Global Warming Thread X

The place to discuss politics and policy issues that are not directly related to matters of faith.

Moderator: Jon Estes

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby David Flick » Mon Aug 23, 2010 4:51 am

.
.
Keith, you're a phenomenal spinmeister. I'll hand it to you. As a prolific purveyor of AGW propaganda, you have no peer on BL.Com. Due to the length of your response, I'm going to split it into two replies. Here's part #1...

David Flick wrote:.
.
Here's an interesting review of Warmist-in-Chief, Jame Hansen's, latest book. Catastrophic AGW alarmism at it's very best...
My favorite comment (written by Charles Higley) is #15

KeithE wrote:Let's see Jim Hollingworth's DATAless rambling text vs. James Hansen's 40 years experience looking at the DATA.
    It matters little whether or not Hollingsworth's "rambling text" is "DATAless." The fact is that Hansen has long since been discredited for spinning and creating false data. Virtually nobody other than the most rabid AGW alarmists believe what he is saying about global warming. Hansen is a huge embarrassment for NASA . He has been described as a disgrace to NASA. That graph you are so fond of posting is a Hansen creation. He manipulated the data seven ways from sunset to create the illusion that the earth has warmed excessively over the past decade. Here's the truth of how he manipulated the data for that particular graph. He's the one who set Al Gore on the path to becoming the most powerful AGW alarmist on the globe. You can attempt to discredit my sources all you wish, Keith, but you're spitting against the wind when you do. The truth is the truth no matter from whom it comes...

Who is Jim Hollingsworth? - a building contractor in Idaho, and losing RW (no doubt) politician
Jim Hollingsworth is a building contractor in Kootenai County, Idaho. He has run for State Representative three times and is active in causes of liberty in Idaho

    Doesn't matter who Hollingsworth is. He speaks truth...
I think I'll hang with Hansen.
    You can hang with him now and you'll hang with him when when world wakes to up to the fact that AGW is is a nonexistent fantasy.
As for Higley's (#15) great quote in the denialist Master Resource "free- market energy blog":
1) The hypothesis of manmade global warming by CO2 does not have a single piece of defendable science behind it.

Take away the thoroughly discredited Hockey Stick and the artificial and dishonest altered temperature records (which produce global warming on paper) and all you have is opinion.

2) All of Dr. Hansen’s spiel is unsupported for the simple fact that it is ALL opinion.

1) The hockey stick has not been discredited to anyone but in denialist rags such as this. And even if it was, this sort of paleoclimatic study is far from the only (or best) data that proves UNDENIALABLY that GW exists - read on in 2). And the connection between CO2 concentration in the atmsophere and GW is evident to anyone who understands absorption bands in the infrared (12-20 microns CO2 absorption band).
    You're the "denialist" now, Keith. Denying the fact that Mann's graph has been discredited reveals how out of touch you are with reality. Call the detractors by terms like "denialist rags," the "denialistphere," the "denialist machine," or whatever term you wish, the hockey stick has been thoroughly discredited by scores of sources. As far back as '05, the hockey stick was disclosed as being "broken" and "dead". Others say this, this, and this
2) Hansen has DATA, loads of it - read about it here. Dig deep. Mr. Higdon [sic] offers only hot air (pun intended), that is 'opinion' (ill-informed - he offered no DATA).

More in my followup reply...
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8476
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby David Flick » Mon Aug 23, 2010 7:16 am

.
.
Reply to Keith Part #2
David Flick wrote:.
.
Here's the latest from Roy Spencer on sea-surface temps:
KeithE wrote:As for Spencer's choice of what he reports out of his DATA, I wonder why he chooses to show the only data set (the sea surface temps) that makes his case vs all the other altitudes data (channels 04, 05,06,07,08,10,12,13) which all report substantially higher air temp this year than last and a positive (in a numeric sense) trend in temp since 1979 (although Spencer has left out the most positve trend portions - 1979-1998 - in his online data). Check it out at http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/ (again that DATA that David refuses to look at - again and again!).

    No Keith, I don't refuse to look at Spencer's data. I've viewed it numerous times. I don't accept your spin on it. It amazes me how you can spin his data to support your views when you know full well that he's a skeptic and disagrees completely with the view that global warming/climate change is man-made.
Fact is that there is a partially unexplained finding that when the sea surface temps go down, the air temps go up especially at low altitudes. Conservation of energy at play no doubt but exact mechanism unknown. That is what has happened since July 1 2010 (according to the DATA if one is honest enough to look at all the data). 1Instead David chooses to believe Spencer's one data source focus on SSTs. 2Spencer deludes himself or he is playing to his book-buying, Rush-listening, anti-regulation, and/or GW-denialists audience and has lost the title of "scientist" in the process as far as I'm concerned. 3But I'll look at his DATA. Also note that even the sea surface temps have a long term positive (in a numeric sense) trend.
    1) Actually, I believe everything Spencer writes.I count him as one of my favorite climate scientists. I have two of his books and they're great sources for understanding climate science. His website is also a great source. His Global Warming 101 article is very good. And he answers the question about whether global warming is natural or manmade is one of the best I've read thus far. Of course, I also like John Christy. in my opinion, Alabama has the nations best team of climate scientists bar none. And I will credit you as being Alabama's #1 AGW proponant. :wink:

    2) You crack me up, Keith. :lol: Your best efforts of trying to discredit discredit Spencer, Christy, and any skeptic climate scientist border on hilarity. Spencer hasn't deluded himself. You the one who lives in a world of delusion. Describing him with stuff like he "deludes himself or he is playing to his book-buying, Rush-listening, anti-regulation, and/or GW-denialists audience" is just plain silly. When you can't win a debate with the facts, you resort to trying to discredit him. You're on the losing side in this argument.

    3) Spin his data however you like but you'll never be able to honestly refute his argument that climate change is not catastrophic. To date, the comment in his latest book is my favorite. (Spencer: I predict that at some point in the future we will realize that the fear of catastrophic climate change was the worst case of mass hysteria the world has ever known.)
1Apparently David hates DATA and hides it. But I and most scientists live by DATA. The following plot shows all the lower troposphere satellite data (2 data reductions/analyses) and the direct surface air measurement from Phil Jones (i.e. the Hadley data which has not been discredited either in any place other than denialist rags - three independent studies have exonerated the data).
chart reduced to conserve space
2or this smaller plot just for David
Image
    1) I don't hate data nor do I hide it. I reject you spin on the alarmist versions of data. alarmists have an incessent need to find and/or create data that suits their purposes of creating the impression that man is the cause of global warming/climate change. I reject the notion that man can do a thing to control or alter global climate.

    2) Thanks for the smaller graph. Nice... :D

Info about the plot:
This figure compares the global average surface temperature record, as compiled by Jones and Moberg (2003; data set TaveGL2v with 2009 updates), to the microwave sounder (MSU) satellite data of lower atmospheric temperatures determined by Christy et al. (UAH 2003; data set tltglhmam version 5.2 with 2009 updates) and Schabel et al. (RSS 2002; data set tlt_land_and_ocean with 2009 updates). These two satellite records reflect two different ways of interpreting the same set of microwave sounder measurements and are not independent records. Each record is plotted as the monthly average and straight lines are fit through each data set from January 1982 to December 2009. The slope of these lines are 0.187°C/decade, 0.163°C/decade, and 0.239°C/decade for the surface, UAH, and RSS respectively.

It is important to know that the 5.2 version of Christy et al.'s satellite temperature record contains a significant correction over previous versions. In summer 2005, Mears and Wentz (2005) discovered that the UAH processing algorithms were incorrectly adjusting for diurnal variations, especially at low latitude. This correction raised the trend line 0.035°C/decade, and in so doing brought it into much better agreement with the ground based records and with independent satellite based analysis (e.g. Fu et al. 2004). The discovery of this error also explains why their satellite based temperature trends had disagreed most prominently in the tropics.

Within measurement error, all of these records paint a similar picture of temperature change and global warming


And I'll add, amounts to strong independent verification of the fastest rate of temp rise ever witnessed (>10X as fast than the uprise associated with the last de- glaciation period [138193 - 131250 years ago] whose temp rise was 9.4C and rise rate was +0.0135 C/decade) according to the Vostok data . Compare 0.0135 to 0.163 C/decade(lowest of the estimates in plot above). What is happening since 1977 is very significant (ever since I grew my beard).
    But I will comment on this paragraph. Keith, you're dead wrong if you think the recent rise in temperature is the fastest ever witnessed. Steve Goddard, in an article that appeared yesterday (8/22) on Watts Up With That?, showed that the temperature rose .5C degrees over a 30 year period between 1910 and 1940. It is precisely, almost exactly, the same rate of rise in temperature that occurred between 1975 to 2005. Here's the original graph:
    Image
    Here's the annotated graph
    Image
    Here's the youtube video that shows the comparison of the rises in temperature during the two separate temperature rises. So it's a myth to say that temperatures have risen in the last 30 years faster than at any point in prior global history.

And note it is the lower tropospheric air temp that directly relates to weather extremes we are seeing (Moscow, Pakistan, China, Greenland) and many other effects of GW. The ocean temps (indepth, not just the surface) have bleached coral, increased ocean acidity and eliminated 40% of the phytoplankton which is the bottom of the ocean's food chain (note: these are not just predictions, they have already happened as has an increase in extreme weather events - all part of the COST of no action already realized).

Spencer and Christy have continued to post their satellite data daily even after this so-called "Satellite Gate" sham has hit the denialogsphere. The O'Sullivan article would have us wipe out all the satellite data. They (Christy and Spencer) long ago (in 2006) have taken out the erroneous NOAA satellite sensor data (one satellite sensor out of a constellation) from their database - as the O'Sullivan article quoted them as saying under the heading "Evidence from climate experts points to conspiracy to deceive".

Evidence from Climate Experts Points to Conspiracy to Deceive
Dr. Roy Spencer commented, “Obviously, whatever happened to NOAA-16 AVHRR (or the software) introduced HUGE errors. We always had trouble with NOAA-16 AMSU, and dropped it long ago. It had calibration drifts that made it unsuitable for climate monitoring.”

Dr Christy particularly addressed faults exclusively with the AMSU instrumentation and not problems with the AVHRR system. He advised me, “We spent a lot of time in 2006 trying to deal with the issues of NOAA-16, but the errors were so erratic, we ended up eliminating it as one of the backbones of our dataset.”


That coupled with the Chuck Pistis unchecked position amounts to hilariously bad reporting from O'Sullivan - 1just like all the other Heartland, CEI, ..... disinformation prevading the web but not 2the real academic climate scienctists (97% of which believe in AGW).
    1) Your attempts to discredit Heartland, CEI and other skeptical organizations are noted. But you're just repeating the typical AGW propaganda,which is nonsense regarding these organizations.

    2) Do you actually believe that 97% of the "real" climate scientists believe in AGW?? That's the biggest bunch of B.S. you've come up with to date. You're not even close, my friend. 97% of Scientists Do Not Believe in the Theory of Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming
Have a nice weekend - we are going to Nashville.
    I assume that your weekend in Nashville went well. My weekend went well. Had an above average attendance at church on Sunday. Took a nice afternoon nap.
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8476
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby KeithE » Mon Aug 23, 2010 7:48 am

You got me on that one about the 1910-1940 being the fastest rate of temp growth (ever so slightly faster than 1977-2005).

But the whole industrialized period from 1910- today is greater than any of the temp rise rates of the de-glaciation periods. That is what GW is about.

It is now up to you to study the Vostok data or compare the rates for the MWP. (hint:they are much smaller by factors of 10 or more).

Note that today [July 09- June 10] the temp anomaly is about 0.6 on your plot with the 1961-1990 base.

Besides I thought all this DATA was manipulated???

Can't get to all your post till at least tonight (in fact only read the data plot). Good points are made there. CO2 is not the only cause of GW and there are lag times involved and ill-understood interchanges betwee ocean and air to consider.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9175
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby Ed Edwards » Mon Aug 23, 2010 2:52 pm

Haruo: // Global Cooling took effect here in Seattle ... \\

Tee Hee! you all is funnie!
I am going to have to par US$100 extra on my August 2010 Electrical Bill (in addition to the US$200 I paid for my July 2010 Bill) because of the extra heat in Central Oklahoma in August. While most of the rest of the places on earth in July 2010 were heated up more than usual for July (including one "hot spot" that covered a winter Southern Ice Cap spot south of S.America) -- my place was average for all the Julys of the 20th Century 1901-2000.

Strangely 'Seattle' never has been, is not, and is not likely to EVER BE "Global". So thank you for a nice humor of your post.

Is there a Bible Scripture that says something like "A Merry Heart doeth good like a Medicine"?
Keep the Planet Cool :angel:
( for the physical Millennial Messianic Reign of Jesus )


Image

-- Ed Edwards, AGW Dude
(AGW = Anthropogenic Global Warming)
Ed Edwards
 
Posts: 615
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 10:21 pm
Location: Exciting Central Oklahoma

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby KeithE » Mon Aug 23, 2010 9:55 pm

Reasons for the early/mid 1900's temperature profile

In short, there were other factors than just CO2 concentration (volcanic activity, solar activity, ocean currents changes as the article above mentions) that augmented the temp increase in the 1910-1940 period and curtailed the temp rise in the 1940-1977 period.

Besides I'll take back what I said this morning. Upon closer evaluation of David's plot (black lines to take out "noise") the temp rise rates are:

1977- 2005 period is (0.42C-(-.08C))/28 years = .179C/decade
1910-1940 period is ((-0.02) - (-0.50))/30 years = .160C/decade

(you can check this out yourself by putting a pencil over the 1910-1940 slope and moving it to the 1977-2005 period on the Hadley data plot David plotted up in his post; but the slopes are close)

The denialists (and me) placed great hope in the slope becoming zero ("stuck on high") from 2005 until now. But that clearly is not the case given the 2009/2010 data (both satellite and ground sensors). If you use recent 2009/2010 data, the 1977-2010(so far) period slope is about .185C/decade.

So if you insist on being selectively nitpicky, the recent warming is faster than 1910-1940. I say nitpicky in that the overall trend since 1910 - 2009 is 0.086C/decade which is still at least 6 times faster than the deglaciation periods in the Vostok data.

So, one cannot make the case, that the rise over the last 100 years is all "natural" variation, as this work of the IPCC 2001 shows:
Image
Note that the GISS model (blue lines above) reproduces quite closely the whole temp profile from 1860 to today when using all factors (natural and human-induced). When not using human-induced factors, the rise since 1977 is not supportable and the overall match is not as good. This is a very key chart in establishing AGW and in validating the climate models (although I have not seen whether or not the models do as well during the slow down in temp rise in the 1999-2008 time period; but the 2009/2010 data has made up for the lack of temp rise over almost a decade in just 1 year).

_________________
David wrote:No Keith, I don't refuse to look at Spencer's data. I've viewed it numerous times. I don't accept your spin on it. It amazes me how you can spin his data to support your views when you know full well that he's a skeptic and disagrees completely with the view that global warming/climate change is man-made.


What amazes me is that Spencer talks on his blog about the very recent (since June 10) Sea Surface Temps (SSTs) channel that happened to be lower than 2009's data which was the highest year in his data set (and 2010 is second highest). He does not mention all the other air temp data (more important to weather events) at altitudes in 8 other channels covering from sea level to 38km altitude; in all these datasets, the recent year (from July 1, 2009 to Aug 22, 2010) is higher (in almost all cases) than corresponding times of year than any other year in his dataset. That's extreme cherry picking my friend. He is playing you (and eager deniers like you) like a fiddle.

_________________
David wrote:Do you actually believe that 97% of the "real" climate scientists believe in AGW?? That's the biggest bunch of B.S. you've come up with to date. You're not even close, my friend. 97% of Scientists Do Not Believe in the Theory of Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming


Yes I believe it is a very high percentage of real climatologists that believe in AGW. If you think that 97% do not believe in AGW, like your article title, you are in la la land my friend.

Your article compares a very flawed Oregon Petition mainly in 1999-2001 with a genuinely scientific poll Doran/Zimmerman online poll in 2008 asking the question
"Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"
Image.
The poll showed that the more a scientist is actually involved in researching/pubishing, the more s/he is AGW. That survey was conducted with a scieintific online polling outfit "questionpro". The late Steven Schneider did a simliar study in 2009 and got 98% of the most climate-involved scientists believe in AGW. The Oregon Petition got 30,000+ people (whose credentials were not checked) to sign a very flawed wording (e.g. "catastrophic heating", biased cover letter by the late Fred Seitz) and was done by a overtly biased organization (OSIM) with no record of how many refused to sign the petition.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9175
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby David Flick » Tue Aug 24, 2010 1:06 pm

.
.
Keith, you can pack more AGW propaganda into a smaller space than any person I know. :lol:

KeithE wrote: Link from SkepticalScience.Com website ---->Reasons for the early/mid 1900's temperature profile

In short, there were other factors than just CO2 concentration (volcanic activity, solar activity, ocean currents changes as the article above mentions) that augmented the temp increase in the 1910-1940 period and curtailed the temp rise in the 1940-1977 period.
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    The long
    and the short of the matter is that the SkepticalScience.Com website is losing the debate just like all the other alarmist websites. Like the two penguins with their heads twisted backward over their shoulders looking at a little green plant popping up out of the Antarctic ice, Jan Dash and John Cook twist the 119 skeptical arguments into imaginary answers they think will support the imaginary theory of anthropogenic global warming. Great stuff for the those who AGW true believers but nonsense to those who understand real climate science.
------------------------------------------------------------------

1Besides I'll take back what I said this morning. Upon closer evaluation of David's plot (black lines to take out "noise") the temp rise rates are:

11977- 2005 period is (0.42C-(-.08C))/28 years = .179C/decade
1910-1940 period is ((-0.02) - (-0.50))/30 = .160C decade

1(you can check this out yourself by putting a pencil over the 1910-1940 slope and moving it to the 1977-2005 period on the Hadley data plot David plotted up in his post)

1And if you use recent 2009/2010 data, the 1977-2010(so far) period slope is about .185C/decade.

2Thus recent warming is faster, even if you insist on being selectively nitpicky.

2Overall since 1910 - 2009 the rate has been 0.086C/decade which is still at least 6 times faster than the deglaciation periods in the Vostok data.
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    1) I rest my case. Your amazing ability to twist the data to give the appearance of AGW is beyond question.

    2) I'm not insisting on being nitpicky. You're the one doing that. The recent warming period, such as it is, is both normal and natural. And most certainly not unprecedented (as documented here)

    3) So what if the rate of warming between 1910 - 2009 is 6 times faster than the deglaciation periods in the Vostok data? How does that prove AGW? What's catastrophic about the present warming period?
------------------------------------------------------------------

1One cannot make the case, that the rise over the last 100 years is all "natural" variation.
Image
2Note that the GISS model (blue lines above) reproduces the whole temp profile from 1860 to today using all factors (natural and human-induced) in a legitimate fashion (i.e. only prior causal factors). 3When not using human-induced factors, the rise since 1977 is not supportable. This is a very key chart in establishing AGW and in validating the climate models (although I have not seen whether or not they predicted the slow down in the 2000-2008 time period; but the 2009/2010 data has made up for the lack of temp rise over almost a decade in just 1 year).
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    1) Even using the GISS model, you cannot make the case that the rise over the last 100 years is human-induced. There have been numerous warming periods in global history, including the Medieval Warming Period (MWP which was much warmer than the present), wherein it was impossible to attribute the warming to human beings.

    2) The GISS model is Hansen's creation. It has been widely discredited. That said, even if the GISS model was correct, no one has ever proven that the warming trend was human-induced.

    3) Again, human-induced global warming is unproven.
------------------------------------------------------------------

David wrote:No Keith, I don't refuse to look at Spencer's data. I've viewed it numerous times. I don't accept your spin on it. It amazes me how you can spin his data to support your views when you know full well that he's a skeptic and disagrees completely with the view that global warming/climate change is man-made.

What amazes me is that Spencer talks on his blog about the very recent (since June 10) Sea Surface Temps (SSTs) channel that happened to be lower than 2009's data which was the highest year in his data set (and 2010 is second highest). He does not mention all the other air temp data (more important to weather events) at altitudes in 8 other channels covering from sea level to 38km altitude; in all these datasets, the recent year (from July 1, 2009 to Aug 22, 2010) is higher (in almost all cases) than corresponding times of year than any other year in his dataset. That's extreme cherry picking my friend. He is playing you (and eager deniers like you) like a fiddle.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Call it cherry picking. Call it extreme cherry picking. call it whatever you will, you're never going to successfully pick Spencer's argument apart. Nor will you ever be able to twist his data support AGW. So He's playing me like a fiddle? No wonder my posts have such a nice musical ring to them? :lol:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
David wrote:Do you actually believe that 97% of the "real" climate scientists believe in AGW?? That's the biggest bunch of B.S. you've come up with to date. You're not even close, my friend. 97% of Scientists [size=150]Do Not Believe in the Theory of Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming

Yes I believe it is a very high percentage of real climatologists that believe in AGW. If you think that 97% do not believe in AGW, like your article title, you are in la la land my friend.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------
    You're the dweller in la la land. There's no way under the sunspotless sun that 97% percent of real climatologists believe in AGW. I can believe that 97% of alarmist climatologists do believe the unbelievable.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

1Your article compares a very flawed Oregon Petition mainly in 1999-2001 with a genuinely scientific poll The 2008 poll in 2008 asking the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"
Image.
The poll showed that the more a scientist is actually involved in researching/pubishing the more he is AGW. 2The late Steven Schneider did a simliar poll in 2009 and got 98% of the most climate-involved scientists believe in AGW. The Oregon Petition got 30,000+ people (whose credentials were not checked) to sign a very flawed wording (e.g. "catastrophic heating" , no mention of the effects of that heating) and was done by a overtly biased organization - no record of how many refused to sign the petition.

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    1) For years alarmists have attempted to discredit the Oregon Petition. It has been a veritable thorn in the flesh of the alarmist community. They have been unsuccessful. The Wikipedia article which you reference is an attempt to discredit the petition. But it's well known that Wikipedia is the evangelical arm of the AGW movement and information about global warming found on that website is totally untrustworthy for accuracy in reporting.

    2) Don't expect me to believe any poll Stephen Schneider ever took. He was definitely an interesting character, that's for sure. When he gave up the ghost, he was a professor of Environmental Biology and Global Change at Stanford University. He spent almost his entire career pushing weird off the chart environmental alarmism. Early in his career Schneider preached catastrophic global cooling. When that didn't pan out, he switched to preaching catastrophic global warming.

    Regarding catastrophic global warming, Schneider once bragged that even though one doesn’t have good science to support one’s conclusions, it’s better to scare the masses for the sake of the Earth and lie to them than it is to not say anything. In the October 1989 issue of DISCOVER magazine, he was quoted as saying:
      "On the one hand, as scientists, we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but…. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination…. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have…. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." Source...
    Lying and disinformation is the MO of many AGW proponents. Schneider joined Al Gore and James Hansen in many global warming disinformation campaigns. It's probably a blessing that he went to green heaven without realizing that he was on the losing side of this debate. We'll all be in heaven before the mythical AGW comes to pass. In fact, I'll bet the farm that Jesus comes before before AGW happens... :wink:
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8476
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby KeithE » Tue Aug 24, 2010 9:29 pm

David Flick wrote:.
.
Keith, you can pack more AGW propaganda into a smaller space than any person I know. :lol:

KeithE wrote: Link from SkepticalScience.Com website ---->Reasons for the early/mid 1900's temperature profile

In short, there were other factors than just CO2 concentration (volcanic activity, solar activity, ocean currents changes as the article above mentions) that augmented the temp increase in the 1910-1940 period and curtailed the temp rise in the 1940-1977 period.
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    The long
    and the short of the matter is that the SkepticalScience.Com website is losing the debate just like all the other alarmist websites. Like the two penguins with their heads twisted backward over their shoulders looking at a little green plant popping up out of the Antarctic ice, Jan Dash and John Cook twist the 119 skeptical arguments into imaginary answers they think will support the imaginary theory of anthropogenic global warming. Great stuff for the those who AGW true believers but nonsense to those who understand real climate science.

Your claim that "skeptical science" is losing the debate is unfounded if all you can point to is some cartoon-based emotional appeal.
------------------------------------------------------------------

1Besides I'll take back what I said this morning. Upon closer evaluation of David's plot (black lines to take out "noise") the temp rise rates are:

11977- 2005 period is (0.42C-(-.08C))/28 years = .179C/decade
1910-1940 period is ((-0.02) - (-0.50))/30 = .160C decade

1(you can check this out yourself by putting a pencil over the 1910-1940 slope and moving it to the 1977-2005 period on the Hadley data plot David plotted up in his post)

1And if you use recent 2009/2010 data, the 1977-2010(so far) period slope is about .185C/decade.

2Thus recent warming is faster, even if you insist on being selectively nitpicky.

2Overall since 1910 - 2009 the rate has been 0.086C/decade which is still at least 6 times faster than the deglaciation periods in the Vostok data.
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    1) I rest my case. Your amazing ability to twist the data to give the appearance of AGW is beyond question.

    You have no case. I use numbers read carefully off the Hadley data you supplied (but think it is all "manipulated") and you just claim I'm twisting the data. BTW the only point being made at this point was that the slope in the 1977-2005 period is very slightly greater than that in the 1910-1940 period (0.179 vs 0.160 C/decade) which is substantiated again with the video you supply below at here. So thanks!

    2) I'm not insisting on being nitpicky. You're the one doing that. The recent warming period, such as it is, is both normal and natural. And most certainly not unprecedented (as documented here)

    GW has been happening since 1910. And that linear trend rate (0.086 C/decade) can truly be called unpecedented since it is 6x higher than any comparable period in known history temp measurements. See Vostok data.

    3) So what if the rate of warming between 1910 - 2009 is 6 times faster than the deglaciation periods in the Vostok data? How does that prove AGW? What's catastrophic about the present warming period?
The effects are already bad (ocean acidity, coral bleaching, photoplankton 40% loss, increased extreme weather events, water shortages, wildfires, mudslides, heat waves) and will get worse if the rate continues.
------------------------------------------------------------------

1One cannot make the case, that the rise over the last 100 years is all "natural" variation.
Image
2Note that the GISS model (blue lines above) reproduces the whole temp profile from 1860 to today using all factors (natural and human-induced) in a legitimate fashion (i.e. only prior causal factors). 3When not using human-induced factors, the rise since 1977 is not supportable. This is a very key chart in establishing AGW and in validating the climate models (although I have not seen whether or not they predicted the slow down in the 2000-2008 time period; but the 2009/2010 data has made up for the lack of temp rise over almost a decade in just 1 year).
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    1) Even using the GISS model, you cannot make the case that the rise over the last 100 years is human-induced. There have been numerous warming periods in global history, including the Medieval Warming Period (MWP which was much warmer than the present), wherein it was impossible to attribute the warming to human beings.
    The MWP was a minor (proably local to Europe) very modest (~.15C peak) and very slow rolling (half period of abut 300 years). Nothng like we are seeing in the 20th century.
    Image


    2) The GISS model is Hansen's creation. It has been widely discredited. That said, even if the GISS model was correct, no one has ever proven that the warming trend was human-induced.
    Show me a non-denialist source who discredits the GISS ModelE. It was spoken highly of by the IPCC 2007. Here's the GISS ModelE Validation Report and look at Fig. S1 in supplemental data about midway through the link. That is excellent validation; if anything the model underpredicts the surface measured data since 1996. But many of the peaks and valleys are replicated (model inputs are all casual factors some natural some human-induced).

    And the plots above ( with the circles ) give virtual proof* that when human-forcings are included, the models match the warming trends since 1977. Not so when those human-forcings are not included. What could be clearer??? What proof do you offer to say humans have not affected anything substantially?

    *Proof is never final in science, but this is very well supported >95% confidence


    3) Again, human-induced global warming is unproven.
------------------------------------------------------------------

David wrote:No Keith, I don't refuse to look at Spencer's data. I've viewed it numerous times. I don't accept your spin on it. It amazes me how you can spin his data to support your views when you know full well that he's a skeptic and disagrees completely with the view that global warming/climate change is man-made.

What amazes me is that Spencer talks on his blog about the very recent (since June 10) Sea Surface Temps (SSTs) channel that happened to be lower than 2009's data which was the highest year in his data set (and 2010 is second highest). He does not mention all the other air temp data (more important to weather events) at altitudes in 8 other channels covering from sea level to 38km altitude; in all these datasets, the recent year (from July 1, 2009 to Aug 22, 2010) is higher (in almost all cases) than corresponding times of year than any other year in his dataset. That's extreme cherry picking my friend. He is playing you (and eager deniers like you) like a fiddle.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Call it cherry picking. Call it extreme cherry picking. call it whatever you will, you're never going to successfully pick Spencer's argument apart. Nor will you ever be able to twist his data support AGW. So He's playing me like a fiddle? No wonder my posts have such a nice musical ring to them? :lol:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
David wrote:Do you actually believe that 97% of the "real" climate scientists believe in AGW?? That's the biggest bunch of B.S. you've come up with to date. You're not even close, my friend. 97% of Scientists [size=150]Do Not Believe in the Theory of Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming

Yes I believe it is a very high percentage of real climatologists that believe in AGW. If you think that 97% do not believe in AGW, like your article title, you are in la la land my friend.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------
    You're the dweller in la la land. There's no way under the sunspotless sun that 97% percent of real climatologists believe in AGW. I can believe that 97% of alarmist climatologists do believe the unbelievable.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Your "sunspotless sun" widget is hilarious. You know that the slope of the CO2 line could be made to appear to have equal slope to the temp linear trend by merely changing the CO2 concentration scale on the rght. Besides there are lags, ocean currents, volvanic activity, land-use and solar activity (minor) factors that drive the temp peaks and valleys (on tope of that upward linear trend) that Hansen's model has figure out quite welol as demonstrated in the validation data I have shown in the supplemental info above. You are just s=howing your inepitude in data nalysis again.

1Your article compares a very flawed Oregon Petition mainly in 1999-2001 with a genuinely scientific poll The 2008 poll in 2008 asking the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"
Image.
The poll showed that the more a scientist is actually involved in researching/pubishing the more he is AGW. 2The late Steven Schneider did a simliar poll in 2009 and got 98% of the most climate-involved scientists believe in AGW. The Oregon Petition got 30,000+ people (whose credentials were not checked) to sign a very flawed wording (e.g. "catastrophic heating" , no mention of the effects of that heating) and was done by a overtly biased organization - no record of how many refused to sign the petition.

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    1) For years alarmists have attempted to discredit the Oregon Petition. It has been a veritable thorn in the flesh of the alarmist community. They have been unsuccessful. The Wikipedia article which you reference is an attempt to discredit the petition. But it's well known that Wikipedia is the evangelical arm of the AGW movement and information about global warming found on that website is totally untrustworthy for accuracy in reporting.

    2) Don't expect me to believe any poll Stephen Schneider ever took. He was definitely an interesting character, that's for sure. When he gave up the ghost, he was a professor of Environmental Biology and Global Change at Stanford University. He spent almost his entire career pushing weird off the chart environmental alarmism. Early in his career Schneider preached catastrophic global cooling. When that didn't pan out, he switched to preaching catastrophic global warming.

    Regarding catastrophic global warming, Schneider once bragged that even though one doesn’t have good science to support one’s conclusions, it’s better to scare the masses for the sake of the Earth and lie to them than it is to not say anything. In the October 1989 issue of DISCOVER magazine, he was quoted as saying:
      "On the one hand, as scientists, we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but…. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination…. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have…. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." Source...
    Lying and disinformation is the MO of many AGW proponents. Schneider joined Al Gore and James Hansen in many global warming disinformation campaigns. It's probably a blessing that he went to green heaven without realizing that he was on the losing side of this debate. We'll all be in heaven before the mythical AGW comes to pass. In fact, I'll bet the farm that Jesus comes before before AGW happens... :wink:


Spencer is ideologically driven and he reports to his blogees about only a small percentage of his data that supports his/their ideology (non-regulation) - no amount of new data can change his mind. Schneider had the intellectual honesty to change his mind in the 80's when it was clear the temps were rising again in response to increased ghg emissions and land-use factors.

I personally do not like the sort of PR Schneider apparently advocated. Most preachers use such PR techniques instinctively (and I believe justiably, usually) when they are sure of the point they want to get across. But in the GW debate, the straight facts (and unprecedented upward slopes) in temperature data (ground measurements as verified by satellite sensors), sea level rise (tidal measurements and satellite altimetry) and exponential growth in ghg emssions, are more than adequate to convince unbiased / non-ideologues of the truth of AGW. 97-98% of the most GW-involved scientists believe so, as two polls have shown. Just because these polls come as a shock to you and the best temp data/sea level rise data do not support your "cooling" wishes, does not diminish their truthfulness.


I'm wasting too much time arguing with you on this, David, so don't expect much more from me. My Presimetrics book and wife are waiting.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9175
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby David Flick » Wed Aug 25, 2010 5:02 am

KeithE wrote:I'm wasting too much time arguing with you on this, David, so don't expect much more from me. My Presimetrics book and wife are waiting.

Fine with me...
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8476
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby Jim » Wed Aug 25, 2010 6:44 am

David Flick wrote:
KeithE wrote:I'm wasting too much time arguing with you on this, David, so don't expect much more from me. My Presimetrics book and wife are waiting.

Fine with me...

In other words, you are on chinmoku-lite until you ratchet up your IQ level and become again fit for dialogue. By the way, I’ve never known that Presimetrics books could get married but I think it’s thoughtless to keep them and their wives waiting, unless they’re low-life paperbacks, of course.
Jim
 
Posts: 3773
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 2:44 pm
Location: Lexington, Ky.

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby Big Daddy Weaver » Wed Aug 25, 2010 11:13 am

EthicsDaily.com is advocating Meatless Mondays to combat global warming.

I sorta kinda unintentionally did the Meatless Monday thing this week. My wife fixed meatless lasagna for dinner. Granted, we woulda had meat in the lasagna but I had failed to drop by the HEB on the way home from school to pick up a few things. So meatless it was. For lunch, I had a Fat Free Bologna sandwich. Don't know if anyone here has ever tried the Oscar Meyer Fat Free Bologna. It's not exactly meat as I know meat. Filling but less-than-delicious.

As far as the whole meat-eating thing, if I go for meatless Mondays, should I force my dogs to go meatless as well? They sure seem to enjoy their meaty dogfood. My dogs take revenge when angry. Going meatless might upset things a bit.
User avatar
Big Daddy Weaver
 
Posts: 2494
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 12:15 am
Location: Waco, TX

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby KeithE » Wed Aug 25, 2010 11:59 am

Jim wrote:
David Flick wrote:
KeithE wrote:I'm wasting too much time arguing with you on this, David, so don't expect much more from me. My Presimetrics book and wife are waiting.

Fine with me...

In other words, you are on chinmoku-lite until you ratchet up your IQ level and become again fit for dialogue. By the way, I’ve never known that Presimetrics books could get married but I think it’s thoughtless to keep them and their wives waiting, unless they’re low-life paperbacks, of course.

Very funny. Just saying there are better things to do in my life than arguing with David and apparently he thinks there better things than arguing with me. I have no doubt we will be at it again someday.

You and ET need to read Presimetrics! With my ringing endorsement I'm sure you will do so. It is hardback and brand new published 18 Aug.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9175
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby David Flick » Thu Aug 26, 2010 4:06 am

.
.
David Flick wrote:So on another hot day in summer, which BTW isn't at all unusual for this season of the year, GW alarmists are all hot and bothered while GW skeptics stay close to their air conditioners and wait for the cooler weather to arrive. And cooler weather is just around the corner. Sixty days from now the hot temperatures we're experiencing will be only a memory. :D

Indeed cooler weather is just around the corner. In fact, it took only 11 days for the weather to cool off here in northwestern Oklahoma. A cool front came through the state on Tuesday, dropping temperatures by 30°F. It's coming up on 4:00am as I write this and the temperature is 60°F. It'll drop another 5° degrees before sunrise. My local weather person said today that we've seen the last of the 100° days for this year. We now are entering the season of global cooling.

Here's a screen shot taken at 4:30pm yesterday. Readers will notice that today was 11° below average. Wonder how that'll figure in the scheme of things about this year being the hottest on record?

Keith, Ed "AGW Dude" Edwards, and friends can resume their global warming alarmism stuff next May when global warming resumes... :wink:
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8476
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby KeithE » Thu Aug 26, 2010 7:01 am

David Flick wrote:.
.
David Flick wrote:So on another hot day in summer, which BTW isn't at all unusual for this season of the year, GW alarmists are all hot and bothered while GW skeptics stay close to their air conditioners and wait for the cooler weather to arrive. And cooler weather is just around the corner. Sixty days from now the hot temperatures we're experiencing will be only a memory. :D

Indeed cooler weather is just around the corner. In fact, it took only 11 days for the weather to cool off here in northwestern Oklahoma. A cool front came through the state on Tuesday, dropping temperatures by 30°F. It's coming up on 4:00am as I write this and the temperature is 60°F. It'll drop another 5° degrees before sunrise. My local weather person said today that we've seen the last of the 100° days for this year. We now are entering the season of global cooling.

Here's a screen shot taken at 4:30pm yesterday. Readers will notice that today was 11° below average. Wonder how that'll figure in the scheme of things about this year being the hottest on record?

Keith, Ed "AGW Dude" Edwards, and friends can resume their global warming alarmism stuff next May when global warming resumes... :wink:


I'm not sure if you are pulling my leg or not. If not, you sure are dumb :brick: :brick: . Or if you are pulling my leg :roll: :roll:

The temperature DATA I often plot (e.g the GISS data) and most recently David plotted (e.g. the Hadley data) are year long averages of direct air temperature measurements at 1000's of meteorological stations. The AMSU data (found here) are daily satellite based temp measurements and are compared to the same time each year. All of them are also Globally averaged (not just Enid, OK) and all of them agree that the earth's average temp has been going up at somewhere in the range of 0.163 - 0.239 C/decade. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Satellite_Temperatures.png. So much for 'It's summer, so of course the temps are hot' type of arguments.

BTW, the difference in the peak anomalies plotted between GISS and Hadley are due to the different baselines (what they call 0.0 temp anomalies). GISS uses a 1950-1981 average while the Hadley folks use a 1961-1990 average.

So David enjoy the weather while you can and leave the climate data to the professsionals climatologists (97% of which who are most involved in climate research believe in AGW).
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9175
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby David Flick » Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:39 am

.
.
KeithE wrote:
David Flick wrote:
David Flick wrote:So on another hot day in summer, which BTW isn't at all unusual for this season of the year, GW alarmists are all hot and bothered while GW skeptics stay close to their air conditioners and wait for the cooler weather to arrive. And cooler weather is just around the corner. Sixty days from now the hot temperatures we're experiencing will be only a memory. :D

Indeed cooler weather is just around the corner. In fact, it took only 11 days for the weather to cool off here in northwestern Oklahoma. A cool front came through the state on Tuesday, dropping temperatures by 30°F. It's coming up on 4:00am as I write this and the temperature is 60°F. It'll drop another 5° degrees before sunrise. My local weather person said today that we've seen the last of the 100° days for this year. We now are entering the season of global cooling.

Here's a screen shot taken at 4:30pm yesterday. Readers will notice that today was 11° below average. Wonder how that'll figure in the scheme of things about this year being the hottest on record?

Keith, Ed "AGW Dude" Edwards, and friends can resume their global warming alarmism stuff next May when global warming resumes... :wink:

1I'm not sure if you are pulling my leg or not. 2If not, you sure are dumb :brick: :brick: . Or if you are pulling my leg :roll: :roll:
    :lol: My, my, my... I thought you were wasting too much time arguing with me on this and I shouldn't expect much more from you.

    1) :D I confess that I occasionally pull your leg, but not this time. I'm merely reporting what is happening in the real world as opposed to the imaginary world of AGW.

    2) Careful now, Keith, you'll dash your brains out beating your head against that brick wall. I may be dumb, but I'm smart enough know the difference between AGW and reality...


1The temperature DATA I often plot (e.g the GISS data) and most recently David plotted (e.g. the Hadley data) are year long averages of direct air temperature measurements at 1000's of meteorological stations. 2The AMSU data (found here) are daily satellite based temp measurements and are compared to the same time each year. 3All of them are also are Globally averaged (not just Enid, OK) and all of them agree that the earth's average temp has been going up at somewhere in the range of 0.163 - 0.239 C/decade. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Satellite_Temperatures.png. 4So much for 'It's summer so of course the temps are hot' type of arguments.
    1) Both the GISS data and the Hadley data are corrupt and untrustworthy.

      Re the GISS data: Here's a sampling of the corruption at GISS.

      Re the Hadley data: Here's an excerpt about the Hadley data taken from this source. [T]he United Kingdom based Hadley Climate Research Unit, which is responsible for ground temperature readings from which NASA’s satellites are calibrated and which is replete with “global warming” myrmidons, has been engaged in unethical scientific practices. Phil Jones, director of the Unit, has since stepped down, and Michael Mann is under investigation by Penn State for systematic doctoring and erroneous reporting of data used by the climate monitoring gurus.
      And it’s not just for doctoring the data, which they have failed to produce in spite of repeated official requests. Their unethical practices go beyond that. They sought to suppress research of global warming skeptics and polluted the system which defined “peer reviewed” studies. These dubious activities have even embarrassed fellow scientists who likewise believe in man-made global warming. These more serious scientists recognize that “Climategate” has contaminated the scientific community, and reeks of selling out legitimate scientific pursuit in order to advance a cause.
      Nate Silver, renowned statistician, called the Unit’s actions “unethical,” and that “it happens all the time.” Tim Ball, former climatology professor, said it marked “the death blow to climate change,” while Patrick Michaels, former state climatologist for Virginia, told the New York Times, “This is not a smoking gun; this is a mushroom cloud.” Former NASA climatologist John Theon said, “This whole thing is a fraud.
    2) You can cite the AMSU data until you're blue in the face, but you won't find anything therein that points to AGW or catastrophic climate change.

    3) So all of your sources agree that the earth's average temp has been going up at somewhere in the range of 0.163 - 0.239 C per decade? Goodness, Keith, how in the world can a temperature rise of 1 to 2 one-hundreths of a single degree per decade be catastrophic? That's well within the range of normalcy. At that rate, neither of us will live to see the temperature rise even one degree. Certainly nothing to become alarmed about.

    4) Summer is drawing to a close. Autumnal Equinox is less than 30 days away. So much for the argument that this summer's weather has been anything out of the ordinary. Do you personally know of anyone who physically or emotionally harmed by the summer heat? I don't

BTW, the difference in the peak anomalies plotted between GISS and Hadley are due to the different baselines (what they call 0.0 temp anomalies). GISS uses a 1950-1981 average while the Hadley folks use a 1961-1990 average.

So David enjoy the weather while you can and leave the climate data to the professsionals climatologists (97% of which who are most involved in climate research believe in AGW).
    I'm enjoying the weather very much now that the season of global is beginning. As noted, my local weather person said we've seen the last of the 100° days for this year. Incidentally, no matter how many times you repeat it, it's still a myth that 97% of which who are most involved in climate research believe in AGW...
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8476
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby KeithE » Fri Aug 27, 2010 5:56 pm

David Flick wrote:snip

At that rate, neither of us will live to see the temperature rise even one degree. Certainly nothing to become alarmed about.

Incidentally, no matter how many times you repeat it, it's still a myth that 97% of which who are most involved in climate research believe in AGW...


Least I have DATA for my points like the 97% (unlike your impressions or articles you link saying 97% don't believe in AGW w/o substantiating DATA, just headlines grabbers). And I have verified DATA (vindicated by several independent reveiwers of all the scurious charges levied by the denialists) that show linear trends in global temps (similiar trends whether ground or satellite measurements) coupled with the CO2 concentration and continued ghgs emisisions increases.

We very well might reach temp anomalies of >1C (relative 1951-1980) within our lifetimes (next 15-30 years hopefully), we are at 0.72C in 2009 with 2010 quite a bit higher. More than that (already ~1 C) , if baselines to the pre-industrial (1850-1890). data here. Plot below.
Image

Serious (and costly) effects are with usNOW according to National Geographic. Catastrophic? Ask the folks in Pakistan about that.

I have to conclude that you don't understand the temp DATA we banty about (it's yearly averages and/or compared to the same day each year). You points about 'summer is almost over, so GW is becoming GC' are laughbale. I'll change my emoticon to :lol: :lol:

And if no don't like the DATA, you declare it "corrupt" or "manipulated". But I notice you[or Spencer or Watts] will try to make some points with portions of those corrupt data, when it suits yall's desires.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9175
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby David Flick » Fri Aug 27, 2010 11:04 pm

KeithE wrote:1Least I have DATA for my points like the 97% (unlike your impressions or articles you link saying 97% don't believe in AGW w/o substantiating DATA, just headlines grabbers). 2And I have verified DATA (vindicated by several independent reveiwers of all the scurious charges levied by the denialists) that show linear trends in global temps (similiar trends whether ground or satellite measurements) coupled with the CO2 concentration and continued ghgs emisisions increases.

1) We've been over this before. Your so-called "data" comes from this article. The article, which was supposed to be a scientific paper but in reality is an AGW propaganda piece, was generated by a couple of radical pro-AGWers (Peter Doran and a graduate student assistant, Maggy Zimmerman). Doran is a frequent contributor to the radical AGW website, RealClimate.org.

2) Keith, verified data supporting AGW from independent reviewers simply do not exist. There are virtually no "independent" reviewers who support AGW. I challenge you to name a single "independent" reviewer who verifies data supporting something (AGW) that doesn't exist. I can guarantee you that whoever you name as an "independent" reviewer can be traced back one way or another directly to AGW supporters.

Now back to your claim about the data supporting the 97%... After Doran and Zimmerman published their paper, SkepticalScience.Org website (another radical AGW website which you are fond of quoting) sallied forth with this article. The people at Skeptical Science attempted to interpret what Doran & Zimmerman had written and published three graphs which proported show that 97% of all scientists believe in AGW. However, what SkepticalScience doesn't say is that the 97% "consensus" is only 75 self-selected climatologists. In Doran & Zimmerman's paper, a survey with an invitation to respond was sent to 10,257 earth scientists. Amazingly, only 79 of the 10,257 scientists chose to respond. And of the 79 climate scientists who did respond, 75 scientists responded affirmatively to the notion of AGW. (Source...) Now you tell me how in the name of sanity, anyone can conclude that 75 out of 10,257 climate scientists can possibly equal 97%. But such are the methods of global warming alarmists. It's propaganda at its supreme best to conclude that 97% of scientists are AGW supporters.
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8476
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby KeithE » Sat Aug 28, 2010 12:02 am

David Flick wrote:
KeithE wrote:1Least I have DATA for my points like the 97% (unlike your impressions or articles you link saying 97% don't believe in AGW w/o substantiating DATA, just headlines grabbers). 2And I have verified DATA (vindicated by several independent reveiwers of all the scurious charges levied by the denialists) that show linear trends in global temps (similiar trends whether ground or satellite measurements) coupled with the CO2 concentration and continued ghgs emisisions increases.

1) We've been over this before. Your so-called "data" comes from this article. The article, which was supposed to be a scientific paper but in reality is an AGW propaganda piece, was generated by a couple of radical pro-AGWers (Peter Doran and a graduate student assistant, Maggy Zimmerman). Doran is a frequent contributor to the radical AGW website, RealClimate.org.

2) Keith, verified data supporting AGW from independent reviewers simply do not exist. There are virtually no "independent" reviewers who support AGW. I challenge you to name a single "independent" reviewer who verifies data supporting something (AGW) that doesn't exist. I can guarantee you that whoever you name as an "independent" reviewer can be traced back one way or another directly to AGW supporters.

Now back to your claim about the data supporting the 97%... After Doran and Zimmerman published their paper, SkepticalScience.Org website (another radical AGW website which you are fond of quoting) sallied forth with this article. The people at Skeptical Science attempted to interpret what Doran & Zimmerman had written and published three graphs which proported show that 97% of all scientists believe in AGW. However, what SkepticalScience doesn't say is that the 97% "consensus" is only 75 self-selected climatologists. In Doran & Zimmerman's paper, a survey with an invitation to respond was sent to 10,257 earth scientists. Amazingly, only 79 of the 10,257 scientists chose to respond. And of the 79 climate scientists who did respond, 75 scientists responded affirmatively to the notion of AGW. (Source...) Now you tell me how in the name of sanity, anyone can conclude that 75 out of 10,257 climate scientists can possibly equal 97%. But such are the methods of global warming alarmists. It's propaganda at its supreme best to conclude that 97% of scientists are AGW supporters.


I had responded to the ridiculous depths of David's misunderstanding in this last paragraph, with a moderate sized post, but the internet connection went bad and I lost it. It was really quite juicy and I will redo it in the morning. So if you, David, are up this morning after your night shift, you might want to rethink / rewrite your post because the mistakes are manifold. And I'll hit your paragraphs 1) and 2) above it as well - so you might want to recheck your logic and knowledge base about that as well.

Good night.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9175
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby David Flick » Sat Aug 28, 2010 4:10 am

.
.
For someone who is supposedly wasting too much time arguing with me, you're sure blazing away with both guns. Unfortunately, your guns are shooting blanks... :lol:

KeithE wrote:1I had responded to the ridiculous depths of David's misunderstanding in this last paragraph, with a moderate sized post, but the internet connection went bad and I lost it. It was really quite juicy and I will redo it in the morning. 2So if you, David, are up this morning after your night shift, you might want to rethink / rewrite your post because the mistakes are manifold. 3And I'll hit your paragraphs 1) and 2) above it as well - so you might want to recheck your logic and knowledge base about that as well.

Good night.

1) Gee, I'm sorry you lost your post due to a bad internet connection. I know the feeling. I've done that myself on a number of occasions...

2) No need to rethink/rewrite the post. It stands as written.

3) Hit away. I'm looking forward to seeing the names of those so-called "independent" reviewers.

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

I'm going to be away from my computer from Saturday noon until Monday. I'm going to Dewey for the 110th anniversary celebration of the First Baptist Church of Dewey. I served that church from 1984 to 2000.
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8476
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby David Flick » Sat Aug 28, 2010 4:33 am

.
.
This is an older video (dating back to prior to the 2009 Copenhagen debacle).

User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8476
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby KeithE » Sat Aug 28, 2010 10:04 am

David Flick wrote:
KeithE wrote:1Least I have DATA for my points like the 97% (unlike your impressions or articles you link saying 97% don't believe in AGW w/o substantiating DATA, just headlines grabbers). 2And I have verified DATA (vindicated by several independent reveiwers of all the scurious charges levied by the denialists) that show linear trends in global temps (similiar trends whether ground or satellite measurements) coupled with the CO2 concentration and continued ghgs emisisions increases.

1) We've been over this before. Your so-called "data" comes from this article. The article, which was supposed to be a scientific paper but in reality is an AGW propaganda piece, was generated by a couple of radical pro-AGWers (Peter Doran and a graduate student assistant, Maggy Zimmerman). Doran is a frequent contributor to the radical AGW website, RealClimate.org.

2) Keith, verified data supporting AGW from independent reviewers simply do not exist. There are virtually no "independent" reviewers who support AGW. I challenge you to name a single "independent" reviewer who verifies data supporting something (AGW) that doesn't exist. I can guarantee you that whoever you name as an "independent" reviewer can be traced back one way or another directly to AGW supporters.

3)Now back to your claim about the data supporting the 97%... After Doran and Zimmerman published their paper, SkepticalScience.Org website (another radical AGW website which you are fond of quoting) sallied forth with this article. The people at Skeptical Science attempted to interpret what Doran & Zimmerman had written and published three graphs which proported show that 97% of all scientists believe in AGW. However, what SkepticalScience doesn't say is that the 97% "consensus" is only 75 self-selected climatologists. In Doran & Zimmerman's paper, a survey with an invitation to respond was sent to 10,257 earth scientists. Amazingly, only 79 of the 10,257 scientists chose to respond. And of the 79 climate scientists who did respond, 75 scientists responded affirmatively to the notion of AGW. (Source...) Now you tell me how in the name of sanity, anyone can conclude that 75 out of 10,257 climate scientists can possibly equal 97%. But such are the methods of global warming alarmists. It's propaganda at its supreme best to conclude that 97% of scientists are AGW supporters.


Wrt 3): Boy, has David misunderstood the Doran/Zimmerman polling DATA. It shows both how DATA-challenged he is and how blinded he has become in his anti-GW zeal. And done with such sarcasm. Well uh ... maybe the egg on David's face will cover what should be his embarrassment.

Here is the Doran/Zimmerman article. Please read it (its not long) and their polling DATA (augmented by a 2008 Gallup poll to represent the public) is given below
Image

They did indeed send out 10,257 invitations
Doran/Zimmerman wrote:An invitation to participate in the survey was sent to 10,257 Earth scientists.

That's about all David got right.

3146 responded
Doran/Zimmerman wrote:With 3146 individuals completing the survey, the participant response rate for the survey was 30.7%.

Not bad, poll response. Terrible accounting by David saying only 79 responded.

The two questions asked were:
Doran/Zimmerman wrote:1. When compared with pre- 1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or
remained relatively constant?
2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?


The results from the 3146 respondees (all "earth scientists") are:
Doran/Zimmerman wrote:Results show that overall, 90% of participants answered “risen” to question 1 and 82% answered yes to question 2.


And note:
Doran/Zimmerman wrote:While respondents’ names are kept private, the authors noted that the survey included participants with well- documented dissenting opinions on global warming theory.

Doran/Zimmerman then categorized these respondents by their level of specialization in climatology and their recent publishing topics. To be in the most knowledgable category "Climatologists who are active publishers on climate change" one had to demonstrate:
Doran/Zimmerman wrote:In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer- reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total).

That's where the 79 came in - those that were climatologists by trade and published in GW made the most knowledgeable category.

Out of those 79 most qualified scientists
Doran/Zimmerman wrote:Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2.

Apparently 2 of them answered question 1 but didn't answer question 2.

So how does David twist these plainly stated facts about the Doran/Zimmerman poll:
David wrote:In Doran & Zimmerman's paper, a survey with an invitation to respond was sent to 10,257 earth scientists. Amazingly, only 79 of the 10,257 scientists chose to respond. And of the 79 climate scientists who did respond, 75 scientists responded affirmatively to the notion of AGW. (Source...) Now you tell me how in the name of sanity, anyone can conclude that 75 out of 10,257 climate scientists can possibly equal 97%. But such are the methods of global warming alarmists. It's propaganda at its supreme best to conclude that 97% of scientists are AGW supporters.


No David, 3146 earth scientists responded.

No David, 75 out of 77 (= 97.4%) of the most highly qualified/knowledgeable climatologists affirm AGW
not 75 out of 10,257 ( 0.73%) as your "hockeyschlict" source twists it.

Twist is too mild of a term - turning 97.4% into less than 1%. And David falls for it and is so sure of himself he gets sarcastic. Incredible.

It is also important to know a very similiar study was done early this year by Anderegg, etal for the National Academy of Sciences. Here's the the full report and here the abstract.
Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers

ACC and AGW are synomynous. Doran/Zimmerman had it 97.4% while Anderegg/Schneider had it at 97-98%. Excellent agreement, different datasets. And notice the population of the Anderegg scientists included those associated with dissenting organizations as seen at Supplemental Information

Now does this mean, 97.4% or 97-98% all believe in all fine points about GW science or policy? No but most (97%+) are AGW (aka ACC) . There are certainly differences of opinion among the scientists particularly about policy. Take John Christy as an example. He believes that the earth has warmed and that human beings have caused that warming. He just doesn't think that CO2 is the main conributor - more land use factors. And he does not think it is castatrophic right now and is against regulation of CO2. Some quotes from Christy
In a 2003 interview with National Public Radio about the 2003 American Geophysical Union (AGU) statement, he [Christy] said: "It is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into irrigated farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the air, and putting extra greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate has not changed in some way."

In a 2009 written testimony to the U.S. House Ways and Means Committee, he wrote: "From my analysis, the actions being considered to 'stop global warming' will have an imperceptible impact on whatever the climate will do, while making energy more expensive, and thus have a negative impact on the economy as a whole. We have found that climate models and popular surface temperature data sets overstate the changes in the real atmosphere and that actual changes are not alarming."

From talking with him personally I can reaffirm that he is very bothered about agricultural land use factors going back to his days growing up in Fresno (central valley of CA).

If Christy was one of the respondees, he would have been classified as a "Climatologist who is an active publisher on climate change". If he were to be cosistent with his statements above and what he told me, he would have answered questions 1. "risen"* and question 2. "yes".

*He is a good Baptist.

One more thing to clear up in the Skeptical Science article on the Doran/Zimmerman poll. They do say the 97% applies to the most actively publishing climate scientists underneath the larger result in the fine print
Surveys have found that over 97% of actively publishing climate scientists are convinced humans are significantly changing global temperatures (Doran 2009). Not only is there a vast difference in the number of convinced versus unconvinced scientists, there is also a considerable gap in expertise between the two groups (Anderegg 2010).

And in the large print SkepticalScience says it is 97% of "climate scientists think global warming is significantly due to human activity" not as David claims SkepticalScience says "that 97% of all scientists believe in AGW". Strawman argumentation David and it shows how you misunderstand DATA (again).
__________________
OK, on to David's paragraph 2).
David wrote:2) Keith, verified data supporting AGW from independent reviewers simply do not exist. There are virtually no "independent" reviewers who support AGW. I challenge you to name a single "independent" reviewer who verifies data supporting something (AGW) that doesn't exist. I can guarantee you that whoever you name as an "independent" reviewer can be traced back one way or another directly to AGW supporters.


The so-called ClimateGate incident (theft of 13 years of private emails and selectively leaked the most damning (<1%) of them) resulted in no less than 3 Independent Teams who vindicated the DATA and the CRU honesty but to varying degrees chided Jones/Mann/etal for badmouthing skeptics in their private emails, being slightly disorganized, and less than totally open to data requests. But impotantly the DATA was give a clean bill of health after thorough review back to its original readings.

Team 1 was House of Commons Science and Technology Committee http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387/387i.pdf looking mainly at the integrity of the data and data analysis performed by Jones and the CRU. Its conclusions (released 24 March 2010) are:

The focus on Professor Jones and CRU has been largely misplaced. On the
accusations relating to Professor Jones’s refusal to share raw data and computer
codes, we consider that his actions were in line with common practice in the climate
science community. We have suggested that the community consider becoming
more transparent by publishing raw data and detailed methodologies. On
accusations relating to Freedom of Information, we consider that much of the
responsibility should lie with UEA, not CRU. (Paragraph 136)

In addition, insofar as we have been able to consider accusations of dishonesty—for
example, Professor Jones’s alleged attempt to “hide the decline”—we consider that
there is no case to answer. Within our limited inquiry and the evidence we took, the
scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact. We have found no
reason in this unfortunate episode to challenge the scientific consensus as expressed
by Professor Beddington, that “global warming is happening [and] that it is induced
by human activity”. It was not our purpose to examine, nor did we seek evidence on,
the science produced by CRU. It will be for the Scientific Appraisal Panel to look in
detail into all the evidence to determine whether or not the consensus view remains
valid. (Paragraph 137)


Team 2 was an International Team headed by Dr. Ron Oxburgh (Univ of Liverpool) and foussed on statistical techniques used. Here is their report and their major conclusion (released 24 April 2010) are:
We saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit and had it been there we believe that it is likely
that we would have detected it. Rather we found a small group of dedicated if slightly disorganised researchers who were ill-prepared for being the focus of
public attention. As with many small research groups their internal procedures were rather informal.


Team 3 was the Scientific Appraisal Panel and was headed by Sir Muir Russell. It was the largest study (6 months) and went in detail into the emails and the data analysis/processing/depictions. It was released 7 July 2010. Here is the full report and the main findings are:
We find the "rigour and honesty" of the scientists at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) were not in doubt. We did not find any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the IPCC assessments. But we do find there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness.

The investigation also concluded "they did not subvert the peer review process to censor criticism and that key data was freely available and could be used by any "competent" researcher."

These were not whitewashed findings, but the DATA stands tall and it has not been used to subvert the IPCC or climate research in general.

Now it is up to you David, to "guarantee" that all the "independent reviewers" given in the reports above "trace back" to being overtly biased AGW supporters implying they were chosen as whitewashing teams.

The ClimateGate incident was what I had in mind but the GISS and other data has also been questioned earlier often by the same ardent people (McIntyre, McKitrict, Michaels, Watts). Their argumnets have been effectively rebutted as well.

The GISS data was questioned for it's handling of the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect by McKitrict (economics professor) and Michaels (Cato Institute) in 2007. http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/jgr07/M&M.JGR07-background.pdf

A Gavin Schmidt article and the IPCC 2007 have both effectively answered that non-issue. IPCC 2007 UHI conclusion:
Urban heat island effects are real but local, and have not biased the large-scale trends. A number of recent studies
indicate that effects of urbanisation and land use change on the land-based temperature record are negligible (0.006ºC per
decade) as far as hemispheric- and continental-scale averages are concerned because the very real but local effects are
avoided or accounted for in the data sets used. In any case, they are not present in the SST component of the record.


I notice that the McKitrict and Michaels article is playing games when they say in their conclusion:
M&M wrote:We can use the statistical model to estimate what the observed temperature trends would have been if
everyone had as good circumstances for monitoring climate as the US does. The average trend at the
surface in the post-1980 interval would fall from about 0.30 degrees (C) per decade to about 0.17
degrees. This shows that the problems identified in the statistical model add up to a net warming bias,
and its removal could explain as much as half the recent warming over land.

They do not reference anywhere in their papers where the 0.30C/decade came from. Their estimate of the trend being 0.17C/decade is within the uncertainty in the real trend data - remember the range of 0.162 to 0.236 C/decade. UHI is no where near that much difference (0.30 to 0.17, almost half attributable to UHI, so they say when they dream up what they say the supposedly "UHI corrupted" trend is). Rigorous studies show that difference to be 0.006C/decade and even that is accounted for in the real data trends.

The GISS data was also claimed to be "corrupted by Y2K" effects by McIntyre. That proved to be imperceptible differences.
Image

The paleoclimatic data by Mann was challenged by McIntyre and McKittrict for the statistics techniques used (dropping of too many eigenvalues in prncipal component analysis). This cahllenge was actual right to a point (but not the major point that Mann was making). Mann has corrected the version that made light of the MWP; but his major point (that hockey stick blade) still is there showing a the rapid rise since 1900 (just the stick is not straight as before in medievel Europe at least). Need I repeat that plot again.
__________________
Now on to David's paragraph 1) which I'll repeat here for easy viewing:
David wrote:1) We've been over this before. Your so-called "data" comes from this article. The article, which was supposed to be a scientific paper but in reality is an AGW propaganda piece, was generated by a couple of radical pro-AGWers (Peter Doran and a graduate student assistant, Maggy Zimmerman). Doran is a frequent contributor to the radical AGW website, RealClimate.org
.

David, I will use good measurement DATA from whatever source it comes from - even Roy Spencer's data, it is quite good, reported daily, good Signal to Noise ratio (SNR), well calibrated, averaged over several sensors. Good DATA does not lie (although just like the Bible, it can be misinterpreted and deliberate cherry picking is fraudalent). You should do the same and not let the results color your view of data quality. The Doran DATA was a large sample of the active publishers/climatologists, and unlike the Oregon Petition, the questions were not in any way "leading", it is up to date, and counts answers no matter what the respondent said - not just a count of the answers they wanted (iow, it was not a poll).

Propaganda pieces are often marked by the adjectives used. Where in the Doran/Zimmerman article do you see anything but objective writing? True it was not what I would call a scientific paper (and never claims to be) but instead a report of a survey on scientific opinions and done with forthright honesty. And their findings have been pretty much duplicated by a later similar research (Anderegg/Schneider et.al). They do not use terms like you are very prone to do (e.g. "radical pro-AGWers") or Anthony Watts does all the time. Those terms are sure signs of frustration in that they have to resort to incendiary verbiage instead of DATA (hey, I guess I'm guilty by using the term "denialist", but so be it!). Doran/Zimmerman do not twist the data, as your HockeySchlitck source did (blantantly turning a 97.4% into a <1% claim). Now there's a piece of propaganda!
Last edited by KeithE on Fri Sep 03, 2010 11:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9175
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby KeithE » Tue Aug 31, 2010 6:12 pm

Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9175
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby David Flick » Thu Sep 02, 2010 2:57 am


Sorry, Keith, you missed it on this one. The author of the article to which you linked (Brett Dykes) blew it big time with propaganda typical of that being pushed by the warmists. Lomborg did not reverse course on AGW. He has never been skeptical of global warming, but he has always been skeptical of the carbon rationing scam. The Guardian is the source of this bit of misinformation about Lomborg. Dykes took the misinformation and ran with it... Here's the truth about where Lomborg stands. (Empahases mine)

Skeptical Environmentalist - Still Skeptical of Carbon Rationing - Never Skeptical of Warming

Ronald Bailey | September 1, 2010

Lomborg: warmist or realist? Yesterday, the Guardian ran a puzzling article claiming that Bjorn Lomborg, the self-described Skeptical Environmentalist, has now accepted that man-made global warming is a problem. The subtext being that if this prominent climate change skeptic has come over to the side of alarmism, then surely everyone else must too.

The Guardian (a newspaper that is always careful to make sure the facts never get in the way of a good story) is misleading its readers. Even in his first book, Lomborg clearly acknowledged that man-made global warming is a problem. But Lomborg concluded that other more immediate problems loomed larger for humanity than climate change, i.e., problems like hunger, disease, sanitation, high infant mortality rates, etc. Evidently, Lomborg tried to make this point to the Guardian which does report:

    Lomborg denies he has performed a volte face, pointing out that even in his first book he accepted the existence of man-made global warming. "The point I've always been making is it's not the end of the world," he told the Guardian. "That's why we should be measuring up to what everybody else says, which is we should be spending our money well."
Just so. Since the publication of The Skeptical Environmentalist, Lomborg has organized a series of Copenhagen Consensus Conferences that aimed to prioritize spending on important global problems. Basically, Lomborg's new book (Disclosure: I blurbed it) is reporting the conclusions reached by the economists and other researchers who particpated in the most recent conference which focused on climate change.

[...]

So to recap: Lomborg has always thought man-made global warming is a problem, but not the biggest problem facing humanity in this century. Lomborg is still against the ruinous carbon rationing schemes of the sort embodied in the UN's Kyoto Protocol. Instead he is advocating that the world spend $100 billion per year on energy R&D which would add up to $9 trillion by the end of the century. Contrast this amount to the more than $2,000 trillion that Galiana and Green calculate that carbon rationing would cost.

But acknowledging and reporting all this would have spoiled the Guardian's sexed up global warming heretic converts to climate change believer storyline.

Many commentators were misled by the Guardian's reporting, but Jonathan Adler over at the Volokh Conspiracy was not among them. Source...

Sorry to burst your bubble on this one... :D
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8476
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby David Flick » Thu Sep 02, 2010 3:26 am

.
. . . . . . . . .
The Discovery Building Gunman

There's little doubt that James Lee, the Discovery building gunman who was killed by police yesterday, was a radical environmentalist kook. He was a lunatic by any standard of measurement. The man was apparently on a mission to save the planet. Lee said, “Nothing is more important than saving ... the Lions, Tigers, Giraffes, Elephants, Froggies, Turtles, Apes, Raccoons, Beetles, Ants, Sharks, Bears, and, of course, the Squirrels. The humans? The planet does not need humans.”

There is also little doubt that he was strongly influenced by the planet's best known global warming alarmist. Lee said that he experienced an ‘‘awakening” when he watched former Vice President Al Gore’s environmental documentary ‘‘An Inconvenient Truth.”

I'm sure that more of the story will unfold in the days ahead However, for James Lee, global warming alarmism was deadly...
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8476
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby KeithE » Thu Sep 02, 2010 6:57 am

David Flick wrote:

Sorry, Keith, you missed it on this one. The author of the article to which you linked (Brett Dykes) blew it big time with propaganda typical of that being pushed by the warmists. Lomborg did not reverse course on AGW. He has never been skeptical of global warming, but he has always been skeptical of the carbon rationing scam. The Guardian is the source of this bit of misinformation about Lomborg. Dykes took the misinformation and ran with it... Here's the truth about where Lomborg stands. (Empahases mine)

Skeptical Environmentalist - Still Skeptical of Carbon Rationing - Never Skeptical of Warming

Ronald Bailey | September 1, 2010

Lomborg: warmist or realist? Yesterday, the Guardian ran a puzzling article claiming that Bjorn Lomborg, the self-described Skeptical Environmentalist, has now accepted that man-made global warming is a problem. The subtext being that if this prominent climate change skeptic has come over to the side of alarmism, then surely everyone else must too.

The Guardian (a newspaper that is always careful to make sure the facts never get in the way of a good story) is misleading its readers. Even in his first book, Lomborg clearly acknowledged that man-made global warming is a problem. But Lomborg concluded that other more immediate problems loomed larger for humanity than climate change, i.e., problems like hunger, disease, sanitation, high infant mortality rates, etc. Evidently, Lomborg tried to make this point to the Guardian which does report:

    Lomborg denies he has performed a volte face, pointing out that even in his first book he accepted the existence of man-made global warming. "The point I've always been making is it's not the end of the world," he told the Guardian. "That's why we should be measuring up to what everybody else says, which is we should be spending our money well."
Just so. Since the publication of The Skeptical Environmentalist, Lomborg has organized a series of Copenhagen Consensus Conferences that aimed to prioritize spending on important global problems. Basically, Lomborg's new book (Disclosure: I blurbed it) is reporting the conclusions reached by the economists and other researchers who particpated in the most recent conference which focused on climate change.

[...]

So to recap: Lomborg has always thought man-made global warming is a problem, but not the biggest problem facing humanity in this century. Lomborg is still against the ruinous carbon rationing schemes of the sort embodied in the UN's Kyoto Protocol. Instead he is advocating that the world spend $100 billion per year on energy R&D which would add up to $9 trillion by the end of the century. Contrast this amount to the more than $2,000 trillion that Galiana and Green calculate that carbon rationing would cost.

But acknowledging and reporting all this would have spoiled the Guardian's sexed up global warming heretic converts to climate change believer storyline.

Many commentators were misled by the Guardian's reporting, but Jonathan Adler over at the Volokh Conspiracy was not among them. Source...

Sorry to burst your bubble on this one... :D


My bubble is still awaiting more clarification than short press releases (or third party statements).

I have three books by him and one about him. Each of the books by him:
The Skeptical Environmentalist, 2001
Global Crises, Global Solutions, 2004
Cool It, The Skeptical Environmentalist Guide to Global Warming, 2007

all show a "skeptical" viewpoint about the seriousness of GW

I'll quote the back cover of Cool It.
Bjorn Lomberg argues that many of the elaborate and expensive actions now being considered - the Kyoto Protocol, for example - have a staggering potential cost of hundreds of billions of dollars, but, ultimately, will have little impact on the world's temperature. He suggests that rather than institutonalizing these programs to "cool" the earth's temperature 100 yeras from now, we should focus our resources on some of the world's most pressing immediate concerns, such as, fighting malaria and HIVS/AIDS and maintaining a fresh water supply. And he consders why and how this debate has developed an atmosphere in which dissenters are immediately demonized.


This is not inconsistent with his Global Crises, Global Solutions (GC/GS) book which ranks Climate Change 9th in terms of his candidate 10 critical world problems (out of an original ist of 32 potential problems).

But his talk in all the three books sounds right in line with denialism with a particularly strong skeptical attitude about spending money on GW (never a discussion of the costs of Business-As-Usual - entirely missing in Chapter 1 of GC/GS). His Chapter 24 in his first book is full of denialist sounding themes.

Bailey is technically correct when he says
Lomborg has always thought man-made global warming is a problem, but not the biggest problem facing humanity in this century.


But the Lomberg who is now saying
"undoubtedly one of the chief concerns facing the world today" and "a challenge humanity must confront",

has apparently (I emphasize that) changed at least his tone and (more importantly his recommended actions) from his previously books.

The one book about him The Lomberg Deception by Howard Freil in 2010 is interesting to say the least. Many specific fudging the data/ influence peddling incidences are supplied. I need to go to work now but will summarize later as well as words about Ron Bailey (editor of the libertarian Reason Magazine)

Maybe we will have more press releases clarifying Lomberg's current thinking today. I do not trust Bailey's take on this (or David's or mine). We should hear directly from Lomberg's mouth and assess his reasoning/evidence. From what I have read in the past by him, the release yesterday sounds like he has at least moved Climate Chnage up his list of Global Problems.

Now will David admit to the many other errors he avoids coming to grips with - most recently his total misread of the Doran/Zimmerman and Anderegg/Schneider surveys.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9175
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby David Flick » Thu Sep 02, 2010 8:56 pm

KeithE wrote:Now will David admit to the many other errors he avoids coming to grips with - most recently his total misread of the Doran/Zimmerman and Anderegg/Schneider surveys.

No, I won't admit to errors in my reading of the Doran/Zimmerman propaganda piece. I'm working on a response to your massive 3,062-word post. Takes a while for me to wade through all the disinformation.
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8476
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

PreviousNext

Return to Politics and Public Policy Issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests