Global Warming is Bullsh!t!

[flere-imsaho]

The problem with Kyoto and its associated global meetings is that the overworked rhetoric inevitably creates an atmosphere of "all or nothing" which doesn't really deliver realistic plans.

We need a combination of a carrot and stick, though. And there's no reason why a single country can't focus on an area like climate change (through emissions control, for instance) by itself and still come out ahead.

For an example, take GE's Evolution Locomotive. Developed largely in response to new EPA Tier 2 regulations (the stick), this innovative piece of technology has been hugely in demand in developing markets due to its combination of power, efficiency and lower emissions. The best example would be China, who as of 2006 had purchased 300 of these for those three aforesaid reasons.

We need to continue to encourage innovation like this. Innovation is, after all, something the U.S. does at least as well, if not better, than any other country.

So why not encourage innovation in green technologies? Green technologies are often characterized by better efficiency and/or lower levels of pollution (which is redundant, since pollution is effectively the result of an inefficiency in the process). There's a huge market for this stuff out in the world, and it's growing. Specifically it's growing in every developing country that wants technology to deliver stuff faster while causing less pollution. Again with a China example. China has bought heavily into U.S.-innovated green technologies because it doesn't want to be encased in a cloud of smog forever. China's not the only country buying our technologies.

Contrast this to cars & CAFE standards. When high gas prices came and U.S. automakers scrambled to design and build cars that were suddenly in demand, they were years (decades) behind foreign auto manufacturers, who were already selling cars in markets that required high mileage and/or low emissions.

Requiring better standards doesn't have to mean competitive disadvantage. It just depends how it's done.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Arles

And, when dealing with two unprovable (and unlikely) disasters, it's usually best to stand pat instead of taking a ton of actions to minimize one from occurring.

sure. especially if one results in our ceasing to exist as a species and the other simply costs us little pieces of multicolored paper and toys.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Arles

And, when dealing with two unprovable (and unlikely) disasters, it's usually best to stand pat instead of taking a ton of actions to minimize one from occurring.

That sure does fit in nicely with your narrative. Of course you'd recommend the path of "standing pat", especially if you feel that doing anything might lead to the other scenario.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

sure. especially if one results in our ceasing to exist as a species and the other simply costs us little pieces of multicolored paper and toys.

No, it's simply the idea that we should run from the "Boogieman" without first checking to see if he really exists. The idea of "the consequences will be so dire if we don't do everything possible for the environment" is not a premise I accept without more data.

As to some of the other ideas in terms of focusing on investment in alternate energy and innovation, I think that's a great start. But, the carbon tax process seems fairly useless in regards to helping the environment and I don't see the point in making changes to CAFE standards when their impact is minimal at best.

It seems the best bang for our buck in regards to the environment and energy is to start finding new sources for heating/cooling/transportation. Investing in that area appears to be a much better start than trying to punish people who use the existing energy system (without any other real option).

[Galaril]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100304/...limate_methane

[Warhammer]

And the point of the article is?

This land has not been submerged, now it is. Where it is is warmer than where it has been, that could be leading to the thaw. Plus, we do't know how long thi has been going on. Additionally, methane concentrations are the highest they have been in that area in 400,000 years. Therefore, it could be that the area has reached a saturation point and cannot sequester any more. Also, methane coming from decaying living matter would indicate that there has been a good amount of living material there that has died and decomposing, which is part of the natural process.

I do agree that methane is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2, but lasts for a much shorter time. Still, there is not enough info here to get worked up about either way.

[whomario]

Even if global warming wouldn´t exist, all the seperate pollutions are having a profound impact on the planet one way or another. Maybe they don´t endanger humanity as a species, but they sure as hell impact a lot of individual areas and species.

So using that Boogieman analogy : "Let´s see if he actually wants to kill us and not just something else. Cause then it´s fine, our crap will only kill other things/species, we can deal with that."

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by whomario

Even if global warming wouldn´t exist, all the seperate pollutions are having a profound impact on the planet one way or another. Maybe they don´t endanger humanity as a species, but they sure as hell impact a lot of individual areas and species.

Even the skeptics among us have agreed that cleaning up pollution is a good thing. But that was something we were working hard on BEFORE global warming ever got rolling. If anything global warming is hurting those efforts, because everything focuses on CO2 and carbon footprints, with other reductions a side effect. It's covering up efforts to reduce mercury emissions that are poisoning the ocean food chain, for example.

The one positive effect has been the push for hybrids / electric cars finally took off, but even those efforts were started in the early days of the panic, and the big push came from $3/gallon gas.

All the skeptics are asking for is to be reasonable and balanced and stop playing chicken little, especially as your evidence continues to fall apart.

[Arles]

Yeah, not being sold on global warming does not equal a theory that pollution is good.

[Warhammer]

What is one company's waste is another's treasure. Most well run companies seek to avoid pollution. Pollution is not a resource they can sell. If they can sequester the carbon and prevent CO2 from forming for example, they can sell the carbon to companies that use carbon as a resource.

As gstelmack points out, the primary focus on CO2 is a diversion. People focus on a bi-product of living activity, and ignore the real culprits SO2, methane, O3, etc.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

So I get the whole 'don't point to one weather event as an example of global warming/cooling' train of thought. So why does Al Gore continue to use that exact tactic to stir up the global warming argument in favor of his beliefs? Why is it OK for him to do it when the truth is that no one should be using that tactic?

Gore Attaches Global Warming as Cause to Last Weekend's Storm in Northeast

[RainMaker]

Who gives a shit what Gore says? He's not a scientist.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Who gives a shit what Gore says? He's not a scientist.

We can certainly agree on that.

[RainMaker]

Well you apparently do. You post a link to everything the guy says and does.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Well you apparently do. You post a link to everything the guy says and does.

Saying Al Gore has no relevance to the Global Warming movement is like saying Rush Limbaugh has no relevance to the Republican Party.

[RainMaker]

Comparing science to politics is laughably absurd. One is based on ideology while the other is based on methods to acquire knowledge.

If you don't believe in global warming, then you should be debating the scientists who come up with their theories from their studies and data. Finding Al Gore not credible does not debunk their science. Using that analysis, if Al Gore comes out and says he believes in gravity, we should all be able to fly.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

If you don't believe in global warming, then you should be debating the scientists who come up with their theories from their studies and data.

We do.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Comparing science to politics is laughably absurd. One is based on ideology while the other is based on methods to acquire knowledge.

Once again, we agree completely. It's a shame that politics has infiltrated the scientific community in this disucussion.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

If you don't believe in global warming, then you should be debating the scientists who come up with their theories from their studies and data.

That what most of this thread is about.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Once again, we agree completely. It's a shame that politics has infiltrated the scientific community in this disucussion.

That what most of this thread is about.

Then why is almost every post you make in this thread about the politics of it?

Listen, I get it. Your team has taken a stance on this and you have to stand by it. Just stop pretending that you have some issue with the science of it and start admitting that it's because those Democrats believe it. I've never seen you rail against science on any other issue and don't believe that you've dug through all their data to uncover the secret conspiracy behind their science.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

We do.

You're one of the only ones.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

We do.

You do? I mean, you, gstelmack, have read the peer reviewed journals and contacted the scientists who wrote the papers you have read with follow up questions? You have done this?

Or, by "We do.", do you mean "The other people on my team do"?

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

So why does Al Gore continue to use that exact tactic to stir up the global warming argument in favor of his beliefs?

Because he is a politician trying to sell you his politics, not a scientist trying to educate.

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Once again, we agree completely. It's a shame that politics has infiltrated the scientific community in this disucussion.

You must not think highly of the rest of FOFC if you think anyone is dumb enough to think you actually mean this.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by sabotai

You must not think highly of the rest of FOFC if you think anyone is dumb enough to think you actually mean this.

Why wouldn't I mean it? I'd much rather have the unfiltered information. Might not prove either side beyond a reasonable doubt, but we wouldn't have the quagmire of information that we currently have.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Why wouldn't I mean it? I'd much rather have the unfiltered information.

So far, you have linked to and referenced Al Gore multiple times. You have bumped this thread, multiple times, to link to something Al Gore said. In fact, I can't think of anytime you've talked about AGW on this forum and didn't mention Al Gore's name, either by talking about something he said or you calling some "Al" because they posted something in support of AGW. The only thing you seem to know about AGW is that it involve Al Gore!

And you want people to think your opposition to AGW isn't entirely motivated by politics? You could start by finding something else to bump this thread with.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by sabotai

So far, you have linked to and referenced Al Gore multiple times. You have bumped this thread, multiple times, to link to something Al Gore said. In fact, I can't think of anytime you've talked about AGW on this forum and didn't mention Al Gore's name, either by talking about something he said or you calling some "Al" because they posted something in support of AGW. The only thing you seem to know about AGW is that it involve Al Gore!

And you want people to think your opposition to AGW isn't entirely motivated by politics? You could start by finding something else to bump this thread with.

I've spoken extensively of the UN climate reports and the data/scientists associated with those reports. I've bumped for new information about them on more than one occasion.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by sabotai

You do? I mean, you, gstelmack, have read the peer reviewed journals and contacted the scientists who wrote the papers you have read with follow up questions? You have done this?

Or, by "We do.", do you mean "The other people on my team do"?

Oh, I'm sorry, didn't realise we were getting into all official peer-review of data, etc. I was saying that here ON THIS FREAKIN' BOARD WE ARE ALL HAVING THE FREAKIN' ARGUMENT ON we often debate the science and the numbers. We share references, read the articles, and discuss the conclusions and whether or not they make sense.

Also keep in mind when you discuss "peer-review" that much of the raw source data is not being shared. Good recent pair of articles in the most recent Discover magazine (http://discovermagazine.com/2010/apr...limate-science), one an interview with Judith Curry, the other with Michael Mann. My favorite bit:

Originally Posted by article

The Climatic Research Unit had legal agreements with certain countries that allowed them to use thermometer measurements, but they were legally bound not to distribute the data. The FOIA requests were demands for them to release those data, which they were legally bound not to release. The requests were disingenuous, and they were denied.

So the climate scientists are using data that they are legally prevented from handing over? That sounds convenient. How do you peer review ANYTHING you can't get the data from? So tell me again how much of this is correctly and adequately peer reviewed?

[mauchow]

Here in Appleton, WI has been consistently breaking records in the last two weeks. Record highs everywhere or at least right at the record high numbers.

Tomorrow will break another record by 7 degrees if the high of 65 holds true. The ground at my house is nearly dry already. Insanity.

Those are the facts, Jack! How you like dem apples!?

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Oh, I'm sorry, didn't realise we were getting into all official peer-review of data, etc. I was saying that here ON THIS FREAKIN' BOARD WE ARE ALL HAVING THE FREAKIN' ARGUMENT ON we often debate the science and the numbers. We share references, read the articles, and discuss the conclusions and whether or not they make sense.

Ok, but the sentence that YOU FREAKIN' RESPONDED TO was:

"If you don't believe in global warming, then you should be debating the scientists who come up with their theories from their studies and data."

And you responded: "We do."

So I guess your roundabout answer is "The other people on my team do".

Also keep in mind when you discuss "peer-review" that much of the raw source data is not being shared. Good recent pair of articles in the most recent Discover magazine (http://discovermagazine.com/2010/apr...limate-science), one an interview with Judith Curry, the other with Michael Mann. My favorite bit:



So the climate scientists are using data that they are legally prevented from handing over? That sounds convenient. How do you peer review ANYTHING you can't get the data from? So tell me again how much of this is correctly and adequately peer reviewed?

You think the peer-review process involves people getting all of the data used? Well, I don't know if it does or doesn't. He never said that any peer-review evaluators that might have needed the data didn't get it, just that they couldn't give it to any Tom, Dick or Harry that were e-mailing for it. In fact, if handing over all data for the peer-review process is standard, that would probably be part of the agreement with the nations that wanted their data kept confidential. Otherwise, there'd be no point in getting the data.

Perhaps you should ask them? Not like it's hard to find their e-mail addresses.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

More e-mails from NASA this time via the Freedom of Information Act:

Pajamas Media » Climategate: Three of the Four Temperature Datasets Now Irrevocably Tainted

[RainMaker]

Well an attorney with no scientific background certainly has more credibity than the overwhelming majority of scientists who have dedicated their lives to the study of this. Especially one that works for an organization funded by Exxon.

This sounds more likely.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...climate-change

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Guardian Article RainMaker posted

"I don't think we're yet evolved to the point where we're clever enough to handle a complex a situation as climate change," said Lovelock in his first in-depth interview since the theft of the UEA emails last November. "The inertia of humans is so huge that you can't really do anything meaningful."

But we have evolved enough to cause climate change? Wait, can we affect the climate or not?

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

But we have evolved enough to cause climate change? Wait, can we affect the climate or not?

Huh?

Five year olds can cause all sorts of problems without knowing how to clean them up. Much less an entire civilization of 6 billion people all doing their own thing. Just because we can solve a problem doesn't mean we are mature enough to work together to fix it.

SI

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

But we have evolved enough to cause climate change? Wait, can we affect the climate or not?

I don't know if we can affect the climate or not. My knowledge in that field is a freshman year Earth Science course in college. Probably as much as the attorney working for Exxon who wrote the article above. But there are a lot of people who have spent their lives studying this field and I would probably defer to them as to whether I believe it is true or not.

This issue is incredibly complex and when you have a country where half its residents don't believe in evolution and contend the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, you're not exactly looking at a species capable of understanding something like that.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't know if we can affect the climate or not. My knowledge in that field is a freshman year Earth Science course in college. Probably as much as the attorney working for Exxon who wrote the article above. But there are a lot of people who have spent their lives studying this field and I would probably defer to them as to whether I believe it is true or not.

I have also read plenty of weather / climate scientists that disagreed with most of this data, and what they say makes a heck of a lot more sense than those reaching these catastrophic conclusions. As has been said earlier in this thread, the catastrophic theories are centered around the fact that we happen to be at a perceived temperature peak, and that we appear to also be at a higher CO2 concentration than the earth has seen before. However, there are problems with those two facts, including:

1. We aren't really sure if it is a peak temperature, since there is plenty of evidence the earth has been warmer within recent historical periods (within the last few centuries).
2. We aren't really sure if CO2 is truly higher than ever, since we have only rough estimates from really old data, and the peak doesn't really show on a graph without zooming way in on the vertical scale.
3. Given the regular temperature / CO2 cycles, these seem like pretty thin cases for man being a major factor in global warming.
4. Every decade I've been alive and old enough to pay attention, some major catastrophe theory has been espoused, considered the TRUTH, and then been debunked.

Now 4 is not necessarily a reason to disbelieve this, because even the boy who cried wolf was eventually correct, but I still have not had a reasonable explanation for numbers 1-3 except for statistical massaging of private datasets we can't see. And given the massive influx of politics (the environmentalists having a field day) along with treaties designed to hammer the US and not many other countries, I just have a very hard time buying the TRUTH of this one.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

1. Every decade I've been alive and old enough to pay attention, some major catastrophe theory has been espoused, considered the TRUTH, and then been debunked.

You mean like the ozone hole?

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I have also read plenty of weather / climate scientists that disagreed with most of this data, and what they say makes a heck of a lot more sense than those reaching these catastrophic conclusions. As has been said earlier in this thread, the catastrophic theories are centered around the fact that we happen to be at a perceived temperature peak, and that we appear to also be at a higher CO2 concentration than the earth has seen before. However, there are problems with those two facts, including:

1. We aren't really sure if it is a peak temperature, since there is plenty of evidence the earth has been warmer within recent historical periods (within the last few centuries).
2. We aren't really sure if CO2 is truly higher than ever, since we have only rough estimates from really old data, and the peak doesn't really show on a graph without zooming way in on the vertical scale.
3. Given the regular temperature / CO2 cycles, these seem like pretty thin cases for man being a major factor in global warming.
4. Every decade I've been alive and old enough to pay attention, some major catastrophe theory has been espoused, considered the TRUTH, and then been debunked.

Now 4 is not necessarily a reason to disbelieve this, because even the boy who cried wolf was eventually correct, but I still have not had a reasonable explanation for numbers 1-3 except for statistical massaging of private datasets we can't see. And given the massive influx of politics (the environmentalists having a field day) along with treaties designed to hammer the US and not many other countries, I just have a very hard time buying the TRUTH of this one.

CO2 is believed to have been much higher during the times of the dinosaurs. We are in a relatively low CO2 concentration right now, compared to the previous ages on Earth.

Also, this last month, the majority of the US was seeing below average temperatures while the north central states as well as central Canada was seeing above average temps.

EDIT: One more thing, if those espousing manmade global warming can rule out anyone from an oil company arguing against it, I can do the same for any group funded by Greenpeace or any of those groups or any former politicians on the global warming side of the aisle.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

You mean like the ozone hole?

But what about the economic Armageddon that came from weening us off of CFCs?

SI

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

But what about the economic Armageddon that came from weening us off of CFCs?

SI

There were plenty of alternatives to CFCs at the time. The stuff out there now, there either are no alternatives, or the alternatives people do not want (such as more nuke plants).

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

There were plenty of alternatives to CFCs at the time. The stuff out there now, there either are no alternatives, or the alternatives people do not want (such as more nuke plants).

There are plenty of alternatives to many sources of energy today. Unfortunately, the industries at the forefront of many of these problems (energy, automotive, etc) lack any semblance of innovation.

The doomsday scenarios in these industries have been going on for decades. They told the world how everything would come to an end if the government kept forcing safety regulations on their vehicles. Somehow they managed to survive. These companies can do it but don't want to. Opening up new areas is a risk for them as it may allow actual innovation in to their industry and cause them to lose their marketshare.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I have also read plenty of weather / climate scientists that disagreed with most of this data, and what they say makes a heck of a lot more sense than those reaching these catastrophic conclusions. As has been said earlier in this thread, the catastrophic theories are centered around the fact that we happen to be at a perceived temperature peak, and that we appear to also be at a higher CO2 concentration than the earth has seen before. However, there are problems with those two facts, including:

1. We aren't really sure if it is a peak temperature, since there is plenty of evidence the earth has been warmer within recent historical periods (within the last few centuries).
2. We aren't really sure if CO2 is truly higher than ever, since we have only rough estimates from really old data, and the peak doesn't really show on a graph without zooming way in on the vertical scale.
3. Given the regular temperature / CO2 cycles, these seem like pretty thin cases for man being a major factor in global warming.
4. Every decade I've been alive and old enough to pay attention, some major catastrophe theory has been espoused, considered the TRUTH, and then been debunked.

Now 4 is not necessarily a reason to disbelieve this, because even the boy who cried wolf was eventually correct, but I still have not had a reasonable explanation for numbers 1-3 except for statistical massaging of private datasets we can't see. And given the massive influx of politics (the environmentalists having a field day) along with treaties designed to hammer the US and not many other countries, I just have a very hard time buying the TRUTH of this one.

I would love to argue the science with you but as I stated, I'm woefully unqualified in that field. I haven't read the countless numbers of studies in detail, nor do I have the educational background to completely understand what the data means. If you have both those, then more power to you.

I have no doubt that there are scientists that disagree with they majority opinion in that field. There are vocal dissenters to the Theory of Evolution as well as those who feel vaccines cause Autism. Those opinions are not held in high regard amongst experts in those fields, but they are scientific opinions nonetheless.

At the end of the day though, I'm not going to advocate eliminating vaccines for deadly illnesses because a small percent of scientists feel that it causes a higher rate of Autism. Nor would I pass on a drug that my doctor felt would help me that was created based on evolutionary principles. We are just different though in that regard I guess.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I would love to argue the science with you but as I stated, I'm woefully unqualified in that field. I haven't read the countless numbers of studies in detail, nor do I have the educational background to completely understand what the data means. If you have both those, then more power to you.

I've read the summaries from the pro scientists, not the detailed analyses. As I've pointed out several times, I can't do that, because they hide them and keep them private. That data is not out there to be properly peer reviewed, I just have to "trust" them. But I read what they put out, see the parts that don't add up, the hand waving and "statistical analysis" that let's them say and spin whatever they want, and it just doesn't add up. When they throw up small portions of graphs with exaggerated scales, and then you get to see the rest of the graph and it just shows that we're in a typical cycle, it's very difficult for me to accept their conclusions.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I have no doubt that there are scientists that disagree with they majority opinion in that field. There are vocal dissenters to the Theory of Evolution as well as those who feel vaccines cause Autism. Those opinions are not held in high regard amongst experts in those fields, but they are scientific opinions nonetheless.

Well, some of the ones I've posted have been such nutcases as the head of the NOAA's hurricane service.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

At the end of the day though, I'm not going to advocate eliminating vaccines for deadly illnesses because a small percent of scientists feel that it causes a higher rate of Autism. Nor would I pass on a drug that my doctor felt would help me that was created based on evolutionary principles. We are just different though in that regard I guess.

Vaccines are a different animal, in that they are a study of risk. Some people ARE harmed via allergic reaction, for example, but many more are saved by them. The risks are real and tangible, but you have to also look at the benefits.

I do think one of the big tragedies of the last decade or two is the shift in science from research for researches sake to politics and big business sinking down even into the university level. Your autism example is a great one, because that was a study done, published, and peer-reviewed, and not until later did the problems with it come to light. I've talked heavily on here about healthy eating habits and how those have gone through a number of changes over the years. In our big money / big politics environment, folks call press releases to announce findings VERY early on in the process, without worrying about the peer review or independent corroboration or any of the other standard practices. Then the media runs with it, they make their millions, and everyone is fooled. Honestly these days it is very hard to know who the honest scientists are and who the charlatans are, because more and more research is tipped in favor of those who pay the bucks or what gets the next grant.

And again keep in mind that many of us here arguing against the draconian global warming treaties aren't against cleaning up our act in a lot of areas. Polluting the environment is bad, no doubt, and we can do better at reducing our impact. But the sky is falling mentality just does not add up, especially when most of it is directed at the US and to a much lesser extent Western Europe while ignoring the impact of large developing nations like India, China, etc.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I've read the summaries from the pro scientists, not the detailed analyses. As I've pointed out several times, I can't do that, because they hide them and keep them private. That data is not out there to be properly peer reviewed, I just have to "trust" them. But I read what they put out, see the parts that don't add up, the hand waving and "statistical analysis" that let's them say and spin whatever they want, and it just doesn't add up. When they throw up small portions of graphs with exaggerated scales, and then you get to see the rest of the graph and it just shows that we're in a typical cycle, it's very difficult for me to accept their conclusions.

This is by far one of the most baffling things about the research.

Researcher: Here are the various graphs and reports showing a definite global warming trend.

Skeptic: Hmmmmm. You're right. That definitely shows a warming trend. Can I see the raw data spreadsheet where it shows the temperatures at all Temperature Measurement Stations for every day over the past XX years?

Researcher: Sorry, we can't give you that exact information.

They could shut up ever skeptic if they'd just produce the raw data. It's really not asking too much, especially of a study reportedly made by a unbias scientific research group.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

They could shut up ever skeptic if they'd just produce the raw data. It's really not asking too much, especially of a study reportedly made by a unbias scientific research group.

There's also the minor fact that we only have reliable real temperature data for the last couple of decades (that needs statistical massaging to deal with iffy instruments and factors like paved parking lots), and the rest is based on estimates from clues in ice cores and the like. Same with CO2 data, although that may be closer to accurate since they are checking trapped air pockets with actual air samples (but only from a few locations, not spread out over the globe), but both are simply estimates, not actual historical observations.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

There's also the minor fact that we only have reliable real temperature data for the last couple of decades (that needs statistical massaging to deal with iffy instruments and factors like paved parking lots), and the rest is based on estimates from clues in ice cores and the like. Same with CO2 data, although that may be closer to accurate since they are checking trapped air pockets with actual air samples (but only from a few locations, not spread out over the globe), but both are simply estimates, not actual historical observations.

Understood. Even that data would be helpful to at least understand the conclusions made in these situations. You could point to the reason Station 5B was .5 degrees higher was because it was mounted on a QuickTrip above a blacktop lot and parked cars. You could say that Station 16A was .2 degrees higher because there were a lot of farting moose in the area. But if they don't throw that bone out there, their conclusions can continue to be questioned.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Researcher: Here are the various graphs and reports showing a definite global warming trend.

Skeptic: Hmmmmm. You're right. That definitely shows a warming trend. Can I see the raw data spreadsheet where it shows the temperatures at all Temperature Measurement Stations for every day over the past XX years?

Researcher: Sure, you can find what you are looking for here: NCDC: * National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) *

Researcher: Plus, you can find many more temperature data sets on the following websites:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
CDIAC Temperature Data Sets
Temperature Data
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ndp041/ndp041.html
Home European Climate Assessment & Dataset
RSS / MSU and AMSU Data / Description

[Warhammer]

The only issue with some of the temperature sets is they are not raw data, many of those data have been "homogenized" or "normalized". GISS has and I believe the European numbers have as well.

[Glengoyne]

The arguments "You're just taking that position because your team has staked out a position" and "Who are you to doubt the thousands of scientists who are convinced about this" are both a bit disingenuous. I took my position pretty much before this was much of a fight, and I can have a relatively informed opinion without being qualified to participate in a peer reviewed study.

The fact of the matter is that 12 - 15 years ago the scientists, that is the climate scientists, said rather bluntly that while the world was warming, that there was no way to tie that fact to man's involvement. I still remember having to look up anthropogenic. At that time, the scientists were no where near a point where they could tie man's involvement to the facts they had. There were too many variables, too many factors, too many unknown factors. Simply put, there was no way to get from here to there, and no hope to achieve that on the horizon. Oddly enough the politicos spun the news to hint that man was in fact behind the warming. I'm still a bit puzzled why someone would be so bound and determined to arrive at that conclusion.

Then a scarce five years pass, and suddenly they've solved the equation. That's what the new reports said. No real discussion or disclosure about how the gap was bridged....just a new conclusion that matches the political spin of a few years before. Color me skeptical.


A couple more years pass, and then Al Gore goes around declaring that there is no debate. Instead there is consensus. Don't even think about arguing this. If you do, you are placed in a box with the creationists or whatever strawman's box a representative of the consensus wants to put you in. There is still no real answer or representation of how the equation was solved, just accept it. Look at this graph. Look at this picture. The glaciers are melting. The sea levels are going to rise. The alarmists declared victory. Now I'm not just skeptical, I'm resentful of the fact that my legitimate position/informed opinion is being dismissed.


So my skepticism has nothing to do with my political persuasion. My position preceded most of the political wrangling on this subject.

[RainMaker]

Wait, so your opinion isn't based on any scientific studies, but on the fact that it just doesn't seem right. That there is no way conclusions could have been made that quickly based on your vague criteria. Interesting approach to science.

And I don't see how being thrown in a box with creationists is different. Evolution, like global warming has overwhelming support in the scientific community. There is not a single scientific society that rejects global warming just as there is none that reject evolution. Typically those in the extreme minority are shunned by their "peers" in the science community. There is not a lot of time spent researching whether the devil buried dinosaurs bones to trick us thankfully.

You have stated you have an informed/legitimate opinion. Can you provide us with the studies you have performed? Your academic background in the field of climatology? Perhaps some of the studies you feel are wrong? You have made a point of stating that you are qualified to speak on this and I'm curious as to your resume in that field of science.

I guarantee that your approach to science in global warming is completely different from other aspects of your life. If you had a heart problem and the consensus among all the cardiologists was to have a procedure, you wouln't risk your life and say "well I did my own research and disagree". Of course in that scenario your life is on the line and playing amateur cardiologist isn't a good idea. Sort of like creationists who still line up for flu shots. They don't believe in evolution, but they aren't willing to put their life on the line in defense of that belief.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by sabotai

Researcher: Sure, you can find what you are looking for here: NCDC: * National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) *

Researcher: Plus, you can find many more temperature data sets on the following websites:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
CDIAC Temperature Data Sets
Temperature Data
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ndp041/ndp041.html
Home European Climate Assessment & Dataset
RSS / MSU and AMSU Data / Description

But some lobbyist from Exxon says they don't exist.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Wait, so your opinion isn't based on any scientific studies, but on the fact that it just doesn't seem right. That there is no way conclusions could have been made that quickly based on your vague criteria. Interesting approach to science.

No I read a study, well the scientific summary of that study as well as the "layman's" summary of that study. It was the 96(?) IPCC study and report. I'll go slowly here. The scientific summary was quite clear. NO Way to tie warming to anthropogenic cause. Too many variables. Too many unknowns. Simply no way to bridge the gap. More than that... there was no super computing technology that was on the horizon that would solve the problem. It was pretty clearly written. Then if you read the summary the IPCC, non-scientists, assembled.. it made the connection. So I was left clearly understanding the scientific position, and was presented with the fact that some (non scientific) folks wanted to advance an opinion/position that differed from the actual science.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

You have stated you have an informed/legitimate opinion. Can you provide us with the studies you have performed? Your academic background in the field of climatology? Perhaps some of the studies you feel are wrong? You have made a point of stating that you are qualified to speak on this and I'm curious as to your resume in that field of science.

I guarantee that your approach to science in global warming is completely different from other aspects of your life. If you had a heart problem and the consensus among all the cardiologists was to have a procedure, you wouln't risk your life and say "well I did my own research and disagree". Of course in that scenario your life is on the line and playing amateur cardiologist isn't a good idea. Sort of like creationists who still line up for flu shots. They don't believe in evolution, but they aren't willing to put their life on the line in defense of that belief.

Two things. I don't have to be a scientist to have an opinion.

Secondly I don't have any inkling that Cardiologists might actually be motivated to portray facts as anything else than they are. I have seen people do exactly that with regard to Global Warming/Climate Change.