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.

(CBS News)   After 17 years of dimming, Earth now reflecting more light in recent years. In other news, Al Gore hysterically screams warnings about the horrors of "global brightening"   (cbsnews.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

5206 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 May 2004 at 10:05 AM (12 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



247 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2004-05-29 04:25:59 PM  
Brockway

I think its called dogmatism.
 
2004-05-29 04:26:34 PM  
Why he can't grasp your point, that is
 
2004-05-29 04:32:21 PM  
OK multiple posts are making me confused...let me get this straight:

Climatologists must be wrong, because conventional beliefs about climate trends today are the opposite from what they were 30 years ago. Other sciences evolve, but the general thinking today is not the opposite of what it was 30 years ago, therefore those sciences are somehow superior. Is that what people are arguing?

What makes this a really, really stupid line of reasoning is the simple fact that, as science progresses, scientists LEARN NEW THINGS that make the REASSESS WHAT WHAT PREVIOUSLY BELIEVED. This is no more or less true for ANY field of scientific inquiry. The methods applied are the same.

Are people arguing that climatologists are distinct from other scientists in that they willingly practice fraud, inventing or at least cherry-picking data that supports pre-determined conclusions? If so, the person making that charge better have some damn good evidence that this is the case, otherwise all this whole line about "it's contradictory! It must be a lie!' is just hand waving by know-nothings.
 
2004-05-29 04:35:19 PM  
Are people arguing that climatologists are distinct from other scientists in that they willingly practice fraud, inventing or at least cherry-picking data that supports pre-determined conclusions?

When the climatologists entire funding depends on thier data being correct I would argu that.
 
2004-05-29 04:35:29 PM  
Just to illustrate the point more clearly, let me give an assertion, and then I will follow that assertion with a change in the assertion. The first change will be a general change. The second change is the specific type of change tha I am talking about, which is to say, a change to the opposite. This is the example for the idea of the structure of the atom.

ASSERTION: An atom consists of a nucleus made of protons and neutrons, about which orbit electrons in shells of 2, 8, 18 (etc.) electrons.

ASSERTION with a change: An atom consists of a nucleus made of protons and neutrons, about which orbit electrons in s, p, d, f (etc.) orbitals.

ASSERTION with a change to the opposite:
An atom consists of a nucleus made of electrons, about which orbit protons and neutrons in shells of 2, 8, 18 (etc.) protons and neutrons.

Notice that while examples of changed assertions can be found in genetics, and computing, and atomic physics (as in the present example), changes of assertion to the opposite can be found only in junk science.

This is a long-recognize fundamental principle of science that seems surprisingly vacant on this board. It is called robustness. Junk science can be identified by its complete lack of robustness. Notice that no real science lacks robustness.
 
2004-05-29 04:36:52 PM  
Being the multi billion dollar world wide operation the global warming fraud has become.
 
2004-05-29 04:47:38 PM  

OK multiple posts are making me confused...let me get this straight:

Climatologists must be wrong, because conventional beliefs about climate trends today are the opposite from what they were 30 years ago. Other sciences evolve, but the general thinking today is not the opposite of what it was 30 years ago, therefore those sciences are somehow superior. Is that what people are arguing?


Not that climatologists must be wrong, but they could be wrong. The point is that there is a difference between a theory and a fact, and environmentalists treat global warming caused by industrialisation as a fact when it is a theory. The contradiction with prior beleifs is brought up merely to point out that it's a theory and their theories have been wrong in the past.


What makes this a really, really stupid line of reasoning is the simple fact that, as science progresses, scientists LEARN NEW THINGS that make the REASSESS WHAT WHAT PREVIOUSLY BELIEVED. This is no more or less true for ANY field of scientific inquiry. The methods applied are the same.


That's all well and good, but when it comes time to pay the bill (and every enviromental improvement has a price) I will have to be convinced depending on the price involved. 5 bucks a year, it could be totaly unbeleivable. 5 bucks a month, if I can file it under maybe I'll be happy. Give up the internal combustion engine.....The Lord himself better come down and explain it to me, and He better have a pie chart. A very convincing pie chart.


Are people arguing that climatologists are distinct from other scientists in that they willingly practice fraud, inventing or at least cherry-picking data that supports pre-determined conclusions? If so, the person making that charge better have some damn good evidence that this is the case, otherwise all this whole line about "it's contradictory! It must be a lie!' is just hand waving by know-nothings.


No one is saying that it must not be true, ppl are saying that it may not be true and based upon the probability that it's incorrect it's not worth the price we are being asked to pay. Also don't forget that science can be biased, the reason the big bang theory didn't take off until the 40's in spite of astronomical (in category, not size) evidence of it was personal prejudices prevailing (ha) at the time. That factors into the price we are willing to pay.
 
2004-05-29 04:48:37 PM  
Vet_Curm
Yes, I understand what a metaphor is, I just mistakenly thought you may have been trying to make a point instead of just being a troll. Now that I know, please do carry on.
 
2004-05-29 04:55:15 PM  
Fecal Pandora:

Are people arguing that climatologists are distinct from other scientists in that they willingly practice fraud, inventing or at least cherry-picking data that supports pre-determined conclusions?

What I am arguing is that if you are producing numbers compared in a year-over-year manner, then you must be using the same method to convert the raw data for each year to the final number. All I want to know this:

1. What is the mathematical manipulation applied to the raw data to arrive at the final number for the year?

2. Is the dataset the same for each year (i.e., same thermometers, same ouija-board readers, etc.)?

3. Where is the raw data for this year so I can apply the published manipulation method to the raw data myself to see whether the temperature thus far this year is up or down compared to other years selected at random.

I am suggesting that there will never be the case where both the raw data used and the method used will be published precisely because interested people will use the data to determine the actual case for themselves, and that there is danger that this conclusion will run counter to the climatologist's claims, which is dangerous to their profession.
 
2004-05-29 05:01:47 PM  
After 17 years of dimming, Earth now reflecting more light in recent years.

This is obvious. 17 years? It must be all the cicadas.
 
2004-05-29 05:03:36 PM  
>Why does Al Gore keep taking hits for trying to protect the environment?

Because this is fark. When it comes to politics its Fox News Jr.
 
2004-05-29 05:04:41 PM  
This thread is going nowhere fast. I was hoping to come back and see some good discussion on the topic at hand, instead it is a contest of weener size. Oh well.

Smcfark
Relativity didn't turn all physics on its head, it actually blended quite well with the previous Newtonian understanding and supplemented it with extremes such as approching the speed of light and explaining the underlying physics of gravity that allows for the Newtonian expression of its forces. Have to point this out as a physicist, beyond that you're right. Science changes. Before Continental drift, geology was a vastly different science. With Continental drift we've created a new understanding. Science evolves. If it didn't it would be like religion, which always seems to focus on the unsubstantiated actions of a few that will never be truly documented or disproven. Science works on the here and now, and at any time it may be toppled by an experiment that defies current understanding. Our weakness and our strength.

Back on topic, most of the government has our best interests in mind within current understandings and limitations. There are some elements that look out for their own, such as the Neocons and their illustrious Shrubya. But a large portion is still on track. Money will be spent on research, which may or may not help anyone. It's the nature of such things. I just hope that we take heed to our plight and prepare for the worst while hoping for the best. We're all just like everyone else, we want to be comfortable, happy, and on top. The first two are worthy causes in anyone's book, its the third that's the kicker.

Whoa... that was a rant... did I type that? Fark, someone need to slap me, take away my keyboard, and get me a nice cold beer.

(^mutters about long posts and other mindless drivel)
 
2004-05-29 05:11:12 PM  
Global Warming is "Junk Science".
Yeah, tell that to the poor folks in Tuvalu.

Here in NC, there is usually a week or two in the summer where it's dangerous just to go outside. Athsma attacks skyrocket, children and the elderly get sick after half and hours exposure, and it's truly difficult to breathe. This is in NORTH CAROLINA, a state FULL of trees and parks. Now tell me, even if it isn't 100% human being's fault, isn't this reason enough to do all we can to end this? These kind of climate changes simply aren't healthy. To say,
"well, it doesn't appear to directly affect ME and therefore i'll drive my SUV as much as I possibly can." is pigheaded, pure and simple.

What will you tell your grandchild if it turns out it really WAS our fault? "Well sweetie, the air is poison outside because grandaddy thought fossil fuel was more important that clean air for you to breathe. I know it's hard, but look at the picture of the sweet hummer I used to drive! That baby was AWESOME!"
 
2004-05-29 05:11:39 PM  
Inyego

downstairs
understood my point although he disagreed with it, even though you did not.

Dismiss me as a troll then, it doesn't bother me. I was participating in the thread, when you were doing hit and run (One post in three and a half hours)

The ideas under discussion are what is important, and you are attempting to make this into a personal issue.
 
2004-05-29 05:14:12 PM  
I am suggesting that there will never be the case where both the raw data used and the method used will be published precisely because interested people will use the data to determine the actual case for themselves, and that there is danger that this conclusion will run counter to the climatologist's claims, which is dangerous to their profession

Do you even understand the concept of peer review?
 
2004-05-29 05:27:25 PM  
What I am arguing is that if you are producing numbers compared in a year-over-year manner, then you must be using the same method to convert the raw data for each year to the final number. All I want to know this:

1. What is the mathematical manipulation applied to the raw data to arrive at the final number for the year?


This is always explained in any academic paper where the data is manipulated or "transformed."

2. Is the dataset the same for each year (i.e., same thermometers, same ouija-board readers, etc.)?

If one study uses a different data set from another, the researcher should explain why he chose that particular data set and not the other. If you disagree with his choice, you must explain why another data set would be better. If two data sets are used in the same study, the differences between them should be accounted for and the appropriate precautions should be taken. Any publication that fails to do this should fail the peer review process.

3. Where is the raw data for this year so I can apply the published manipulation method to the raw data myself to see whether the temperature thus far this year is up or down compared to other years selected at random.

The "raw" data should be readily available for any scientific publication worth its weight in paper. If a scientist's findings cannot be reproduced, a core principle of the scientific method has been violated.
 
2004-05-29 05:42:29 PM  
This is a long-recognize fundamental principle of science that seems surprisingly vacant on this board. It is called robustness. Junk science can be identified by its complete lack of robustness. Notice that no real science lacks robustness.

Notice also that standards for statistical certainty vary between sciences, and that, in a given field, scientists may have to make do with a lower threshold of certainly than they would like because of the very nature of the field. That does not make them any less scientific, it does not invalidate their conclusions, and it certainly does not make them frauds.

It's true - individual measurements of large-scale phenomena like climate change are not as precise as, say, measurements of chemical changes done in a laboratory. However, this can be compensated for by taking multiple samples, from multiple sources of data, using multiple instruments, at multiple times, and looking for correlations. When all of these sources point to something happening, e.g. a warming trend over the past 30 years, a scientist may hypothesize that a warming trend is indeed occurring. If there is no compelling data to suggest otherwise, the hypothesis stands.

When that trend is seen to correlate significantly with a sharp increase in greenhouse gas emissions, a scientist may further hypothesize that those gasses are playing some causal role in the observed phenomenon. If a competing explanation is offered, it must be evaluated as well.

If you have a competing explanation for why the Earth is warming, you are perfectly free to offer it. You will not be denied research funding. You will not be denied tenure. Your paper will be accepted for review by the prominent journals in your field and, if it is found to be rigorous and it actually says something interesting, it will indeed be published.

Is anyone claiming that this is not the case in the field of climatology?
 
2004-05-29 05:51:04 PM  
Fecal Pandora:

I keep seeing people claim that the manipulation used is made public, but what I have still never seen is it actually being made public. Since you seem to have some expertise in this matter, maybe you can help me directly by simply telling me what the manipulation is, as stated in any one of the many peer-review scientific publications you have read that state the manipulation as you suggest they have done.

Further, since you claim "The "raw" data should be readily available for any scientific publication worth its weight in paper", then I take that to mean it ought to be readily available as well. So rather than give me claim that it is readily available, just give me the URL, since it should be so readily evident.

Then, once I have this manipulation as you state it, and the data, I can determine for myself whether the stated results actually follow from the data.

So in conclusion:

1. What is the manipulation used?
2. Where is the raw data?
 
2004-05-29 05:59:04 PM  
Fecal Pandora:

Do you even understand the concept of peer review?

Seeing as how I am a Ph.D. scientist who makes his living doing REAL science, and who is supported by grants, and who is the editor-in-chief of a scientific journal, and who acts as a referee for other scientific journals, and seeing as how I have participated in study sections, I would say that I am at least as familiar with the peer-review process as are you, and that you would do well to drop the condescending tone, and rather than attempt a trollish diversion from the issue at hand, make some effort to answer the questions, lest you be considered simply a name-caller.
 
2004-05-29 06:05:00 PM  
Brockway: First, to back Fecal Pandora up (despite the fact that he seems better spoken than myself), why don't you try looking through some scientific journals? Just because the hard data isn't present in media reports or Al Gore's book doesn't mean it's not being made public, it just means most people don't care or understand. Secondly, the problem with your whole opposites argument is that you are the one creating this idea of opposites. I mean, you are the one trying to force a change in scientific predictions into some sort of direct flip-flop. While I agree that general relativeity is not, in itself, a complete reversal of all that came before, I could easily make a prediction with Newtonian physics, then make a different prediction based upon relativity, and claim that they are opposite. The real point is that there is that there is almost irrefutable evidence that the world is warming up, together with some theories which implicate human action in this trend, based upon the evidence. Just because it has changed does not make it wrong. Science is NOT all building up. It takes a lot of tearing down.
 
2004-05-29 06:08:26 PM  
Really, Brockway?

How Conveeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeenient!
 
2004-05-29 06:10:36 PM  
Fecal Pandora:

When that trend is seen to correlate significantly with a sharp increase in greenhouse gas emissions

It is good to see such a sharp scientist as yourself following the logical tenets of "post hoc, ergo propter hoc". Congratulations, you have convinced me that you really are a climatologist.

If you have a competing explanation for why the Earth is warming.

False premise - the earth is not warming.

The only way to show the earth is warming is to pick and choose the data. Any manipulation of consistent data in a uniform way shows no warming. The proof of this is that no climatologist will post publicly both the raw data and method used to arrive at the final year-over-year numbers.
 
2004-05-29 06:15:33 PM  
I love dick-swinging contests between science guys. Takes them 10,000 each words to say, "I'm smarter than you."

Seriously, good discussion, even if the egos are running a little wild.
 
2004-05-29 06:18:01 PM  
smcfark:

I don't expect the raw data to be in Gore's book. But I do expect it to be somewhere.

What I don't expect is for people to "correct" satellite measurements to one extent one year, then to another extent another year completely arbitrarily, and expect people to take them seriously as scientists.

I say again, if the data and the method exist, then why is it so hard for anybody to point me to a URL which contains the data or to simply state the method used to transform the data?
 
2004-05-29 06:23:32 PM  
So in conclusion:

1. What is the manipulation used?
2. Where is the raw data?


1. The proper term is "transformation," and it's going to vary among different studies depending on any number of factors. Some transformations correct for cyclical fluctuations, some correct for errors in measurement, and some have a purely theoretical justification. Final conclusions are almost always drawn "transformed" data. Any published paper will have a section that explains how the data was transformed, usually near the beginning. Rarely is the particular transformation problematic in a published paper. That sort of thing is typically corrected in the peer review process. However in cases where the transformation is found to be flawed, the entire study, conclusions and all, can and will be summarilly dismissed.

2. Well it depends. If it consists of measurements taken by the scientists, it should be available on CD-ROM or published on the internet. If it is from a publicly available source, like most satellite data, you would purchase it from the satellite company. In some situations you might request it directly from the scientist.

From the Journal "Climate Research" Vol. 18: 2530, 2001

A probabilistic approach to sea level rise up to
the year 2100 at Ko8obrzeg, Poland
Andrzej Wrblewski*
Institute of Oceanology PAS, 81-712 Sopot, Poland

ABSTRACT: As an example of the linear forecast method, the application of a linear trend to annual
mean sea level data from Ko8obrzeg is analysed, and the mean sea level rise for a 110 yr time period
is forecast. On the basis of the classical trend theory, the possibility of making a linear forecast on the
basis of variable confidence intervals is demonstrated and various computational techniques are
compared. The method assumes the application of confidence intervals not only to the stochastic
component of the forecast model but also to the estimated trend parameters. As a result, depending
on the assumptions and measurement data, the linear forecast method can be adapted to a variety of
situations where low-lying areas are under threat from rising sea levels. The possibility of including
the mean sea level rise forecast in the probabilistic forecast of storm surges is discussed. Example
calculations for the period 1901 to 1990 were performed for a time series of maximum annual sea
levels at Ko8obrzeg, estimated by Gumbels distribution.

______SNIP_____

2. COMPUTATION OF THE
FORECAST BY EXTRAPOLATING
THE LINEAR TREND
Long-term sea level variability was
analysed on the basis of mean annual
values. Computing annual sea level
data by employing the monthly mean of
readings is equivalent to applying lowpass
filtration. For monthly mean filtering
the maximum aliasing error is
assessed at 0.055% of the M2 amplitude
(Pugh 1987). Along the Polish coast the
Baltic Sea is practically tideless; thus
oscillation periods of lesser significance,
shorter than annual period, havebeen ignored. The aliasing error of the annual mean is
without practical meaning. If reliable data on the vertical
movements of the tide gauge zero are available, the
forecast should be computed separately for r(t) and
M(t) by the equation:
(t) = r(t ) M(t) (1)
where (t) = the relative annual mean sea level recorded
at the tide gauge; r(t ) = the real annual mean
sea level; M(t) = the apparent annual mean sea level
caused by tectonic movements t = 1, 2.........

____YOU GET THE POINT_____

4. CONCLUSIONS
Extrapolated over a long period of time, the mean
sea level forecast has a broad interval of uncertainty.
Such a forecast for engineering purposes requires a
method accounting for the so far determined linear sea
level rise. The use of a trend-extrapolated forecast
requires that confidence intervals be extensively
applied, which enables the method to be adapted to
the various sea level rise scenarios compiled by IPCC.
The choice of confidence levels under these conditions
is subjective, as is the choice of return period and confidence
levels in the sea level storm surge probabilistic
computations.
The application of confidence intervals to the prediction
of mean and maximum sea levels facilitates the
addition of 2 forecasts, the result of which is less than
simple superposition (see Eq. 18).
The computation method enables a sea level forecast
for tide-gauges with various trends to be made at the
same level of confidence. In this case, engineering
designs would need to take into account only the local
trend and the same confidence levels for the whole
coast. Example computations were performed for the
Ko8obrzeg tide-gauge readings.
 
2004-05-29 06:24:59 PM  
Seeing as how I am a Ph.D. scientist who makes his living doing REAL science, and who is supported by grants, and who is the editor-in-chief of a scientific journal, and who acts as a referee for other scientific journals, and seeing as how I have participated in study sections, I would say that I am at least as familiar with the peer-review process as are you, and that you would do well to drop the condescending tone, and rather than attempt a trollish diversion from the issue at hand, make some effort to answer the questions, lest you be considered simply a name-caller.

Nice try.
 
2004-05-29 06:28:00 PM  
BigLuca:

Congratulations, of the two words on your Word-a-Day calendar this week you managed to use one of them incorrectly. Go review 'hyperbole'; there is no exaggeration in her post. You get a gold start for 'syllogism.'

Hmm, then suggesting that the grand canyon was completely dry wasn't an exaggeration? I guess you have looked at the grand canyon more recently than have I. Either that or you didn't understand the use of "hyperbole" even after you looked it up and posted about it.

Also, just because her manner was perfunctory doesn't mean her statement was correct

Which again misses the whole point. He was exemplifying the other side, and in so doing was purposefully representing the false to illustrate the absurdity of the adopted position. It is amazing to me that people can take that message and use it to try to show that Chelsea was trying to show evidence in support of the global warming theory. Get the point already, Chelsea was mimicking the opposing side, and in so doing, thought it best to characterize them as they are, by making statements as they would, which is to say, false statements.
 
2004-05-29 06:28:18 PM  
I keep seeing people claim that the manipulation used is made public, but what I have still never seen is it actually being made public.

Then I presume the following to be an outright lie:

and who is the editor-in-chief of a scientific journal, and who acts as a referee for other scientific journals

By the way, the proper term is "transformation." But you already knew that, right?
 
2004-05-29 06:32:07 PM  
When that trend is seen to correlate significantly with a sharp increase in greenhouse gas emissions

It is good to see such a sharp scientist as yourself following the logical tenets of "post hoc, ergo propter hoc". Congratulations, you have convinced me that you really are a climatologist.

If you have a competing explanation for why the Earth is warming.

False premise - the earth is not warming.


What part of "when" and "if" did you not understand?
 
2004-05-29 06:41:50 PM  
Nice to see farkers resorting to outright lies to prove their points. I think this discussion is dead. And no one ever thought Chelsea supported global warming theory. I mostly thought he actually believed the Grand Canyon was once a big lake. A thought that he never actually attempted to prove incorrect, come to think of it.
 
2004-05-29 06:42:27 PM  
Brockway,

My point is that just because science came to some incorrect theories thirty years ago doesn't mean that we can simply disregard what they are saying now because it contradicts early conclusions.

Climatology has advanced considerably since then. We know that some changes are taking place, and most climatologist believe that it has something to do with human activity. To be fair they are not 100% certain that it is human activity. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't be concerned, and take action. The consequences are far to great.

Unfortunately I have no doubt that we will screw around with this issue for another decade or so before it is conclusively proven to be true. With luck we'll have time to perhaps mitigate the worst of the effects, but perhaps more importantly it will serve to deal a death blow to the neo-conservative movement, which has fought against this notion largely out of a desire to protect the profits of those who control industries which would be hurt by the changes required.

Either way... I - like everyone else here - is just blowing smoke out my ass.
 
2004-05-29 06:45:02 PM  
Fecal Pandora

1. The proper term is "transformation," and it's going to vary among different studies depending on any number of factors

Ooops, you did it again. The correct term here is "manipulation", since the raw data are adjusted within the same domain. Examples of transformations are limited to changing domains only, for example in the way that a Fourier transformation can transform information from the time domain to the frequency domain.

____YOU GET THE POINT_____

Yeah, I get the point. I ask for data about warming, which is a temperature measurement, and has units of degrees, and you cite a couple of things about sea level, which is a distance measurement and has units of meters. Maybe it would be helpful if you could at least stay on the same page.

Nice try.

Nice try what? Would you like to re-assert that I have no familiarity with the peer-review process?
 
2004-05-29 06:45:31 PM  
Damn, late to an enviro-thread.

Well, while very late, first I'd like to remove the politics from this thread. It's silly and useless and the issue isn't really about Al Gore anyway. All professional politicans are corrupt - get over it. If you don't apply the same judgemental rules to all of them equally, regardless of partisanship, you are a hypocrite.

Now then, this brings us to the "Oh God, the world is coming to an end because my neighbor is cooking meat on his grill that he bought and brought home in his SUV"! (This means you, D_I_A. Heh.) I hear this and I hear the mighty hubris of humanity rearing it's ugly head again. Speaking as a pro environment liberal, this is hogwash. The Earth, Mother Nature, and the universe itself is a vast, complex, powerful inter-related system that we don't understand 2% of yet. The only way we'll destroy the Earth is if we send a specially selected crew down to the core to set off nuclear explosions... oh wait, that was a movie. And a bad one, too. And while we're at it, The Day After Tomorrow sucked balls, not because of it's topic, but because it was stupid and boring. Anyway, back on topic, humanity of course thinks it has the power to destroy the Earth, but really, if we're killing anything it's our own chance at species survival utilizing the current status quo. To paraphrase George Carlin - Earth will be fine... but we're farked! We truly can't go on like this forever. Eventually, a change will have to be made - for humanity's sake.

Now then, if we're keeping our feet logically and honestly on the ground, and assuming we've launched all politicians into deep space where they can never put their grimy, untrustworthy hands into science or anything else ever again, I pose my question:

Assuming that we don't know one way or another how the world is really working, but that there are truly valid reasons to be concerned about environmental issues, is it not logical and intelligent to make money and resources available to study all possibilities in an attempt to understand, learn, and preserve our species' safe future on this planet?

Someone, possibly Weaver upthread (apologies if it wasn't), mentioned a wait-and-see ideology. While I agree with many of his points in this thread, that one I think is totally wrong-headed. We owe it to ourselves, I believe, to continue to look at all possibilities, including "Junk Science". Then, if it is disproven, good. If it turns out to be true, well, then we know and can act accordingly. Either way, I fail to see how educating ourselves is less of a valid idea than just ignoring any possible theories that may arise. I don't think that some political jerkwad being obnoxious and using a scientific possibility for their own agenda should reflect poorly on the validity of the possibility, but rather just the jerkwadiness of the person spewing the vindictive. Maybe it's just me personally, and I accept that it might just be my own point of view, but I prefer to err on the side of caution - take nothing for granted, investigate all ideas until proven totally false.

And before someone jumps on the whole political, capitalist "Oh yeah, where are all of these resources going to come from, Mr. Liberal A-hole?"... if you're asking if I have some sort of fiscal plan I will not lie and say I have one. Truly, economics are not my strongpoint, and I won't lie and say otherwise. But my feeling is when something is important you find a way to make it work. This country isn't lacking in money - I see flame wars on here all the time with "GWB is spending money we don't have" vs. "GWB has a strong budgeting plan" - there is obviously money out there, so we distribute it accordingly...

/my question and $0.02... er, make that $0.16... sorry.
 
2004-05-29 06:48:11 PM  
What I want to know is, when I look out my window in July and see a blanket of yellow funk covering my city, how much of that is the result of naturally occurring phenomena?
 
2004-05-29 06:50:10 PM  
Fecal Pandora:

If you have a competing explanation for why the Earth is warming.

What part of "when" and "if" did you not understand?


I guess I did not understand that your sentence should have read, "Provide a competing explanation, if the earth is warming", rather than the way you stated it.
 
2004-05-29 06:58:07 PM  
sugarlarry:

My point is that just because science came to some incorrect theories thirty years ago doesn't mean that we can simply disregard what they are saying now because it contradicts early conclusions.

I hope you don't think I am for disregarding what they say. What I am saying is that we should bear in mind that they were saying the exact opposite not so long ago.
 
2004-05-29 07:05:46 PM  
Ooops, you did it again. The correct term here is "manipulation", since the raw data are adjusted within the same domain.

I have yet to see this done with a piece of data except when in accordance with the metadata specified for the measuring instrument, in which case the specifications are made public by the manufacturer of the instrument. Why you think such information would end up in a journal article is beyond me.

Examples of transformations are limited to changing domains only, for example in the way that a Fourier transformation can transform information from the time domain to the frequency domain.

Sure. And they are done at the discretion of the researcher, and they are made public. Do you think climatologists are secretly cooking their data to conform to some grand conspiracy?

Yeah, I get the point. I ask for data about warming, which is a temperature measurement, and has units of degrees, and you cite a couple of things about sea level, which is a distance measurement and has units of meters. Maybe it would be helpful if you could at least stay on the same page.

Yo, dummy, you never specified that you wanted an article about any particular topic whatsoever, you just wanted an example of one in which the "manipulation" of the data was explained and the "raw" data provided. I pasted a chunk of the only PDF I had of a climatogy article, to demonstrate that rigorous science is in fact practiced by climatologists - like I said already, I AIN'T A FRICKIN CLIMATOLOGIST.

Does the journal you allegedly edit make its articles available to the general public on the Web? No journal I've read does. I don't have PDFs for every issue of every Climatology journal on hand, and I'm not about to run out to the library and dig up and an abstract for some poser on Fark.
 
2004-05-29 07:07:53 PM  
I guess I did not understand that your sentence should have read, "Provide a competing explanation, if the earth is warming", rather than the way you stated it.

So if I say "when my dog talks to me I'll know there are angels," that means that I believe my dog will talk to me and that there are angels?

"When that trend is seen to correlate significantly with a sharp increase in greenhouse gas emissions" is a hypothetical statement. The "if" clause follows from it.
 
2004-05-29 08:00:39 PM  
Fecal Pandora:

Do you think climatologists are secretly cooking their data to conform to some grand conspiracy?

No, I don't think it is secret - I think it is arbitrary. Is it a conspiracy? No, I prefer to think of it as a lot of individual cases of fraud.

Yo, dummy, you never specified that you wanted an article about any particular topic whatsoever

Sorry, let me be more clear about this; I thought it would have followed from my previous post, but suppose you may not have read them all, so let me try to be more explicit in what I want. I don't even care if it is published or not. Since we are talking about global warming, I am interested in temperature data, since that is what is meant by warming I think to most people. I will be satisfied with ANY set of raw temperature data which accompanies an assertion that the earth is warming, and which gives as evidence of same year-over-year figures which has units of degrees. I also want an explanation of the method used to manipulate the data (that is the effort of applying any transformation(s), or any other mathematical device to the data) so that the raw data is converted to the final number.

Does the journal you allegedly edit make its articles available to the general public on the Web?

No. But the data that are used in the articles do, nevertheless, appear in raw form, whole and uncompromised, without any editing or transforming of any kind on the internet, mostly because the authors find it convenient (and even necessary) to do.

So if I say "when my dog talks to me I'll know there are angels," that means that I believe my dog will talk to me and that there are angels?

That's a pretty decent attempt at a save. But just to leave no doubt, rather than pose it as a hypothetical, let me just ask you outright, and then we can see if my interpretation was incorrect. To that end, I will quote you directly:

When that trend is seen to correlate significantly with a sharp increase in greenhouse gas emissions, a scientist may further hypothesize that those gasses are playing some causal role in the observed phenomenon.

So here is the question. Do you believe that the trend presently correlates? Or would you like to assert that the trend does not correlate, but that it could in the future? To ask it more directly, would you have me believe that you were talking in the future perfect tense? Clearly it is the case that the word "when" has uses outside the future perfect. But rather tha argue what might be considered a semantic, or even pedantic point, how about just answering the first question above - do you believe they presently correlate, or no?

The "if" clause follows from it.

You have painted yourself into a corner, as your posts begin to belie your own previous posts. Why would you go to the trouble of explaining the "if clause" in terms of the "when...correlation" statement when you yourself previously posted, including the "if clause" later in another context. Indeed, in your post of 06:32:07, the word "if" is mentioned only once. Again, to quote:

If you have a competing explanation for why the Earth is warming.

So why would you go out of the way to incude this in your post, and then later try to suggest that the "if" to which you referred was in another context altogether? Again, rather than belabor semantics, let me just ask you the direct question.

In the sentence:
"If you have a competing explanation for why the Earth is warming."

...do you believe that it includes a presumption that the earth is warming, or do believe that there is no presumption in that sentence that the earth is warming?

In conclusion:
1. Where are the raw temperature data?
2. Where is the explanation of the method used to convert the same raw temperature data into year-over-year warming data?
3. Does the above cited greenhouse gas/temperature correlation presently exist or not?
4. Does the sentence, "If you have a competing explanation for why the Earth is warming." contain a presumption that the earth is, indeed warming?
 
2004-05-29 08:26:06 PM  
Why does Al Gore keep taking hits for trying to protect the environment?


Guilty Gore Goes Gaga

"It is now clear that Al Gore is insane,"
writes the New York Post's John Podhoretz. "I don't mean that his policy ideas are insane, though many of them are. I mean that based on his behavior, conduct, mien and tone over the past two days, there is every reason to believe that Albert Gore Jr., desperately needs help. I think he needs medication, and I think that if he is already on medication, his doctors need to adjust it or change it entirely."

Maureen Dowd of the New York Times agrees. When he delivered a speech to the far-left outfit MoveOn.org yesterday, she writes, "Mr. Gore hollered so much, he made Howard Dean look like George Pataki." She says the erstwhile veep represents "the wackadoo wing of the Democratic Party."

Well, give Gore credit for helping liberals and conservatives find common ground in this era of polarization. Pretty much everyone agrees Gore is nuts.
OK, we did get one e-mail in Gore's defense, from a reader whose name we'll withhold because that's the kind of compassion we practice here at Best of the Web Today:

Al Gore spoke the truth, the real truth, and American truth. The hate speech that we are exposed to on a daily basis comes from the likes of you and the rest of you lying fascist scum that contaminate this country. You are the Republican taliban.

This charming missive pretty much captures the tone and spirit of the Gore speech, though our correspondent at least understands the virtue of brevity. Gore's speech, by contrast, ran more than 6,500 words. Maybe he's hoping for Fidel Castro's job.

How did things go so terribly wrong for Al Gore? When he ran for president in 1988, he was a fresh-faced, moderate "new Democrat." He lost the nomination to the electrifying Michael Dukakis, but he was only 40 and his future looked bright. Yet he never lived up to his potential, and today he is a pitiful, though scary, old man.

An Associated Press account of yesterday's speech notes that "Gore, who served in Vietnam, predicted greater problems for America's involvement in Iraq." The AP apparently means to suggest that Gore suffers from posttraumatic stress disorder, since the Vietnam reference is otherwise a complete non sequitur. But according to WebMD, "symptoms of PTSD usually occur within three months of the traumatic event." True, "they can occur months or years later"--but three decades later?

We've got a better theory: Gore, in our view, has cracked under a crushing burden of guilt.

To explain why, it helps to remember that a desperate anger pervades Gore's entire party at the moment. That's not surprising. For the first time in half a century, the Democrats are out of the White House and have a majority in neither house of Congress. A decisive GOP victory in November would leave the Dems a minority party for a very long time.


Oh, they put on a brave face, noting excitedly every Bush swoon in the polls. They say the president is manifestly incompetent and John Kerry will beat him easily. Maybe they'll even turn out to be right. Who knows? Certainly some Republicans are spooked about Bush's re-election prospects. But the shrillness and hysteria of the Democrats' rhetoric tells us they are far from confident.

Still, the immoderation of Gore's words, combined with the fury of his tone, puts him in a class by himself, or very nearly so, even among angry Dems. And while political candidates routinely engage in hyperbole in order to stir up the party faithful, Gore isn't running for anything. Dick Gephardt stopped ranting about Bush's being a "miserable failure" when he left the presidential race. Gore has nothing to gain by sacrificing his dignity in this way.

How did the Dems come to such a pass? In large part, it's Gore's fault. The Democrats held the White House in 2000, at a time of apparent peace and prosperity. They should have won the election that year, and they surely would have had they only had a decent candidate. But instead they had Al Gore. Even he came close enough to winning that he was tempted to try to steal the election.

There's a telling line right at the beginning of Gore's speech: George W. Bush, he says, "has brought deep dishonor to our country and built a durable reputation as the most dishonest president since Richard Nixon." Here Gore is engaging in what psychologists call "projection": attributing one's own faults to others. The most dishonest president since Richard Nixon obviously is the one who was impeached for lying under oath--the president, that is, whose No. 2 was none other than Al Gore.

Gore would have become president had Bill Clinton resigned after his 1998 impeachment, or had 17 Democratic senators voted to convict him in his impeachment trial. President Gore likely would have been re-elected in 2000, since he would have had the advantage of incumbency and been free of the Clinton taint that (unaccompanied by the Clinton charm) hurt him so much in the "red" states.

Instead, party discipline held, and the Senate acquitted Clinton.
This was another missed opportunity for Gore. Had he publicly broken from Clinton and called on the president to resign, other Democrats might well have followed his lead. Instead, he appeared at a White House rally immediately after the impeachment vote and described Clinton as "a man who I believe will be regarded in the history books as one of our greatest presidents."

Thus it was Al Gore, more than anyone else, who assured the election of George W. Bush as president. And if Gore actually believes all the paranoid nonsense he utters about "global warming," "an unprecedented assault on civil liberties," the "American gulag," the "catastrophe" in Iraq and so on, he let down not only his party but his country and the world, which will soon be destroyed thanks to Bush's decision to withdraw from the Kyoto treaty.

That's more guilt than anyone should be forced to endure.
 
2004-05-29 10:05:34 PM  
Great Headline, Gore is such a farking tool.
/didnt rtfa
 
2004-05-30 12:00:41 AM  
Pffft... the local weather schmuck has a better chance of hitting the pick3 than telling me if it'll rain on Monday. When eggheads can accurate predict the weather ONE WEEK in the future, I might pay attention to what they think may happen in the next decade.
 
2004-05-30 02:47:24 AM  
I ain't no climatolopaleocarbongeothermalologist, but from what I see from this "global warming" thing is that Mother Nature is just doing her job, hitting equilibrium.

Mind you, I only have 2 years of IB biology from back in high school, but from my knowledge, humans have had an environmental setback coming for a while now. When earth's carrying capacity is reached (which I think it's pretty damn close, unless technology can shift international society's PPF/LRAS out), Mother Nature coughs up a hairball to balance human population out. (Read: plague wiping out 50% of Europe, then sparking the Renaissance).

The bottom line is that humans are farked. If it ain't global warming, it'll be SARS or AIDS, or gorezilla killing off 50% of the human population again. So instead of learning to swim, you just have to learn to "run faster than the other guy", survival of the fittest.

I guess Darwin was right.
 
2004-05-30 03:18:43 AM  
Fecal Pandora

Went back and reread the article and compared the dates. I stand corrected.
 
2004-05-30 05:02:34 AM  
Global Dimming is probably measured from the Albedo, which is terrestrial reflectance of solar radiation. Global warming is caused by entrapment of terrestrial radiation (not reflection).

/didn't rtfa
/didn't rtff(orum)
 
2004-05-30 05:42:02 AM  
"Why does Al Gore keep taking hits for trying to protect the environment?"

because he isn't interested in protecting the environment, he's interested in controlling us through our fear. global warming? not too long ago the "environmentalists" were warning us about global cooling! Earth is constantly changing, nothing in this world ever stays the same for long. the climate fluctuates, mountains rise and fall, earthquakes break up the land... the whole nine yards. these sorts of things, we can't change. maybe the world will get hotter, or another ice age will occur and then we'll all go extinct. sucks to think about but sometimes that's just how things go. what you gotta understand is most of these "environmentalists" are only looking to control us, bring down America and all of western civilization. these people are self-hating humans, they want everyone to live in mudhuts and eventually die out completely.
 
2004-05-30 01:18:22 PM  
I'm also going with the cicada theory here.
 
Displayed 47 of 247 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | 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