your bait as it were.

As to your take on things, ROTFLMAO, it's like you haven't even read Tol's screed-rant-manifesto, WTF!

We definitely don't need more of your n00bness. \

As to what ever you do post, go ahead, but make it about 20 pages long, with another 20 pages of references, like you usually do. I am quite frankly tires of your obtuse language, perhaps others will continue the debate forward, but for the moment I'm exiting stage left, let's see if you can create an echo chamber of your own making.

See you, don't want to be you.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #274 of 333
Among the critics, Tol makes some important points - especially as someone who has been a prior lead author and as a distinguished environmental economist.

First Tol notes a pervasive practice and conflict of interest, a problem noted by others (e.g. McIntyre). This document that is supposed to provide a critical but objective evaluation should not be putting the authors of models as lead authors in the evaluation of those models. In particular he notes that the creators of the SRES scenarios evaluates their own work in Chapter 3 and, by golly, they find them just dandy!

Tol points out that critical papers of the models are not incorporated in the evaluation and are either left out, or when caught by refs, merely listed in the references.

Second, procedures are freely violated (something noted by other critics). An unpublished conference paper unknown to google was an a major underpinning to the SRES chapter - a paper that was severely criticized.

Tol also chastise's the the IPCC for not living up to its academic duty as well as its policy purposes; failing to provide makers with solutions and potential problems. He accurately notes there is no discussion of the failure of Kyoto or current policy successes/failures.

Third, he criticizes (rightly) the failure of the IPCC to use economists and their expertise appropriately. This is not a new problem, even as a major participant in prior reports he has expressed the same view on behalf of their input. Cost-Benefit is, obviously, missing from the jargon of the dogmatists who wish to eliminate warming at any price (naturally, he puts it far more politely).

He also points out that some of the math in his area is wrong, economic relationships backward, and some of it "is at odds with everything we know about emission reduction cost curves". Most importantly:

Quote:
This is relevant, because the deepest target of the IPCC is a bit less ambitious than the official target of the European Union (cf. Meinshausen, 2006). AR4 reports costs for meeting this target that are biased downwards, and probably substantially so. It does not report that meeting this target is infeasible in certain models and scenarios, and may therefore be impossible in reality—information which is of critical relevance to policy makers. The IPCC misled by omission.

Similarly, the SPPI paper also calls into question the inflated claims about universal support of IPCC's balance, which is often accompanied by the supporter's lavish claims of hundreds and thousands of reviewers confirming its reality.

Quote:
REJECTION OF AMENDMENTS ON ATTRIBUTION OF CLIMATE CHANGE

In Chapter 9, the key science chapter, the IPCC concludes that "it is very highly likely that greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the observed global warming over the last 50 years". The IPCC leads us to believe that this statement is very much supported by the majority of reviewers. However, only 62 of the IPCC’s 308 reviewers commented on this chapter at all.

Nineteen reviewers made just one comment and 18 made between two and five comments. Just 10 reviewers made more than 20 comments on this, the most important chapter of the entire report.

A total of 1158 comments were made. One reviewer made almost half of these, but almost all his suggested amendments were curtly rejected. The government of the USA made 113 comments; almost 10% of the total, but 32 of its comments duplicate those made by an individual reviewer.

In these circumstances any review which casts doubt about assertions based on or related to a human influence on climate will be just what many reviewers found it to be – frustrating and futile.As with other chapters, simple corrections, requests for clarifications or refinements to the text which did not challenge the IPCC’s conclusions are generally treated favorably, but comments which dispute the IPCC’s claims or their certainty are treated with far less indulgence.

In particular, comments which draw attention to natural climate forces (e.g. El Nino influences, or the natural “blocking high” that triggered the 2003 European heat wave) are abruptly rejected. The pretext for some of the rejections was the citation of previous IPCC reports which themselves were inadequately reviewed, and were not subjected to the rigorous peer-review that is customary before a scientific paper can be published in the learned journals. Keep in mind, previous reports were (a) not reviewed in the same manner as scientific papers and (b) were the result of similar dubious processes as in the current report.

...It is difficult to quantify the extent of the reviewers’ support for the IPCC’s conclusions in the chapter on attribution of climate change. Given the number of reviewers who made very few comments, the duplication of comments and the number of minor corrections, it appears likely that less than 40 of the IPCC’s 308 reviewers were generally supportive of the hypothesis. It is not true, therefore, that hundreds of scientists endorsed the IPCC’s findings, still less that thousands did so.

The IPCC’s reports, then, are not peer reviewed in the sense that is commonly understood. The editors, rather than accepting genuine and often well-referenced criticisms of the IPCC’s conclusions, have instead tended simply to reject most substantial criticisms.

Given the number of reviewers who made very few comments, the duplication of comments and the number of minor corrections, it appears likely that less than 40 of the IPCC’s 308 reviewers were generally supportive of the hypothesis. It is not true, therefore, that hundreds of scientists endorsed the IPCC’s findings, still less that thousands did so.

Unfortunately, this experience is not unique. Dr. Landsea, the world's foremost expert on Atlantic Hurricanes was forced to resign because of heavy handed direction by a non-expert (Trenblath) who did not like his conclusions.

McIntyre, a reviewer, also noted the conflict of interests (as with Mann and the Hockey stick in the third AR) and failure to incorporate contradictory studies.

The IPCC is not a review of the literature, it is a stalking horse for a forgone conclusion.
post #275 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

But first to answer you questions. Yes! Definitely! Because you are not to be taken seriously, nor have I ever taken you seriously, you do not convey a sharp intellect, and you tend to box yourself into inextricable positions, from which you cannot escape. And these are all of your doing.

LOL...

Quote:
Tol was largely left out of the AR4 processes this time, so I'm not the least bit surprised that this is the sort of missive that he would try to publish, and thanks to the poor journalistic and peer review processes at E&E, he essentially has an open invitation to publish and distort things to the AGW contrarians own ends.

Do you really think you impress by smearing Tol, without a pinhead of knowledge about why he has or has not participated in this round?

You have NO idea if he was asked, if he declined, or if he was never invited - NONE. Yet you expect a mature person to entertain your ignorance of the matter, as well as nod approvingly on your subsequent character assassination, including your own conjecture on his motives?

What's with the clown act?

Oh here it is...

Quote:
... E&E, et. el. isn't worth the used toilet paper it's written on.

And a final point, NO I refuse to allow you to dictate the form of this debate, you have a major deficiency in the tone of your replies, and I am above taking your bait as it were.

...We definitely don't need more of your n00bness. \

As to what ever you do post, go ahead, but make it about 20 pages long, with another 20 pages of references, like you usually do. I am quite frankly tires of your obtuse language, perhaps others will continue the debate forward, but for the moment I'm exiting stage left, let's see if you can create an echo chamber of your own making.

See you, don't want to be you.

Need I comment?
post #276 of 333
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

No, you'll get mocked for the above two sentences.

That's really too bad. However, it's not surprising.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #277 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

That's really too bad. However, it's not surprising.

I do find it surprising, not so much because science and technology was defied in the early 20th century and has been a marker of 'modernity' and the sophisticated mind BUT because those who tout it are often the same individuals that haul around all sorts of post modern mythologies.

It's quite alright to be positivist when science allegedly proves global warming and looming environmental disasters but it unacceptable when it is used to promote free trade, market systems, note genetic differences in mental abilities between groups, crime rates among illegals, gender differences, etc. THAT is insensitive or evil.

Woe to the researcher that shows recycling to be useless, bio fuels as destructive, or tax cuts to be effective.
post #278 of 333
... the world's number one AGW contrarian jumped right out in front of me and started beating me up repeatedly (and I do truly mean that figuratively speaking).

No, it wasn't MaxPariah!

It was, drum roll please ...

Vincent R. Gray also known as #88 by the IPCC AR4 WG1 (the science) peer review process, also known more simply by the IPCC as VINCENT GRAY (Climate Consultant).

[CENTER]
Quote:
Vincent R. Gray (born 1922, London) is a retired controversial New Zealand-based coal chemist, climate author, self-selected Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) expert reviewer and founder of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition. He is skeptical of anthropogenic global warming, claiming that the evidence for warming is "fatally flawed." Gray has a degree (1942) and Ph.D. (1946) in Physical Chemistry from Cambridge University, England.

Recently, Gray has called for the IPCC to be abolished, claiming it is "fundamentally corrupt" due to his conclusion that for significant parts of the work of the IPCC, the data collection and scientific methods employed are unsound and that the IPCC resists to all efforts to try to discuss or rectify these problems.

Gray was featured on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation program Counterpoint in a debate entitled "Nine Lies about Global Warming", and was interviewed in a featured story in the New Zealand Herald as a "prominent" climate skeptic.

In 2002, Gray also published a book, The Greenhouse Delusion : A Critique of "Climate Change 2001"

[/CENTER]

So, as usual we have an ancient grumpy old man, typical mean/median age of AGW contrarians has got to be 70+ years old, who isn't a climate scientist, saying things that all AGW contrarians say, in other words, they lie royally!

Now what's so unusual about #88, you say?

Well you'd have to go to IPCC WG1 (The Physical Science Basis of Climate Change) and go to the IPCC AR4 WG1 Review Comments and Responses Available near the bottom of that page.

In that section you will find all the peer reviewed comments submitted and dealt with by the IPCC.

So what's so unusual about Vince, you say?

Well Vince, by my count, submitted over three thousand comments (3,063 to be exact (triple checked)) to the review process, not bad for an AGW octogenarian contrarian.

In fact, this would normally be considered a statistical outlier;

[CENTER]
Quote:
In statistics such as stratified samples, an outlier is an observation that is numerically distant from the rest of the data. Statistics derived from data sets that include outliers will often be misleading. For example, if one is calculating the average temperature of 10 objects in a room, and most are between 20 and 25 degrees Celsius, but an oven is at 350 °C, the median of the data may be 23 but the mean temperature will be 55. In this case, the median better reflects the temperature of a randomly sampled object than the mean. Outliers may be indicative of data points that belong to a different population than the rest of the sample set.

[/CENTER]

Anyway, next up will be the Top 10 IPCC AGW Contrarian Commenters as gleaned from the aforementioned link, of course we already know the #1 IPCC Contrarian Commenter also known as Vince, or more simply #88 but I prefer to call him "The OutLIER."
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #279 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

... the world's number one AGW contrarian jumped right out in front of me and started beating me up repeatedly (and I do truly mean that figuratively speaking).

No, it wasn't MaxPariah!

Your (irritating font) point being???????
post #280 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

Your (irritating font) point being???????

Well I rechecked my math, #88 only had 3,054 comments in the IPCC AR4 WG1 process. Sorry for my error.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Another setback for Teh Global Warming™