Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Ars Technica)   Climate skeptics' bombshell paper might not get published. Guess why   (arstechnica.com ) divider line
    More: Obvious, climate skeptics, Berkeley Earth, urban heat island effect, climate change sceptics, scientific skepticism, skeptics, CRU, climatologists  
•       •       •

8747 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Oct 2011 at 3:14 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



456 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-10-24 09:18:18 PM  

Jon Snow: ndubyaj: He leveled charges of cherrypicking data at the CRU (they rejected data from Siberia in 1998 that showed unseasonably cold temperatures, a year when everywhere else on Earth was hotter than average)

This is a new one to me, but sounds absurd on its face. Excluding a single region during a single year would have no meaningful impact on the overall mutlidecadal trends.


Of course. I don't think he was referring to their multidecadal trends when he mentioned this, just that he thinks that the group, when presenting their analyses, tends to ignore bits of information that detracts from their overall message.
 
2011-10-24 09:20:00 PM  
HotIgneous Intruder

I'm pretty sure nobody here has the capacity to answer my question point by point with any answer other than, "HUNDREDS OF SCIENTISTS!!!" or "YOU DUMB, ME SMART, SO SHUT YO MOUTH!"

Either the smartest among you are inarticulate or the most inarticulate are the most vocal. sigh.


nobody cares what you think.

you've asked exceedingly stupid questions and been given exceedingly good answers, time after time after time after time. and you've ignored all of those answers and just continued to shiat up the thread

you're a sad, stupid, transparent troll. boo hoo. poor you.
 
2011-10-24 09:21:53 PM  

Jon Snow: HotIgneous Intruder: But still, not a genius on this thread can tell me how anthropogenic global warming could have started 10,000 years ago, when the last ice age began to end and the glaciers melted, causing the seas to rise and forming the ria known as the Chesapeake Bay and also causing the Atlantic beaches to move inland from what are now the submerged continental shelves.

Nobody can refute such a simple example of how climate change was already well under way by the time we figured out (recently) and began blaming ourselves for it.

HotIgneous Intruder: Climate change is real.
How could we humans have caused it if it started 10 or more thousand years ago?

Anyone?

Jon Snow: HotIgneous Intruder: What accounts for multiple global warming and cooling cycles over the past 500,000 years? Human activity?

Let me google that for you!

Jon Snow: Why don't you try reading the Koehler et al. paper I linked you to earlier? You're making intro level errors about fundamental concepts in paleoclimate and energy balance.

Jon Snow: No.

You're conflating different processes, with different drivers, thy operate on different timescales.

The Pleistocene glaciation cycling is driven by orbital forcing. Orbital forcing peaked ~6-9ka (significant latitudinal variation). Two of the three processes that drive Pleistocene ice ages and interglacials have been cooling for the last several thousand years, and we can see this in reconstructions of Arctic temperatures.

Orbital forcing should not be making us hotter. Moreover, it operates on timescales orders of magnitude too slowly. But more importantly, we know what the Earth's energy balance should be, what enhanced greenhouse warming should look like (vs. orbital, or solar, etc.).

Attribution is a bit more serious than looking at past changes and assuming without evidence that they must all be driven by one process and this process must therefore be driving present changes.

And no offense, but do you really think that your armchair speculations are a better method of evaluating scientific phenomena than reading the primary scientific literature?

LET'S TRY THIS ONE MORE TIME:

YOU'RE CONFLATING MILENNIAL SCALE PROCESSES DRIVEN BY ORBITAL FORCING WITH MULTIDECADAL CHANGES IN GREENHOUSE GAS CONCENTRATIONS AMONG OTHER FACTORS.

Ice ages, Chesapeake Bay, etc.: orbital forcing
Present warming: changes in GHGs, aerosol loading, etc.

I linked you to a paper that details the drivers of climate change for the last 800,000 years, and you're pretending that no one has addressed your hand-waving argument.

We know what orbital forcing is doing. We know what greenhouse gases are doing. We know what orbital forcing looks like. We know what greenhouse warming looks like.


Thank you very much for all that clarification.
So all of these drivers are overlain working at different rates.
Cool.
This answers my question.
Just to be clear I'm interpreting this to mean: Humans are contributing to global warming now, but didn't cause it at the end of the Wisconsinan or at any other time in earth history. And for the past 500,000 years or so, non-human drivers are responsible for this climate change.
I can dig it.
 
2011-10-24 09:22:39 PM  

ndubyaj: Of course. I don't think he was referring to their multidecadal trends when he mentioned this, just that he thinks that the group, when presenting their analyses, tends to ignore bits of information that detracts from their overall message.


Which, again, is absurd, as it's demonstrated to be showing less warming than we're actually experiencing by its exclusion of the Arctic.

Muller makes me want to punch the wall every time I hear him talk about climate issues.
 
2011-10-24 09:23:28 PM  
so sad
 
2011-10-24 09:34:28 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Thank you very much for all that clarification.


I am more than happy to answer whatever questions you might have, but Fark might not be the best environment to do so.

HotIgneous Intruder: So all of these drivers are overlain working at different rates.


Well, that depends. "All these drivers" meaning orbital forcing vs. our emissions of long-lived GHGs and aerosols? Yes, those are operating on different timescales. But it's also important to realize that orbital forcing- even if it wasn't too slow to be responsible- wasn't in the direction of warming even before we started pumping out gigatonnes of GHGs.

HotIgneous Intruder: Just to be clear I'm interpreting this to mean: Humans are contributing to global warming now


Correct. And how can we know that?

HotIgneous Intruder: but didn't cause it at the end of the Wisconsinan


No. Orbital forcing and various feedbacks (though these include greenhouse gases).

HotIgneous Intruder: or at any other time in earth history.


Correct, but that's not to say that all other climatic changes prior to us were driven by orbital forcing. Far from it. Tectonic changes result in different global albedo (jamming the continents together at the equator reflects a lot more light back to space than our current configuration of continents, ocean circulation, etc. Flood basalts/large igneous provinces can release enormous quantities of GHGs. Mountain building events can increase weathering and drawdown CO2. Significantly large bolides can cause something similar to nuclear winter (though these events are much more rare than some believed just after the discovery of the KT boundary impact), and significant low-latitude volcanism can cause similar cooling on shorter timescales.

HotIgneous Intruder: And for the past 500,000 years or so, non-human drivers are responsible for this climate change.


Right. You really should read the Koehler paper I linked you to. Over the past 800,000 and likely the last several million, orbitally-paced glaciation cycles have been the dominant climatic changes. Though, as I said, they're far from the only source of change.
 
2011-10-24 09:34:58 PM  
ndubyaj

the guy is a troll. he just knows he's getting hammered and is trying to change direction

i mean, consider this: "Controlling the climate sounds a bit far-fetched, especially if, as Jon has taught me, there are other non-human drivers at work" from a guy talking earlier about "Try the Wisconsinan glaciation, which began ending 10,000 years ago when the climate began warming up again. There used to be two miles of ice above Albany, NY. As the glaciers melted back, the water was released and the sea levels began to rise. Eventually, the Chesapeake Bay formed in what was the Susquehanna River Valley, which used to meet the Atlantic Ocean 75 miles east of Virginia Beach, when the continental shelf was the beach. We're in the middle of an interglacial warming period."

it is pathetic, but he's still trolling
 
2011-10-24 09:36:26 PM  

whidbey: HotIgneous Intruder: I'm pretty sure nobody here has the capacity to answer my question point by point with any answer other than, "HUNDREDS OF SCIENTISTS!!!" or "YOU DUMB, ME SMART, SO SHUT YO MOUTH!"
Either the smartest among you are inarticulate or the most inarticulate are the most vocal. sigh.

whidbey: Actually, the honorable thing for you to do is concede that your questions have been answered and move on.

Or not.

It's always more fun to post like some astroturfer, isn't it?


derp. derp, derp.
 
2011-10-24 09:38:26 PM  
HotIgneous Intruder

you haven't got the hang of the ignore feature yet, then, altboy?
 
2011-10-24 09:39:49 PM  

Jon Snow: HotIgneous Intruder: Thank you very much for all that clarification.

I am more than happy to answer whatever questions you might have, but Fark might not be the best environment to do so.

HotIgneous Intruder: So all of these drivers are overlain working at different rates.

Well, that depends. "All these drivers" meaning orbital forcing vs. our emissions of long-lived GHGs and aerosols? Yes, those are operating on different timescales. But it's also important to realize that orbital forcing- even if it wasn't too slow to be responsible- wasn't in the direction of warming even before we started pumping out gigatonnes of GHGs.

HotIgneous Intruder: Just to be clear I'm interpreting this to mean: Humans are contributing to global warming now

Correct. And how can we know that?

HotIgneous Intruder: but didn't cause it at the end of the Wisconsinan

No. Orbital forcing and various feedbacks (though these include greenhouse gases).

HotIgneous Intruder: or at any other time in earth history.

Correct, but that's not to say that all other climatic changes prior to us were driven by orbital forcing. Far from it. Tectonic changes result in different global albedo (jamming the continents together at the equator reflects a lot more light back to space than our current configuration of continents, ocean circulation, etc. Flood basalts/large igneous provinces can release enormous quantities of GHGs. Mountain building events can increase weathering and drawdown CO2. Significantly large bolides can cause something similar to nuclear winter (though these events are much more rare than some believed just after the discovery of the KT boundary impact), and significant low-latitude volcanism can cause similar cooling on shorter timescales.

HotIgneous Intruder: And for the past 500,000 years or so, non-human drivers are responsible for this climate change.

Right. You really should read the Koehler paper I linked you to. Over the past 800,000 and likely the last several million, orbitally-paced glaciation cycles have been the dominant climatic changes. Though, as I said, they're far from the only source of change.


I will read it, thank you.
I read John McPhee for the first time this summer and it set my imagination running. I've been out of the academic discussion of such things for way too long, put completely off by the disgusting politicization and spin of every damned morsel of public information by all sides. It's hard to know who to listen to.
 
2011-10-24 09:39:50 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Controlling the climate sound a bit far-fetched, especially if, as Jon has taught me, there are other non-human drivers at work.

Controlling our already significant impact on the climate

is not far-fetched. We're already choosing a certain future climate by emitting GHGs at a geologically unprecedented rate.

Our influence is sufficient to render orbital forcing meaningless for the foreseeable future. Likewise solar variability of the kind seen over the late Holocene, over multidecadal and longer timescales. Same for normal (random) volcanism, though we'd still see short term immediate cooling.

There aren't a lot of natural drivers of climatic change that can compete with us in terms of speed and duration. On or the other, yeah, but not both.
 
2011-10-24 09:41:16 PM  

Jon Snow: There aren't a lot of natural drivers of climatic change that can compete with us in terms of speed and duration. On or the other, yeah, but not both.


We're #1! We're #1!
 
2011-10-24 09:45:43 PM  
HotIgneous Intruder

I've been out of the academic discussion of such things for way too long, put completely off by the disgusting politicization and spin of every damned morsel of public information by all sides. It's hard to know who to listen to.

yeah, that's why the response to being called a troll was:


And you take the bait every time, sucker.
DIAF, twat boy. Nothing nice to say, keep your stinky unctuations to yourself.


out of the academic discussion of such things for way too long! how has the academic community possibly coped?
 
2011-10-24 09:46:58 PM  

Jon Snow: HotIgneous Intruder: Controlling the climate sound a bit far-fetched, especially if, as Jon has taught me, there are other non-human drivers at work.

Controlling our already significant impact on the climate is not far-fetched. We're already choosing a certain future climate by emitting GHGs at a geologically unprecedented rate.

Our influence is sufficient to render orbital forcing meaningless for the foreseeable future. Likewise solar variability of the kind seen over the late Holocene, over multidecadal and longer timescales. Same for normal (random) volcanism, though we'd still see short term immediate cooling.

There aren't a lot of natural drivers of climatic change that can compete with us in terms of speed and duration. On or the other, yeah, but not both.


Wow. That's fascinating. Do you have a web site that goes into this topic?
 
2011-10-24 09:50:25 PM  

ndubyaj: Jon Snow: There aren't a lot of natural drivers of climatic change that can compete with us in terms of speed and duration. On or the other, yeah, but not both.

We're #1! We're #1!


And we've got LOTS more fossil fuels left, too.
Oil's about half gone, but we have enough coal, and, after that, trees, to burn to trash this place good. Acid fog will be our friend.
 
2011-10-24 09:54:06 PM  
Thanks again, Jon.
 
2011-10-24 09:55:24 PM  
you can see what he is doing, though - exactly as i stated up-thread. he, laughably, claims to have been put off "by the disgusting politicization and spin of every damned morsel of public information by all sides" (a wordy but particularly pathetic example of the old 'both sides are just as bad' nonsense we are used to). he then states "It's hard to know who to listen to." but, look what he is doing - he's totally avoiding discussing the real issue - he hasn't even tried to counter any of the points put to him - he doesn't want to discuss the issue, he wants to hide the issue
 
2011-10-24 09:58:23 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: I will read it, thank you.
I read John McPhee for the first time this summer and it set my imagination running. I've been out of the academic discussion of such things for way too long, put completely off by the disgusting politicization and spin of every damned morsel of public information by all sides. It's hard to know who to listen to.


Well, as great a writer as McPhee is, he's not really a great source for understanding climate change, either paleoclimate or man-made.

The best thing you can do is try to read as close to the primary scientific literature (i.e. published studies in legitimate journals) as you can. If you can read and understand papers directly, do that. If they're a little too technical, try to read summaries written by the journal editors or other journals for non-specialists. These can also be a little technical, so you may need to take a step back from the journals and find science writers with a demonstrated track record for getting the issue right.

Elizabeth Kolbert wrote a multiple-award winning series called "The Climate of Man" for the New Yorker. She later put them together as a book called Field Notes from a Catastrophe. It should be available at your local library. If you enjoy that, I can recommend other books.

The Long Thaw by David Archer is a very short book that looks at the carbon cycle. The author is an expert on carbon cycle dynamics. A more technical book by the same author is the Princeton Primer on The Global Carbon Cycle.

Under a Green Sky by Peter Ward is a perhaps overly pessimistic take on the issue, in the context of paleoclimatic changes. The author is a paleontologist.

Winds of Change by Eugene Linden looks at past, smaller scale climatic changes and the impacts these have had on civilizations. Linden is an award-winning science writer.
 
2011-10-24 10:01:31 PM  
can you stick those in your profile, js?
 
2011-10-24 10:02:14 PM  
Put a cork in it, blowfly (21-7-b).
 
2011-10-24 10:02:57 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Do you have a web site that goes into this topic?


For that specifically, try the David Archer books I mentioned. His papers on the topic are easy to find as PDFs.
 
2011-10-24 10:05:28 PM  
HotIgneous Intruder

Put a cork in it, blowfly (21-7-b).

no
 
2011-10-24 10:21:07 PM  
pwhp_67:
Right. It's not science based, even though 98% of the scientists currently studying climate change agree that it is real...

As stated, that is quite correct. Scientists believing something to be true does not make it true. That is magical thinking. Even if 100% of scientists believed that Pi = 3.0, the relationship between a circle's diameter (or radius, if you prefer) and circumference would not change.

On the other hand, there is no way that 98% of scientists believe that climate change is primarily caused by humans, which is the issue in question, NOT whether climate is changing, or not. Only boneheads believe the climate never changes, and I have never heard anyone claim that it doesn't, although human nature being what it is, there must be someone out there...

That 98% number is from a cheating study by Oreskes. Let me reverse it, and show you how the question was formulated: Look through the scientific literature. If a paper has the words "Deniers are retarded" in it, it counts as pro-AGW. If it does not have that phrase in it, it is counted as skeptical of AGW. And, for added measure, only look at articles quoted in their entirety in "Watts Up With That?" That is essentially what Oreskes did. Add to that the fact that Oreskes' "survey" took place before Climategate, and the entire study should be ignored. See the bottom of this post for some articles more firmly based in reality.

Particularly egregious is Oreskes' claim that there were NO papers critical of the AGW hypothesis published in the window in which she was searching. Every climate scientist who kept up with the literature had read several papers critical of AGW, and were thus able to discount Oreskes' study from personal knowledge.

And, climate alarmists today continue that same over-reaching. If Oreskes had said that "only a few papers critical of AGW" had been published, it is unlikely that such a remark would have caused problems. Most people don't read ALL the literature, and would probably have simply accepted Oreskes' conclusion. But, no, she had to go for "no papers published were critical of AGW." Simply repeating the 98% agreement figure puts you in the over-reaching category.


blog.heartland.org



The 97% 'Consensus' plummets to 34.7%. Article HERE. (new window)

The IPCC consensus on climate change was phoney, says IPCC insider. Article HERE. (new window)
 
2011-10-24 11:13:22 PM  
If education weren't out of reach for so many people these discussions wouldn't even be happening. If everybody took a basic Climatology course then there wouldn't be an argument at all. It's us, folks! let's effin deal with it, k?
 
2011-10-24 11:21:48 PM  
RedVentrue:
This is a broad negative assertion. What is your proof that we didn't do it?

Many cycles of warming & cooling long before man existed.

Don't play that game... Since the current long-term warming began at the end of the Little Ice Age, long before the industrial revolution, and closely matches several warming periods in the past, the burden of proof is on those who wish to claim that, somehow, a natural trend of over a hundred years stopped, and was replaced by a man-made trend of the same slope. It is that bizarre claim which requires explanation. Besides, one really has difficulty proving a negative, should one volunteer for the task.
 
2011-10-24 11:43:09 PM  
HotIgneous Intruder:
It's gotten so that any academic puts his career in jeopardy if he comes out against anthropogenic warming. That's politics, not science.

While it IS closer to politics than to science, I think you need to go all the way to religion to find a good analog for the situation. Infidels are always damaged in whatever way is possible. Heretics are even less kindly received. There is a credo which must be accepted in all its points, and simple labeling of someone as apostate (a denier) is enough to discredit them in the eyes of the congregation. Self-flagellation is also big amongst the faithful. There is also a focus on the coming Apocalypse, which can be averted by world-wide atonement, and the selling of indulgences, AKA carbon credits. There's also that bit about the Great Pumpkin in about a week -- or am I conflating my denominations? No, religion is a MUCH closer match to the situation, IMHO.

/ NOBODY expects the cut-off of funding for being skeptical...


2.bp.blogspot.com

 
2011-10-24 11:50:19 PM  
Cyber_Junk:
I choose to believe the collective wisdom of the scientific community on this issue. And currently their wisdom states that human induced climate change is occurring. I base this 'belief' upon the same foundation of reasoning that, if I see 99 doctors and they tell me I have cancer while the hundredth says I'm fine, the overwhelming majority opinion is most probably correct.

Let's make it a bit more fair. Let's say that if it is decided that you do NOT have cancer, all 100 doctors will lose 95% of their income. That number matches the boom climatology research has enjoyed due to world panic over the climate. With the doctors' income decided by their "conclusion," does that change the amount of faith you put in a diagnosis?
 
2011-10-24 11:58:38 PM  
Now I see why so few climate change threads have been greenlit recently. It's always the same deniers with the same debunked BS drowning out any reasonable discussion. They're like the birthers of Fark or something.
 
2011-10-24 11:59:04 PM  
21-7-b:
oh, whatdyaknow? i was going to mention that i thought General Jim was another alt of the same poster

You keep thinking, Butch, that's what you're good at.
 
2011-10-25 12:03:46 AM  

GeneralJim: pwhp_67: Right. It's not science based, even though 98% of the scientists currently studying climate change agree that it is real...
As stated, that is quite correct. Scientists believing something to be true does not make it true. That is magical thinking. Even if 100% of scientists believed that Pi = 3.0, the relationship between a circle's diameter (or radius, if you prefer) and circumference would not change.

On the other hand, there is no way that 98% of scientists believe that climate change is primarily caused by humans, which is the issue in question, NOT whether climate is changing, or not. Only boneheads believe the climate never changes, and I have never heard anyone claim that it doesn't, although human nature being what it is, there must be someone out there...

That 98% number is from a cheating study by Oreskes. Let me reverse it, and show you how the question was formulated: Look through the scientific literature. If a paper has the words "Deniers are retarded" in it, it counts as pro-AGW. If it does not have that phrase in it, it is counted as skeptical of AGW. And, for added measure, only look at articles quoted in their entirety in "Watts Up With That?" That is essentially what Oreskes did. Add to that the fact that Oreskes' "survey" took place before Climategate, and the entire study should be ignored. See the bottom of this post for some articles more firmly based in reality.

Particularly egregious is Oreskes' claim that there were NO papers critical of the AGW hypothesis published in the window in which she was searching. Every climate scientist who kept up with the literature had read several papers critical of AGW, and were thus able to discount Oreskes' study from personal knowledge.

And, climate alarmists today continue that same over-reaching. If Oreskes had said that "only a few papers critical of AGW" had been published, it is unlikely that such a remark would have caused problems. Most people don't read ALL the literature, and would probably have simply accepted Oreskes' conclusion. But, no, she had to go for "no papers published were critical of AGW." Simply repeating the 98% agreement figure puts you in the over-reaching category.

[blog.heartland.org image 248x186]

The 97% 'Consensus' plummets to 34.7%. Article HERE. (new window)

The IPCC consensus on climate change was phoney, says IPCC insider. Article HERE. (new window)



Yowch. Yet again a lot of "mistakes" from GeneralJim. First, the 98% number isn't from Oreskes, it's from Doran 2009, contrary to GeneralJim's claim.

scienceblogs.com

The actual number is 97.4% of climatologists who are active publishers on climate change. They agree with the statement that "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"

As for the two blog posts he cites, note that the first one is in reference to a poll done by Bray and Von Storch in 2003. This poll was done by simply putting out an invitation onto a message board with absolutely no control over the actual credentials or expertise of the participants or even multiple submissions. Even worse, the invitation supposedly got out to a skeptic's mailing list as well. Compare this with the Doran 2009 poll whose 97.4% number is from "climatologists who are active publishers on climate change", sampled by contacting:

all geosciences faculty at reporting academic institutions, along with researchers at state geologic surveys associated with local universities, and researchers at U.S. federal research facilities (e.g., U.S. Geological Survey, NASA, and NOAA (U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) facilities; U.S. Department of Energy national laboratories; and so forth)

The sampling methods are so radically different and so deficient in the case of the Bray and Von Storch poll as to render at the very least a direct comparison extremely difficult, if not render the results of said poll highly suspect.

Of course, the most glaring error with the statement that "the 97% 'consensus' plummets to 34.7%" is that the 34.7% number was measured before the 97% one (2003 as opposed to sometime in 2007 or 2008). Even if one could directly compare the different results (which you can't), the exact opposite would be more accurate - the 34.7% number increased to 97%.

Note that the above has been repeatedly pointed out to GeneralJim in the past. The fact that he continues to uncritically and zealously link to this blog post should give you an idea how dishonest he is willing to be.


Now, if you look at the second article GeneralJim linked to, you'll note that it is reference to this paper. It's actually a fairly solid one, but it probably doesn't mean what GeneralJim thinks it does (assuming he even actually looked at the paper). It does not make the case that the conclusions of said consensus are somehow 'phoney', but instead cautions that a claim such as "2,500 of the world's leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influenceon the climate", (not a claim made by the IPCC itself, mind you), isn't supported by the IPCC process itself, in which the actual report was actually written by "only a few dozen experts in the specific field of detection and attribution studies; other IPCC authors are experts in other fields" The paper is a review paper of the research done on the IPCC itself from a social science perspective, and it's a good read.

The mild mischaracterization that GeneralJim (and others) are attempting here was common enough to spur the author of said paper, Mike Hulme, to issue not only one but two clarifications. From said clarification:

The point of this bit of our article was to draw attention to the need for a more nuanced
understanding of what an IPCC 'consensus' is - as I say: "Without a careful explanation about what it
means, this drive for consensus can leave the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism." The IPCC
consensus does not mean - clearly cannot possibly mean - that every scientist involved in the IPCC
process agrees with every single statement in the IPCC!


So in other words, we should not pretend that consensus, in the form generated by the IPCC, is some simplistic affair in which every single scientist involved has approved and signed off on every sentence. IT's a good point, but probably not what GeneralJIm and others were looking for. From the second clarification:

I think this [the IPCC process] is an entirely credible process of knowledge assessment, but people should not claim that it is more than it is.

Which is also a very good point.
 
2011-10-25 12:13:40 AM  
lennavan:
I know! That's exactly why there is no cure for cancer! The doctors and drug companies and scientists and government are all apart of an enormous conspiracy to make money!

Actually, yes. I am involved with this process. There was a discovery of a medicine at Emory University which peer-reviewed research showed to be the most effective treatment against cancer yet seen. It is effective against any cancer which involves a tumor (that is, not so much against leukemia, etc.) As a further benefit, the drug is not toxic to humans in any dosage a human could reasonably take.

Emory had a meeting of big pharma reps, to auction off the rights to this drug -- and nobody was interested. They expected to make a MINT on this, but, as it turns out, the origin of the drug is natural, and companies could not be assured that some fly-by-night would not undercut them with a non-specific formulation from the natural source.

The cure for upwards of 80% of cancer exists, but, unless we succeed in getting it out there, nobody will see it, because the expected profits from sales are worth less than the twenty billion dollars a year currently spent on cancer research. I was a bit shocked myself, I have to say.
 
2011-10-25 12:15:22 AM  
Hi brother GeneralJim! I make my text stand out too, because the quality of my posts is also absolute shit!
 
2011-10-25 12:16:34 AM  
lennavan:
GeneralJim: Green Text.

Aren't you here early? You're not due for another 12 hours or so.

It is only flaming arseholes who believe that I am on some sort of bizarre "schedule" of posts. I read posts I'm interested in when I see them.
 
2011-10-25 12:20:04 AM  
Jon Snow:
HotIgneous Intruder: My main problem with anthropogenic warming is that there is ample evidence that we are already in the middle of a warming cycle that began 10,000 years ago. Given that, there's no way humans could have caused it.

We've only been burning oil for 160 years, give or take.
Humans might be tweaking it upward a bit, but not on any serious scale.
We didn't start the fire.

Why don't you try reading the Koehler et al. paper I linked you to earlier? You're making intro level errors about fundamental concepts in paleoclimate and energy balance.

Yeah, listen up, n00b -- Jon can teach you how to make the really COOL errors, and obfuscate any topic with a plethora of citations. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]
 
2011-10-25 12:21:18 AM  
Climate skeptic? Someone out there thinks we don't have a climate?
 
2011-10-25 12:22:07 AM  

Eddie Adams from Torrance: Meh... we've already moved past "It's not getting hotter" bullshiat.

The new and improved talking point is that it has absolutely nothing to do with the 27,000,000,000 tons of carbon that human activity releases each year.


Compare that number to the total tonnage of the atmosphere and it's really not very much.
 
2011-10-25 12:25:50 AM  
HotIgneous Intruder:

[redundant derp]

One of the worst things that ever happened to climate science is that AlGore Al Gore stated an inconvenient truth and the GOP went apeshiat and politicized the whole subject. It'll take decades to undo the damage he's they've done to legitimate science and to depoliticize the topic, probably decades.

FTFY

/better late than never
 
2011-10-25 12:27:39 AM  

GeneralJim: The cure for upwards of 80% of cancer exists, but, unless we succeed in getting it out there, nobody will see it, because the expected profits from sales are worth less than the twenty billion dollars a year currently spent on cancer research. I was a bit shocked myself, I have to say.


hahhahahahhahahhahahahhahahahhahahahha
 
2011-10-25 12:35:47 AM  

Lligeret: There is more scientific evidence for the theory of evolution then there is for the theory of gravity.


Want to know how I can tell that you're not a scientist?
 
2011-10-25 12:38:07 AM  
Cyber_Junk:
GeneralJim: numbone: Thank God it's only the earth, I thought the sun was getting hotter.
The Sun IS getting warmer, and will until it balloons out into a red giant star. Check some of the references in THIS ARTICLE. (new window)

(from your link: Andrew Gavin Marshall is an independent researcher and writer, covering a broad range of issues - economic, political, social, cultural, and historical - in an effort to bring a critical perspective to world events. )


You're using a BLOGGER as a citation?

'I write' does not constitute scientific credentials.

Well, first off, please note that I said "Check some of the references in THIS ARTICLE." There are quite a few papers referenced, and the blog article does a good job of locating quite a few of topical relevance.

But, that aside, so farking what if it's a blog? Nobody seems to mind the use of the blogs of the perpetrators, such as skepticalscience and realclimate. This "it's okay if we do it, but don't YOU dare" is getting more than a bit old. Blogs are information, the quality of which is independent of the format in which it appears. Anything on the 'Nets is composed of only ones and zeros. If you have a problem with information, fine, bring it. But refusing to deal with something that appears in a blog is chickenshiat at its finest.

Some topics are NOT going to appear in "the literature." These are topics such as running data auditing software on NASA GISS data sets, and finding high odds that the sets are of human manufacture, as opposed to observed data. While a topic of vital interest, that is NOT going to be in someone's peer-reviewed paper.

And, clearly, being "peer-reviewed" in climatology means something vastly different than it does in other fields. The IPCC reports were claimed to be peer-reviewed. Himalayagate, and all the other little corruptions show that simple environmental activist propaganda is published in the IPCC reports -- which have been certified as "peer-reviewed." Michael Mann publishes all sorts of crap that doesn't even pass the sniff test, let alone a critique by peers, and yet all of it gets passed and published, even when the conclusions fly in the face of the data. Phil Jones says that in the entire course of his career, leading up to being in charge of the Hadley CRU, he has NEVER been asked to either provide more data, or been challenged on a single fact or conclusion. This is NOT peer-review as most of us would understand it. It's "pal-review," which is peer-review's perverted and sycophantic nephew.
 
2011-10-25 12:40:43 AM  

DrPainMD: Eddie Adams from Torrance: Meh... we've already moved past "It's not getting hotter" bullshiat.

The new and improved talking point is that it has absolutely nothing to do with the 27,000,000,000 tons of carbon that human activity releases each year.

Compare that number to the total tonnage of the atmosphere and it's really not very much.


What does this even mean?
 
2011-10-25 12:47:14 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Climate change is real.
How could we humans have caused it if it started 10 or more thousand years ago?

Anyone?


Jeebus Crust, you really believe this shiat.

You disparage the "hockey-stick" graphs correlating CO2 increase with surface temperature increase despite the thoroughly understood physics behind the greenhouse effect. How does the documented increase in CO2 (remarkably consistent despite several sizable volcanic eruptions which, according to anti-AGWers like yourself, should have dominated said increase) not have an effect on temperatures? Show your work. Appeals to feedback effects will not be accepted since they are an admission that increased CO2 as noted above does have the potential to affect temperature.
 
2011-10-25 12:49:20 AM  

common sense is an oxymoron: Jeebus Crust, you really believe this shiat.


Um, yeah...about that.

*favorited!s DrDerp too.*

Good thing these ignore lists don't have a maximum capacity level
 
2011-10-25 01:43:10 AM  
jigger:
Kome: GeneralJim: Well, sure there is... But it shows that the current long-term (> 100 years) trend started well before the industrial revolution, and was not noticeably altered by the industrial revolution. So, naturally, it must be denounced.

So Central England is representative of the entire globe now?

I'd like to know where the BEST people got the global temperature from 1800.

Good point, but it's worse than that... The record, according to warmer alarmists relies heavily on tree-ring data. That's because the tree-ring data, as cherry-picked by Keith Briffa, is the ONLY data set to show the "correct" hockey-stick temperature record.

The irony is that Briffa used a SINGLE GROVE of trees, and even took it down to a single tree, one that exactly exhibited the "desired" pattern of growth for a considerable period of time. Clearly, that is simple bad, probably fraudulent, science. But, since tree ring width is ALSO used as a proxy for rainfall, it's accuracy as a temperature proxy is highly suspect. And, tangentially, where we CAN check the accuracy of tree-ring width as a proxy for temperature against instrument records, tree rings suck, big time.

The irony of the situation is that the pseudo-science whack jobs, like KOME, whom I have ignored, biatch about the geographic generality of the INSTRUMENT record, when it has a larger area than anything Michael Mann was involved in. The objective of the "science" Michael Mann has done is generally to discount the global nature of the Medieval Warm Period, since its presence shows that Earth warms without human intervention, thus raising the bar for proof that current warming is exceptional.

The Central England record is important for two reasons: It is the oldest instrument record we have, and, in a related fact, it starts well BEFORE the industrial revolution. Also, for those straining at gnats, it does indeed match up exceptionally well to world-wide proxies. And, since nobody has shown it yet, here is what 18 proxy data sets including NO tree-ring data sets, averaged, shows about the temperature in the past:


ossfoundation.us



The above graph shows our best, actual, scientific understanding of historical temperatures for the last two thousand years.
 
2011-10-25 01:53:13 AM  
Cyber_Junk:
You're conflating the scientific community with the activist community. Its the scientists who have identified carbon dioxide emissions as a significant source of environmental concern.

It wasn't ME who published environmental activist literature in IPCC reports, and called it "peer-reviewed." The problem is that political activism has been conflated with science -- and NOT by me. "Consensus" is a political term, with no bearing on science. Of course, if it were science being used on the climate, the current panic and rush to stupid solutions would not have gotten off the ground.
 
2011-10-25 02:08:13 AM  
emkajii:
An academic would put their career in jeopardy if they came out against any theory with mountains of incontrovertible data, and anthropogenic climate change is no different.

That's simple bullshait. Funding comes from political sources, and politically unpalatable research does not get funded. End of story. If you want your share of the research bonanza pie, you publish a paper that includes a boilerplate warning against AGW in the conclusions, even if that boilerplate is contradicted by the data. We have a climate researcher among us, and he has explained the process.

Additionally, in response to a previous ignorant comment, I found a couple dozen papers in the previous year (2009) which posed fundamental questions about the processes of evolution, and the nature of gravity. In SCIENCE, questioning the "consensus" is a duty, sort of like spring cleaning. In POLITICS, questioning the "consensus" is a heretical act, generally punished.
 
2011-10-25 02:12:57 AM  
pwhp_67:
If Climate Change is being debated in the scientific community, OK. But if 98% of the scientists actively studying it agree it exists and is likely man made - then it's more likely that you don't really understand the issue well enough to argue against it...

Well, your statement is invalid because 98% do not agree. Plus, my hair is a bird.
 
2011-10-25 02:14:37 AM  

GeneralJim: jigger: Kome: GeneralJim:
[ossfoundation.us image 640x502]


I find it amusing that the place you got that figure from, ossfoundation.us (new window) which is from a paper by Loehle, spends a great deal of time indicating why the figure isn't as you put it "our best, actual, scientific understanding of historical temperatures for the last two thousand years."

From the site that figure is hosted on, "Overall, the data concentrated on by Loehle seems to have low resolution which does not allow more accurate assessment. He used averages to represent data points. Times scales were misrepresented without reasonable context, he used proxy data with short period calibration with no validating data, he used out of date data, he composited data with different averaging periods, different spatial representation and noise levels and seems to have assigned weighting in a random pattern out of context to better validated reconstructions... all in all a very confused assessment."

Also, "The incorrect nature of the Loehle temperature reconstruction is a disservice to the public and to science in general. One must wonder as to why he would ignore the relevant science?"
 
2011-10-25 02:22:51 AM  
HotIgneous Intruder:
But still, not a genius on this thread can tell me how anthropogenic global warming could have started 10,000 years ago, when the last ice age began to end and the glaciers melted, causing the seas to rise and forming the ria known as the Chesapeake Bay and also causing the Atlantic beaches to move inland from what are now the submerged continental shelves.

While I agree with your general outlook, you seem to be missing a point here. Let's take warming out of it, and substitute forest fires.

It can be proved, by finding carbon layers, that large forest fires happened before man even evolved. However, that fact does NOT mean that a forest fire today could not have been caused by human arson. Similar results COULD be obtained by different means. I actually believe the entire AGW thing, with one exception: I'm certain that the AMOUNT of warming caused by mankind's increase of the carbon dioxide level has been greatly exaggerated. All indications are that doubling the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would result in an increase in temperature of somewhere between 0.24 K and 1.10 K.

Of course, that one slight disagreement with SOME of the scientific community means that I am a young-earth creationist. Such are the ups and downs of religious climatology.
 
2011-10-25 02:32:28 AM  
brantgoose:
He is notorious for supporting the work of two denialists:

You horrid, brantgoose-stepping fascist... Yeah, let's lock the bastard up, or kill him, better yet. He DARES to question the Goracle. Quit smearing your feces on science, you 'tard. Science IS questioning, in its essence. You, on the other hand, are a religious fundamentalist.
 
Displayed 50 of 456 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report