Coral effects are relevant to climate change because they are all part of the same conspiracy? I'm sorry - if you can't keep this discussion to the scientific issues at hand then it becomes pointless very quickly.
The other article is interesting, but without the full Nature paper I'm not sure what to think, since the summary on phys.org is rather contradictory.
?That is in line with conventional paleoclimatology, but then later we read:
Unfortunately the article here doesn't even attempt to explain how that was determined, so the reader is rather left hanging. In particular, the sentence that I underlined looks remarkably like a statement of the trivially obvious. Clearly there must be more to this study. I'll pull the full paper when I get into the office tomorrow.
The point is that it is a political subject, and every trick of the book (and beyond) is used to convince people of the 'truth'.
But sadly there is no 'truth' the knowledge is just not there, it will be, but currently we have to guess a lot and the models used are only fit to be studied but cannot (and should not) be used to predict the future. We just have to wait a few hundred years and use 'unbiased' information to be sure of the changes around us.
It's maybe nice to know that two of the most important climate factors, CO2 heating and cloud formation are totally inadequately modeled and that the scientific community (at least a small part of it) is aware of that.
As a matter of fact Obama is a supporter of a super computer project that aims to tackle cloud formation modeling.
Yes - water vapor is also a significant greenhouse gas. But why does that mean that increasing the concentration of another greenhouse gas (CO2) doesn't matter? I don't follow your reasoning.
I explained that already, water vapor has an absorption spectrum that overlaps that of CO2, so a higher concentration of CO2 makes no difference, except at the poles.
Oh - apologies - I thought that you were familiar with this subject area. The absorption spectrum indicates relative absorption as a function of wavenumber or frequency. The fact that a particular wavenumber is within an absorption band does not mean that all energy at that frequency is absorbed, and the fact that the absorption spectra overlap would only mean that more CO2 made no difference if the water vapor were already absorbing all the radiation at those frequencies - i.e. the atmosphere were already opaque in that band, which it is not. As a result, increasing either the concentration of water vapor (which is determined entirely by the vapor pressure of water as a function of temperature), or increasing the concentration of CO2, both result in greater absorption, and thus increased radiative forcing.
Coral effects are relevant to climate change because they are all part of the same conspiracy? I'm sorry - if you can't keep this discussion to the scientific issues at hand then it becomes pointless very quickly.
The other article is interesting, but without the full Nature paper I'm not sure what to think, since the summary on phys.org is rather contradictory.
?That is in line with conventional paleoclimatology, but then later we read:
Unfortunately the article here doesn't even attempt to explain how that was determined, so the reader is rather left hanging. In particular, the sentence that I underlined looks remarkably like a statement of the trivially obvious. Clearly there must be more to this study. I'll pull the full paper when I get into the office tomorrow.
The point is that it is a political subject, and every trick of the book (and beyond) is used to convince people of the 'truth'.
But sadly there is no 'truth' the knowledge is just not there, it will be, but currently we have to guess a lot and the models used are only fit to be studied but cannot (and should not) be used to predict the future. We just have to wait a few hundred years and use 'unbiased' information to be sure of the changes around us.
It's maybe nice to know that two of the most important climate factors, CO2 heating and cloud formation are totally inadequately modeled and that the scientific community (at least a small part of it) is aware of that.
As a matter of fact Obama is a supporter of a super computer project that aims to tackle cloud formation modeling.
I would have characterized the situation slightly differently - I would say that every trick in the book is being used to discredit the science.
Well, no. There can be majority, supermajority, or even full agreement on a scientific topic. The point is that such a thing (or erroneously stating such a thing exists) does not mean that the claim about which it pertains is true.
Well, yes. Strictly speaking, science is based on verifiable facts, the ones you've spent a lot of time in this forum claiming don't exist to support climate change for several different reasons (with which I agree, politics and money being the main ones). Claiming a consensus may be fact based, but in itself is at least partially composed of belief. The climate change cabal likes to claim a consensus hoping that a popularity of belief among scientists will translate into a public understanding that it is factually true. But scientific facts ? belief. Obviously there is plenty of fact being used by climate scientists. Unfortunately they either purposely or ignorantly don't have nearly all of them to come to any demonstrable, verifiable conclusions that support their claims. Hence, belief.
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry
Why is that an oxymoron?
See above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by latifbp
I know what you're trying to say, and that you think that it sounds intelligent, but it's actually not. Basically you're suggesting that for science to take place there has to be disagreement. There's something called a peer review process in research that ensures standards are being followed and that the conclusions drawn from the research are valid and reliable. The consensus is that the conclusions drawn from the research are reliable and valid. There are no concerns with the way the research was conducted, with the conclusions, and definitely not that we should start considering the opposite conclusion that of been drawn.
Again, see above.
And no, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that science, strictly speaking, is demonstrable, provable, and repeatable. Disagreement may or may not be part of the process. What is unfortunate is that, in the case of AGW, we do hear proponents (on this thread even) saying things like "the debate is over". While disagreement most certainly is not required for science to take place, it is unfortunate that for the most part, AGW proponents won't even give the skeptic side a chance to show the evidence or make arguments against AGW. Sad actually. No need to school me on the peer review process; I'm quite familiar. Unfortunately, there is a sizable minority of skeptics that question the so-called "consensus" but instead of being engaged and listened to, they are denigrated and shouted down.
Well, no. There can be majority, supermajority, or even full agreement on a scientific topic. The point is that such a thing (or erroneously stating such a thing exists) does not mean that the claim about which it pertains is true.
Well, yes. Strictly speaking, science is based on verifiable facts, the ones you've spent a lot of time in this forum claiming don't exist to support climate change for several different reasons (with which I agree, politics and money being the main ones). Claiming a consensus may be fact based, but in itself is at least partially composed of belief. The climate change cabal likes to claim a consensus hoping that a popularity of belief among scientists will translate into a public understanding that it is factually true. But scientific facts ? belief. Obviously there is plenty of fact being used by climate scientists. Unfortunately they either purposely or ignorantly don't have nearly all of them to come to any demonstrable, verifiable conclusions that support their claims. Hence, belief.
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry
Why is that an oxymoron?
See above.
Well then, no - then you have completely misunderstood the use of the word in the context of science, where it simply means that the bulk of the studies conducted on a particular topic have reached similar conclusions and peer review has not brought those conclusions into question. There is nothing "belief" based about it.
And regarding your "sizable minority of skeptics", well that's excellent, and no doubt you can provide some links to their scientific work, as opposed to propaganda pieces by right-wing think tanks.
Well, yes. Strictly speaking, science is based on verifiable facts, the ones you've spent a lot of time in this forum claiming don't exist to support climate change for several different reasons (with which I agree, politics and money being the main ones). Claiming a consensus may be fact based, but in itself is at least partially composed of belief. The climate change cabal likes to claim a consensus hoping that a popularity of belief among scientists will translate into a public understanding that it is factually true. But scientific facts ? belief. Obviously there is plenty of fact being used by climate scientists. Unfortunately they either purposely or ignorantly don't have nearly all of them to come to any demonstrable, verifiable conclusions that support their claims. Hence, belief.
See above.
Again, see above.
And no, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that science, strictly speaking, is demonstrable, provable, and repeatable. Disagreement may or may not be part of the process. What is unfortunate is that, in the case of AGW, we do hear proponents (on this thread even) saying things like "the debate is over". While disagreement most certainly is not required for science to take place, it is unfortunate that for the most part, AGW proponents won't even give the skeptic side a chance to show the evidence or make arguments against AGW. Sad actually. No need to school me on the peer review process; I'm quite familiar. Unfortunately, there is a sizable minority of skeptics that question the so-called "consensus" but instead of being engaged and listened to, they are denigrated and shouted down.
if skeptics want to do their own research, go ahead. So far all I've seen are histrionics, thus the shouting down. Again though, consensus is that there is no sufficient reason to question the research done, this no reason for NASA to go pursue the opposite opinion. The findings are the findings, you don't pursue certain findings. If you really want to believe that NASA is perpetrating fraud on a mass scale go ahead man. It just sounds like the same old Obama is a Muslim argument.
Well then, no - then you have completely misunderstood the use of the word in the context of science, where it simply means that the bulk of the studies conducted on a particular topic have reached similar conclusions and peer review has not brought those conclusions into question. There is nothing "belief" based about it.
And regarding your "sizable minority of skeptics", well that's excellent, and no doubt you can provide some links to their scientific work, as opposed to propaganda pieces by right-wing think tanks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by latifbp
if skeptics want to do their own research, go ahead. So far all I've seen are histrionics, thus the shouting down. Again though, consensus is that there is no sufficient reason to question the research done, this no reason for NASA to go pursue the opposite opinion. The findings are the findings, you don't pursue certain findings. If you really want to believe that NASA is perpetrating fraud on a mass scale go ahead man. It just sounds like the same old Obama is a Muslim argument.
It's from 2004, but still very relevant, and this is in Technology Review which is ardently pro-AGW. What's pathetic is that the Ross/McKitrick paper that demonstrated Mann's analysis was wrong was itself rejected by Nature. They had to openly post their findings on line to get the word out that Mann's analysis was mathematically wrong. Speaks a lot for peer review, eh? No agenda at Nature, is there???
Here's the link to a page that has the actual paper:
It's from 2004, but still very relevant, and this is in Technology Review which is ardently pro-AGW. What's pathetic is that the Ross/McKitrick paper that demonstrated Mann's analysis was wrong was itself rejected by Nature. They had to openly post their findings on line to get the word out that Mann's analysis was mathematically wrong. Speaks a lot for peer review, eh? No agenda at Nature, is there???
Let's pretend global warming is a hoax. If you can agree pollutants are bad, like any rational persona would, why not just cut out pollutants? What is wrong with that whether the premise is global warming or not?
Let's pretend global warming is a hoax. If you can agree pollutants are bad, like any rational persona would, why not just cut out pollutants? What is wrong with that whether the premise is global warming or not?
Way to deflect the discussion. Do you even understand what AGW is???? Are you actually proposing that pollutants cause global warming???
Again though, consensus is that there is no sufficient reason to question the research done
There is no consensus.
The findings are the findings, you don't pursue certain findings.
And yet that’s exactly what has happened.
If you really want to believe that NASA is perpetrating fraud on a mass scale go ahead man.
Except there’s decades of proof for it.
Never mind that before the early 1980s, NASA repeatedly reported that there’s no greenhouse effect from CO2 beyond a certain amount, whether environmental or manmade.
Originally Posted by latifbp
Let's pretend global warming is a hoax.
That’s not how it works. You were given proof. Acknowledge it.
If you can agree pollutants are bad, like any rational persona would, why not just cut out pollutants?
Refer to the very first post I made in this thread.
ENVIRONMENTALISM HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING
I’m an environmentalist. Pollutants have NOTHING to do with the AGW claim.
What is wrong with that whether the premise is global warming or not?
Because the premise of global warming demands that the Western world spend trillions and destroy its industry and economy to fight climatological and geological effects that ARE NOT HAPPENING.
We can agree that STDs are bad. So why don’t we just kill everyone with an STD to stop them from spreading? Same argument.
Never mind that before the early 1980s, NASA repeatedly reported that there’s no greenhouse effect from CO2 beyond a certain amount, whether environmental or manmade.
That’s not how it works. You were given proof. Acknowledge it.
Refer to the very first post I made in this thread.
ENVIRONMENTALISM HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING
I’m an environmentalist. Pollutants have NOTHING to do with the AGW claim.
Because the premise of global warming demands that the Western world spend trillions and destroy its industry and economy to fight climatological and geological effects that ARE NOT HAPPENING.
We can agree that STDs are bad. So why don’t we just kill everyone with an STD to stop them from spreading? Same argument.
I will not respond to anything from you any longer because you are obviously a very unstable person who already got schooled and tooled by LarryJW.
Way to deflect the discussion. Do you even understand what AGW is???? Are you actually proposing that pollutants cause global warming???
Car emissions are pollutants and yes they are a big factor in global warming and have other averse health effects too, and the industry should make dramatic changes for either of or both reasons. Go for a run in Los Angeles, feel the wheezing, then get back to me.
I will not respond to anything from you any longer because you are obviously a very unstable person who already got schooled and tooled by LarryJW.
Great argument¡ You lose by concession. Either disprove the data, correct the methods used to obtain it, or your entire point is invalidated.
Originally Posted by latifbp
Go for a run in Los Angeles, feel the wheezing, and get back to me.
I remember another anecdote earlier in the thread (or another; I can’t remember anything anymore) about California and smog, presented as though it’s evidence of anything on the topic of the thread. It’s not.
Car emissions are pollutants and yes they are a big factor in global warming and have other averse health effects too, and the industry should make dramatic changes for either of or both reasons. Go for a run in Los Angeles, feel the wheezing, then get back to me.
Tallest Skil's argument: "I'm a winner. I'm a winner. I'm a winner. I'm a winner..." Eventually people are going to tire of your echolalia, pat you on the back, and say "OK buddy, your a winner." But did you really earn it? The sad thing is that some people here are trying to engage you in a debate of merit, and committed to reading what you provided, but you not only will not consider their sound scientific arguments, but continue to persist only with your echolalia of your own opinion. So ok buddy, you're a winner.
Great argument¡ You lose by concession. Either disprove the data, correct the methods used to obtain it, or your entire point is invalidated.
I remember another anecdote earlier in the thread (or another; I can’t remember anything anymore) about California and smog, presented as though it’s evidence of anything on the topic of the thread. It’s not.
Tallest Skil's argument: "I'm a winner. I'm a winner. I'm a winner. I'm a winner..."
I’m literally presenting data straight from the source and you have no refutation to it whatsoever. Anyone who reads the thread can see that you’re lying.
Either refute the information I’ve presented or your point is conceded. Pretending it doesn’t exist doesn’t make it go away. You claimed that NASA was not tampering with collected data. I have provided evidence that it has. Either this data is false (which, if the case, you should be able to quite handily prove) or your statement is false. There are no other options.
Car emissions are pollutants and yes they are a big factor in global warming and have other averse health effects too, and the industry should make dramatic changes for either of or both reasons. Go for a run in Los Angeles, feel the wheezing, then get back to me.
Congratulations: you lost all credibility with this answer (as if you had any to begin with). Someone needs a basic education on AGW: that someone would be you. Please stop posting until said education is acquired.
Congratulations: you lost all credibility with this answer (as if you had any to begin with). Someone needs a basic education on AGW: that someone would be you. Please stop posting until said education is acquired.
I’m literally presenting data straight from the source and you have no refutation to it whatsoever. Anyone who reads the thread can see that you’re lying.
Either refute the information I’ve presented or your point is conceded. Pretending it doesn’t exist doesn’t make it go away. You claimed that NASA was not tampering with collected data. I have provided evidence that it has. Either this data is false (which, if the case, you should be able to quite handily prove) or your statement is false. There are no other options.
Other people have refuted you, but you keep asking for the same from each individual you apparently will engage in some kind of Pokemon like battle until the end with despite the fact I can obviously read and agree with what other people have already said to refute you. Yet you psychotically demand to see it again fresh from every person you engage in conflict, and act as if it hasn't alread been said to you.
Well then, no - then you have completely misunderstood the use of the word in the context of science, where it simply means that the bulk of the studies conducted on a particular topic have reached similar conclusions and peer review has not brought those conclusions into question. There is nothing "belief" based about it.
And regarding your "sizable minority of skeptics", well that's excellent, and no doubt you can provide some links to their scientific work, as opposed to propaganda pieces by right-wing think tanks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by latifbp
if skeptics want to do their own research, go ahead. So far all I've seen are histrionics, thus the shouting down. Again though, consensus is that there is no sufficient reason to question the research done, this no reason for NASA to go pursue the opposite opinion. The findings are the findings, you don't pursue certain findings. If you really want to believe that NASA is perpetrating fraud on a mass scale go ahead man. It just sounds like the same old Obama is a Muslim argument.
It's from 2004, but still very relevant, and this is in Technology Review which is ardently pro-AGW. What's pathetic is that the Ross/McKitrick paper that demonstrated Mann's analysis was wrong was itself rejected by Nature. They had to openly post their findings on line to get the word out that Mann's analysis was mathematically wrong. Speaks a lot for peer review, eh? No agenda at Nature, is there???
Here's the link to a page that has the actual paper:
Unfortunately Ross McKitrick is an economist with a self-declared agenda against the concept of AGW. If he were a scientist, which he isn't, he would be a bad one - he announced his belief that GW itself was a hoax and then set out to prove it. McIntyre (the first author on their papers) is a mining engineer who provided the mathematical contribution. Their Nature paper was, like many others, rejected for technical reasons, and while they did eventually get their message out, it has been refuted by virtually all subsequent studies of the same data. So, in this case, I would say that peer review worked just fine. Scientific journals are not like US elections - they didn't get to publish just because they held a different opinion, no matter how much they squeal and whine about how unfair it is.
In case you are not familiar with the detail of their thesis, it was that the de-centered principle components analysis used by Mann et al. artificially creates hockey stick results, even when applied to random data. They used a 104 Monte Carlo simulation set to conclude that result. It was the start of the hockey stick controversy, and has been extensively reviewed since. Subsequent published studies and a couple of investigations showed a much smaller difference between centered and de-centered PC methods and concluded that their methods were not sound. In any case, it is a slightly academic debate that argues only over whether current temperature trends are unique in the past 1000 years - McIntyre and Mckitrick, in both their GRL and E&E papers are effectively only disputing whether the accepted temperature record in the 1400s is correct.
I'm slightly amused that having asked for some reputable published scientific work supporting the counter-position, rather than right-wing, think tank propaganda, you turned up with a discredited study by a non-scientist who is big in several right-wing think tanks, ably supported by an engineer from the mining industry. Was that all you could find? I'm pretty sure that I can do better than that.
Comments
The point is that it is a political subject, and every trick of the book (and beyond) is used to convince people of the 'truth'.
But sadly there is no 'truth' the knowledge is just not there, it will be, but currently we have to guess a lot and the models used are only fit to be studied but cannot (and should not) be used to predict the future. We just have to wait a few hundred years and use 'unbiased' information to be sure of the changes around us.
It's maybe nice to know that two of the most important climate factors, CO2 heating and cloud formation are totally inadequately modeled and that the scientific community (at least a small part of it) is aware of that.
As a matter of fact Obama is a supporter of a super computer project that aims to tackle cloud formation modeling.
Yes - water vapor is also a significant greenhouse gas. But why does that mean that increasing the concentration of another greenhouse gas (CO2) doesn't matter? I don't follow your reasoning.
I explained that already, water vapor has an absorption spectrum that overlaps that of CO2, so a higher concentration of CO2 makes no difference, except at the poles.
Oh - apologies - I thought that you were familiar with this subject area. The absorption spectrum indicates relative absorption as a function of wavenumber or frequency. The fact that a particular wavenumber is within an absorption band does not mean that all energy at that frequency is absorbed, and the fact that the absorption spectra overlap would only mean that more CO2 made no difference if the water vapor were already absorbing all the radiation at those frequencies - i.e. the atmosphere were already opaque in that band, which it is not. As a result, increasing either the concentration of water vapor (which is determined entirely by the vapor pressure of water as a function of temperature), or increasing the concentration of CO2, both result in greater absorption, and thus increased radiative forcing.
Coral effects are relevant to climate change because they are all part of the same conspiracy? I'm sorry - if you can't keep this discussion to the scientific issues at hand then it becomes pointless very quickly.
The other article is interesting, but without the full Nature paper I'm not sure what to think, since the summary on phys.org is rather contradictory.
?That is in line with conventional paleoclimatology, but then later we read:
Unfortunately the article here doesn't even attempt to explain how that was determined, so the reader is rather left hanging. In particular, the sentence that I underlined looks remarkably like a statement of the trivially obvious. Clearly there must be more to this study. I'll pull the full paper when I get into the office tomorrow.
The point is that it is a political subject, and every trick of the book (and beyond) is used to convince people of the 'truth'.
But sadly there is no 'truth' the knowledge is just not there, it will be, but currently we have to guess a lot and the models used are only fit to be studied but cannot (and should not) be used to predict the future. We just have to wait a few hundred years and use 'unbiased' information to be sure of the changes around us.
It's maybe nice to know that two of the most important climate factors, CO2 heating and cloud formation are totally inadequately modeled and that the scientific community (at least a small part of it) is aware of that.
As a matter of fact Obama is a supporter of a super computer project that aims to tackle cloud formation modeling.
I would have characterized the situation slightly differently - I would say that every trick in the book is being used to discredit the science.
Well, no. There can be majority, supermajority, or even full agreement on a scientific topic. The point is that such a thing (or erroneously stating such a thing exists) does not mean that the claim about which it pertains is true.
Well, yes. Strictly speaking, science is based on verifiable facts, the ones you've spent a lot of time in this forum claiming don't exist to support climate change for several different reasons (with which I agree, politics and money being the main ones). Claiming a consensus may be fact based, but in itself is at least partially composed of belief. The climate change cabal likes to claim a consensus hoping that a popularity of belief among scientists will translate into a public understanding that it is factually true. But scientific facts ? belief. Obviously there is plenty of fact being used by climate scientists. Unfortunately they either purposely or ignorantly don't have nearly all of them to come to any demonstrable, verifiable conclusions that support their claims. Hence, belief.
Why is that an oxymoron?
See above.
I know what you're trying to say, and that you think that it sounds intelligent, but it's actually not. Basically you're suggesting that for science to take place there has to be disagreement. There's something called a peer review process in research that ensures standards are being followed and that the conclusions drawn from the research are valid and reliable. The consensus is that the conclusions drawn from the research are reliable and valid. There are no concerns with the way the research was conducted, with the conclusions, and definitely not that we should start considering the opposite conclusion that of been drawn.
Again, see above.
And no, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that science, strictly speaking, is demonstrable, provable, and repeatable. Disagreement may or may not be part of the process. What is unfortunate is that, in the case of AGW, we do hear proponents (on this thread even) saying things like "the debate is over". While disagreement most certainly is not required for science to take place, it is unfortunate that for the most part, AGW proponents won't even give the skeptic side a chance to show the evidence or make arguments against AGW. Sad actually. No need to school me on the peer review process; I'm quite familiar. Unfortunately, there is a sizable minority of skeptics that question the so-called "consensus" but instead of being engaged and listened to, they are denigrated and shouted down.
Well, no. There can be majority, supermajority, or even full agreement on a scientific topic. The point is that such a thing (or erroneously stating such a thing exists) does not mean that the claim about which it pertains is true.
Well, yes. Strictly speaking, science is based on verifiable facts, the ones you've spent a lot of time in this forum claiming don't exist to support climate change for several different reasons (with which I agree, politics and money being the main ones). Claiming a consensus may be fact based, but in itself is at least partially composed of belief. The climate change cabal likes to claim a consensus hoping that a popularity of belief among scientists will translate into a public understanding that it is factually true. But scientific facts ? belief. Obviously there is plenty of fact being used by climate scientists. Unfortunately they either purposely or ignorantly don't have nearly all of them to come to any demonstrable, verifiable conclusions that support their claims. Hence, belief.
Why is that an oxymoron?
See above.
Well then, no - then you have completely misunderstood the use of the word in the context of science, where it simply means that the bulk of the studies conducted on a particular topic have reached similar conclusions and peer review has not brought those conclusions into question. There is nothing "belief" based about it.
And regarding your "sizable minority of skeptics", well that's excellent, and no doubt you can provide some links to their scientific work, as opposed to propaganda pieces by right-wing think tanks.
Well then, no - then you have completely misunderstood the use of the word in the context of science, where it simply means that the bulk of the studies conducted on a particular topic have reached similar conclusions and peer review has not brought those conclusions into question. There is nothing "belief" based about it.
And regarding your "sizable minority of skeptics", well that's excellent, and no doubt you can provide some links to their scientific work, as opposed to propaganda pieces by right-wing think tanks.
Quote:
if skeptics want to do their own research, go ahead. So far all I've seen are histrionics, thus the shouting down. Again though, consensus is that there is no sufficient reason to question the research done, this no reason for NASA to go pursue the opposite opinion. The findings are the findings, you don't pursue certain findings. If you really want to believe that NASA is perpetrating fraud on a mass scale go ahead man. It just sounds like the same old Obama is a Muslim argument.
They have. We'll start simply, with this one:
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/403256/global-warming-bombshell/
It's from 2004, but still very relevant, and this is in Technology Review which is ardently pro-AGW. What's pathetic is that the Ross/McKitrick paper that demonstrated Mann's analysis was wrong was itself rejected by Nature. They had to openly post their findings on line to get the word out that Mann's analysis was mathematically wrong. Speaks a lot for peer review, eh? No agenda at Nature, is there???
Here's the link to a page that has the actual paper:
http://www.rossmckitrick.com/paleoclimatehockey-stick.html
They have. We'll start simply, with this one:
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/403256/global-warming-bombshell/
It's from 2004, but still very relevant, and this is in Technology Review which is ardently pro-AGW. What's pathetic is that the Ross/McKitrick paper that demonstrated Mann's analysis was wrong was itself rejected by Nature. They had to openly post their findings on line to get the word out that Mann's analysis was mathematically wrong. Speaks a lot for peer review, eh? No agenda at Nature, is there???
Let's pretend global warming is a hoax. If you can agree pollutants are bad, like any rational persona would, why not just cut out pollutants? What is wrong with that whether the premise is global warming or not?
Quote:
Let's pretend global warming is a hoax. If you can agree pollutants are bad, like any rational persona would, why not just cut out pollutants? What is wrong with that whether the premise is global warming or not?
Way to deflect the discussion. Do you even understand what AGW is???? Are you actually proposing that pollutants cause global warming???
There is no consensus.
And yet that’s exactly what has happened.
Except there’s decades of proof for it.
Never mind that before the early 1980s, NASA repeatedly reported that there’s no greenhouse effect from CO2 beyond a certain amount, whether environmental or manmade.
That’s not how it works. You were given proof. Acknowledge it.
Refer to the very first post I made in this thread.
ENVIRONMENTALISM HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING
I’m an environmentalist. Pollutants have NOTHING to do with the AGW claim.
Because the premise of global warming demands that the Western world spend trillions and destroy its industry and economy to fight climatological and geological effects that ARE NOT HAPPENING.
We can agree that STDs are bad. So why don’t we just kill everyone with an STD to stop them from spreading? Same argument.
Great argument¡ You lose by concession. Either disprove the data, correct the methods used to obtain it, or your entire point is invalidated.
I remember another anecdote earlier in the thread (or another; I can’t remember anything anymore) about California and smog, presented as though it’s evidence of anything on the topic of the thread. It’s not.
I’m literally presenting data straight from the source and you have no refutation to it whatsoever. Anyone who reads the thread can see that you’re lying.
Either refute the information I’ve presented or your point is conceded. Pretending it doesn’t exist doesn’t make it go away. You claimed that NASA was not tampering with collected data. I have provided evidence that it has. Either this data is false (which, if the case, you should be able to quite handily prove) or your statement is false. There are no other options.
Car emissions are pollutants and yes they are a big factor in global warming and have other averse health effects too, and the industry should make dramatic changes for either of or both reasons. Go for a run in Los Angeles, feel the wheezing, then get back to me.
Congratulations: you lost all credibility with this answer (as if you had any to begin with). Someone needs a basic education on AGW: that someone would be you. Please stop posting until said education is acquired.
Car emissions have a negligible effect.
Other people have refuted you, but you keep asking for the same from each individual you apparently will engage in some kind of Pokemon like battle until the end with despite the fact I can obviously read and agree with what other people have already said to refute you. Yet you psychotically demand to see it again fresh from every person you engage in conflict, and act as if it hasn't alread been said to you.
Well then, no - then you have completely misunderstood the use of the word in the context of science, where it simply means that the bulk of the studies conducted on a particular topic have reached similar conclusions and peer review has not brought those conclusions into question. There is nothing "belief" based about it.
And regarding your "sizable minority of skeptics", well that's excellent, and no doubt you can provide some links to their scientific work, as opposed to propaganda pieces by right-wing think tanks.
Quote:
if skeptics want to do their own research, go ahead. So far all I've seen are histrionics, thus the shouting down. Again though, consensus is that there is no sufficient reason to question the research done, this no reason for NASA to go pursue the opposite opinion. The findings are the findings, you don't pursue certain findings. If you really want to believe that NASA is perpetrating fraud on a mass scale go ahead man. It just sounds like the same old Obama is a Muslim argument.
They have. We'll start simply, with this one:
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/403256/global-warming-bombshell/
It's from 2004, but still very relevant, and this is in Technology Review which is ardently pro-AGW. What's pathetic is that the Ross/McKitrick paper that demonstrated Mann's analysis was wrong was itself rejected by Nature. They had to openly post their findings on line to get the word out that Mann's analysis was mathematically wrong. Speaks a lot for peer review, eh? No agenda at Nature, is there???
Here's the link to a page that has the actual paper:
http://www.rossmckitrick.com/paleoclimatehockey-stick.html
Unfortunately Ross McKitrick is an economist with a self-declared agenda against the concept of AGW. If he were a scientist, which he isn't, he would be a bad one - he announced his belief that GW itself was a hoax and then set out to prove it. McIntyre (the first author on their papers) is a mining engineer who provided the mathematical contribution. Their Nature paper was, like many others, rejected for technical reasons, and while they did eventually get their message out, it has been refuted by virtually all subsequent studies of the same data. So, in this case, I would say that peer review worked just fine. Scientific journals are not like US elections - they didn't get to publish just because they held a different opinion, no matter how much they squeal and whine about how unfair it is.
In case you are not familiar with the detail of their thesis, it was that the de-centered principle components analysis used by Mann et al. artificially creates hockey stick results, even when applied to random data. They used a 104 Monte Carlo simulation set to conclude that result. It was the start of the hockey stick controversy, and has been extensively reviewed since. Subsequent published studies and a couple of investigations showed a much smaller difference between centered and de-centered PC methods and concluded that their methods were not sound. In any case, it is a slightly academic debate that argues only over whether current temperature trends are unique in the past 1000 years - McIntyre and Mckitrick, in both their GRL and E&E papers are effectively only disputing whether the accepted temperature record in the 1400s is correct.
I'm slightly amused that having asked for some reputable published scientific work supporting the counter-position, rather than right-wing, think tank propaganda, you turned up with a discredited study by a non-scientist who is big in several right-wing think tanks, ably supported by an engineer from the mining industry. Was that all you could find? I'm pretty sure that I can do better than that.
You’ll want to try that again.
How about indulging me just once “more” and refuting what I posted above that literally no one addressed?