Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 4
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 9:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

What should amaze you are the legions of physicists, mathematicians, climatologists and other scientists, people with decades of research under their belts, dozens of published research papers to their credit (that is individually, it would be tens of thousands collectively) that your side foolishly ignores. Honestly, you are like that guy in the Holy Grail who keeps insisting that the person he brought out is dead.

plus, and here is the most damaging argument to you junk science believers, there is a consensus here, and you keep telling us that a consensus is the most important objective in all of science.

PS. You claim to be a scientist, yet you ignore work published in peer reviewed journals. The link I posted? refers to an physicist who has never done anything but teach at university and publish research. Consensus, That is just too stupid to be believed. I know you are lying about being a scientist, because any real scientist would never claim or imply in any way that "debate is over" has anything to do with science. Actually, there was that one scientist a century or so ago that claimed humans knew everything that was knowable. You sound exactly like that guy.

Personal attacks, ad hominem crap, logical fallacies, those are the arguments you side makes. In all my years I have never seen or heard an actual fact based argument in support of human caused global warming.
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 10:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have been thinking, the experiment should be easy. Take a sealed glass box, put a 100% CO2 atmosphere inside, put it outside in the sun. The greenhouse effect says that it should trap heat, so it should be significantly warmer than the surrounding air before sunrise the next day. Furthermore, it should keep getting warmer, trapping more heat as the days pass. Let me know how the experiment goes.

There, I just attacked the science behind Gore. Actually that is wrong, I just attacked the lack of science behind Gore. You cannot attack what is not there. Why haven't basic experiments like these been done? If they have, why aren't you people trumpeting the results from the rooftops?
peter_puck





Joined: 15 Dec 2007
Posts: 82
Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6
votes: 1

PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 3:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
In all my years I have never seen or heard an actual fact based argument in support of human caused global warming.



Then I would suggest you take your head out of the sand.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 5:15 pm    Post subject: Re: Scientist or conservative ..do I have to choose ? Reply with quote

peter_puck wrote:
Again, Gore is a TV pitchman. He does not claim to be a scientists. On the other hand, a fair number of the prominent anti-global warming crowd have been paid lots of money by oil companies. Tim Ball and the "junk science guy" on Fox come to mind. You can attack Gore, but you cannot attack the science behind him.

May I ask a couple of questions? I hate to challenge one so wise in the ways of science with my petty logical skills but I feel compelled to do so...

First, do you have any proof whatsoever that Tim Ball (or anyone else for that matter) are being paid "lots of money by oil companies" or are you simply accepting the word of media reports and biased sources like desmogblog at face value?

Second, what possible difference would it make if they WERE being paid by oil companies? It sound like you're attacking them but not the science behind them... much like you're accusing others of doing to the Goreacle.

Finally, while you suggest kwlafayette has his head buried in the sand, you've done nothing to debunk his point. Can you provide any meaningful references to this supposed mountain of evidence supporting AGW?

-Mac
peter_puck





Joined: 15 Dec 2007
Posts: 82
Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6
votes: 1

PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 9:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:

First, do you have any proof whatsoever that Tim Ball (or anyone else for that matter) are being paid "lots of money by oil companies" or are you simply accepting the word of media reports and biased sources like desmogblog at face value?


Well, look, there is one simple way to solve this problem. Dr Ball, as the chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project can just publish a list of the projects donors and put the whole issue to rest. Then those people accusing him of being a paid industry spokesman will look really silly won't they ? He could also choose a board where two of the three memebers did not do PR for the oil industry- that might help.

The same applies to the junk science guy. Can you really trust his opinion is unbiased if he took hidden payments from the tobbacco industry while claiming second hand smoke is not a serious health risk ? When he let a tobbacco company edit his website ?

There are legitimate scientists who do legitimate work and disagree with AGW. Why the heck are these guys in the news all the time ?????

Quote:

Second, what possible difference would it make if they WERE being paid by oil companies? It sound like you're attacking them but not the science behind them... much like you're accusing others of doing to the Goreacle.


Yes it would make a difference. Is he acting as a scientist, or as an industry spokesman ?
Would he be quickly unemployed if he changed his mind ?
And, BTW, according to most academic standards there is very little science behind Dr Ball. I think he has written 4 peer reviewed articles on climate change in his life.



Quote:


Finally, while you suggest kwlafayette has his head buried in the sand, you've done nothing to debunk his point. Can you provide any meaningful references to this supposed mountain of evidence supporting AGW?


First of all, that remark to kwlafayette has to do more with what he has written in other posts than what he wrote in that one. He interjects global warming discusions into totally unrelated topics and he displays a incredible ignorance of the basic science. I really don't know really what evidence I can give him if he doubts that anyone has really proven there is a "greenhouse effect" (about as much as fact as the theory of gravity)

kwlafayette stated that he has never seen a fact based argument for human caused global warming. While you may not agree with the arguments, they are every where. You can here about them in grade 8. They are in biology textbooks, on the news.
While my "head in the sand" comment may have appeared rude, it was in response to a whole series of silly posts he has made



What evidence were you looking for ?
The earth is getting warmer -thats almost undisputed.
The concentrations of greenhouse gases has been increasing due to human activity - that is undisputed.
The above gases trap low frequency radiation - heat- and warm up the earth that is undisputed.

The basics are that simple. There is all sorts of evidence to support that.
Now, is all of the climate change caused by greenhouse gases ? Most scientists who do relevant work in the field seem to think so. There are lots of physics based computer models that are consistent with the AGW view. Yes, they are not perfect. Just like a creation scientist can find a new "missing link" after the old missing link it found, you can point out that this or that computer model does not follow exactly with whats happened.
But can you point to me a better model ?

Quote:

May I ask a couple of questions? I hate to challenge one so wise in the ways of science w


I was just pointing out that many of the AGW posters here say stuff that is very wrong (grade 10 science wrong). They are saying stuff that any anti-AGW scientists would
view as silly. [/quote]
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 11:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

peter_puck wrote:
The concentrations of greenhouse gases has been increasing due to human activity - that is undisputed.


Really?

Quote:
To gain perspective on the subject of climate change, one needs to look at the past. While the data are not exactly global and not always of the best quality, certain conclusions can be reached. The Earth's climate has never been steady; it has either warmed or cooled - without any human intervention. The measured variations have often been large and rapid - larger and more rapid than those predicted by climate models for the year 2100. In the last 3000 years, i.e., during recorded human history, temperatures in the North Atlantic have changed by as much as 3°C within a few decades [Keigwin, 1996]. During the most recent Ice Age, the variability has been even greater. Is the climate more stable during warmer periods? We cannot be sure, but the evidence points in this direction [Singer, 1998].


Quote:
What about the association of climate change with atmospheric greenhouse gases? On the time-scale of hundreds of millions of years, carbon dioxide has sharply declined; its concentration was as much as 20 times the present value at the beginning of the Cambrian Period, 600 million years ago [Berner, 1997]. Yet the climate has not varied all that much and glaciations have occurred throughout geologic time even when CO2 concentrations were high.


Quote:
None of the climate models incorporate the effects of a variable Sun. It has always been assumed that solar variability is simply too small, but this view is now changing. Even if the radiative forcing from changes in solar irradiance is less than that from GHGs, the variability of the Sun in the ultraviolet is much greater. Evidence is now forthcoming that UV-caused variations of the ozone layer or changes in solar particulate emissions ("solar wind") could (indirectly) influence atmospheric circulation or cloudiness - which in turn can cause significant climate changes [Svensmark and Friis-Christensen, 1997]. Climate models generally do not incorporate the large surface albedo changes that have come about through land-clearing for agriculture and, more recently, through reforestation in some parts of the world.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 12:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

peter_puck wrote:
Well, look, there is one simple way to solve this problem. Dr Ball, as the chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project can just publish a list of the projects donors and put the whole issue to rest. Then those people accusing him of being a paid industry spokesman will look really silly won't they ? He could also choose a board where two of the three memebers did not do PR for the oil industry- that might help.

I'm not sure why you feel Dr. Ball (you remembered his honourific!) should expose those who donate to the NRSP to the attacks of the Climate Change Cult. When asked about his relationship with "big oil" during an interview, Dr. Ball made the following response...

Quote:
I'm charged with that all the time. I just finished a CBC radio program out of Saskatchewan, and that was the opening theme of the interviewer. Later an e-mail writer said I was paid by "big oil" and he had proof from friends at Environment Canada.

The only possible oil connection is when eight of us went to Ottawa to challenge then environment minister David Anderson’s comment that he had consulted all the climate experts. An organization called Friends of Science paid my expenses. That organization apparently has received a small amount of money from an oil company.

But the money was funnelled through the University of Calgary and I had no knowledge of it. I understand that no energy company is currently funding primary climate research. Compare this with the billions of dollars—six billion since 1997, according to the recent Auditor General's report—spent by Environment Canada, all of it directed in support of their policy that the science is over, that human loading of atmospheric CO² is causing a problem.

Is there any substantial proof of "big oil" funding Dr. Ball or any of the organizations to which he belongs? If there was, it would be all over desmogblog and other CCC websites. Since it isn't, I think it's safe to assume no such evidence exists.

peter_puck wrote:
There are legitimate scientists who do legitimate work and disagree with AGW. Why the heck are these guys in the news all the time ?????

Keeping a low profile so they're not attacked by the CCC?????

peter_puck wrote:
Yes it would make a difference. Is he acting as a scientist, or as an industry spokesman ?
Would he be quickly unemployed if he changed his mind ?
And, BTW, according to most academic standards there is very little science behind Dr Ball. I think he has written 4 peer reviewed articles on climate change in his life.

How many peer reviewed articles on climate change has the Goreacle written? How much loot has the Goreacle garnered by acting as the poster child for GHGs with his debunked "Convenient Lies"? Where's your academic outrage against Big Al?

How about Dr. Suzuki? How many peer reviewed articles on climate change has he written? Oh, wait... he's a fruitfly guy so his AGW blather is exactly that (blather) yet his words are dutifully published as gospel, even when he's dead wrong. Is it okay if I don't hold my breath waiting for your academic outrage against him?

peter_puck wrote:
First of all, that remark to kwlafayette has to do more with what he has written in other posts than what he wrote in that one. He interjects global warming discusions into totally unrelated topics and he displays a incredible ignorance of the basic science. I really don't know really what evidence I can give him if he doubts that anyone has really proven there is a "greenhouse effect" (about as much as fact as the theory of gravity)

kwlafayette stated that he has never seen a fact based argument for human caused global warming. While you may not agree with the arguments, they are every where. You can here about them in grade 8. They are in biology textbooks, on the news.
While my "head in the sand" comment may have appeared rude, it was in response to a whole series of silly posts he has made

I will leave it up to kwlafayette to address (or not) your remarks.

peter_puck wrote:
What evidence were you looking for ?
The earth is getting warmer -thats almost undisputed.
The concentrations of greenhouse gases has been increasing due to human activity - that is undisputed.
The above gases trap low frequency radiation - heat- and warm up the earth that is undisputed.

I hate to break it to you, but a couple of your "undisputed facts" have been disputed. We've only been measuring the temperature of the earth for a short time taken in the context of global scale. Even now, no methodology of temperature measurement is being consistently applied to the majority of the measurements. There's a word for scientists who use insufficient and non-standardized samples to extrapolate data... and it isn't complimentary...

Concentrations of greenhouse gases, according to ice core samples, have been much higher in past eras without human activity so there might be other explanations for this phenomenon. Did the dinosaurs drive biodegradable Hummers?

GHGs are believed to trap heat but when kwlafayette asked about basic experiments, you mocked him. Does that mean you don't know of these basic experiments and you're accepting it on faith?

peter_puck wrote:
The basics are that simple. There is all sorts of evidence to support that.
Now, is all of the climate change caused by greenhouse gases ? Most scientists who do relevant work in the field seem to think so. There are lots of physics based computer models that are consistent with the AGW view. Yes, they are not perfect. Just like a creation scientist can find a new "missing link" after the old missing link it found, you can point out that this or that computer model does not follow exactly with whats happened.
But can you point to me a better model?

Do yourself a favour... The next time you describe something as "basic" use the full description... basic assumption.

Basics assumptions are usually described simple yet they're often ill-understood rather than well described phenomenon. For instance, I know magnetism works and I can demonstrate it's effects. It's pretty basic but I have no idea what makes it work... and neither do you...

When someone comes along and pokes a hole through what was previously assumed, that proves the scientific method works because someone was still trying to poke holes. The CCC have decided the "science is in" and they're attacking anyone who tries to poke holes.

Most of those computer models you're talking about were drafted under the basic assumption AGW is a fact and the effects of GHGs are understood and using non-standardized temperature reading.

Computer modeling depends on the parameters. If one parameter is proved to be flawed, the results are skewed. Most of those computer models you're talking about are worth less than the paper they're printed on based strictly on the temperature readings. Add in the other parameters which you state are basic assumptions. How do your computer models look now?

peter_puck wrote:
I was just pointing out that many of the AGW posters here say stuff that is very wrong (grade 10 science wrong). They are saying stuff that any anti-AGW scientists would
view as silly.

Most of us aren't scientists but we're not blind or stupid either. Perhaps if you scientific types weren't quite so condescending, we could discuss these matters and you could persuade us instead of being rude.

I'm just a simple man yet I know enough to say that the earth's climate is poorly understood and incredibly complex. When someone uses flawed data to predict the future without explaining past phenomenon, I doubt their veracity. When someone tells me that "the science is in" and demanding my government turn our economy on it's ear and throw our wealth away for "carbon credits" which have no discernible reason except to make someone else rich, I call bullshit.

-Mac
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 12:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Who funds the other side? Or are we to believe that taking money from big oil taints ones virtue, while taking money from, the environmental lobby somehow enhances it? If you are going to make an emotional appeal to motive, instead of arguing the facts, then the motives of the other side are fair game.

Actually, when you think about it, money from big oil probably means the research is better. Private companies have to be right, or they are going to lose money, possibly go out of business. The environmental lobby, well the more dire the prediction, the more money they make. Given the choice between scientists who have been paid to get the right answer, vs scientists who need to keep the funding coming, I think I know who I would pick.
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 1:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kwlafayette wrote:
Actually, when you think about it, money from big oil probably means the research is better. Private companies have to be right, or they are going to lose money, possibly go out of business.

:lol:

Yep, and all the research about the dangers of smoking by the tobacco companies was high quality too :lol:
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 1:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

A straw man is the attacking of a weaker parallel argument, instead of the argument a person is actually making.
peter_puck





Joined: 15 Dec 2007
Posts: 82
Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6
votes: 1

PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 10:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:

Is there any substantial proof of "big oil" funding Dr. Ball or any of the organizations to which he belongs? If there was, it would be all over desmogblog and other CCC websites. Since it isn't, I think it's safe to assume no such evidence exists.


If not big oil, what the heck is his source of funding. Again, Dr Ball can just reveal it and make me look stuipid.
The last organization he was involved with later admitted they were funded by "big oil", after, again refusing to reveal its donor list for years.

Quote:

Keeping a low profile so they're not attacked by the CCC?????


No, because they say is not sexy enough. They will not say that all the other scientists are somehow part of a giant conspiracy. Many of them, if you ask them straight up will admit their views are outside the mainstream.
There were some in the "Great Global Warming Swindle". They said they were misquoted.


Quote:

How many peer reviewed articles on climate change has the Goreacle written? How much loot has the Goreacle garnered by acting as the poster child for GHGs with his debunked "Convenient Lies"? Where's your academic outrage against Big Al?



The "Goreacle" does not claim to be a scientist. He is a TV pitchman. Rush Limbaugh does not claim to be a scientist. Ann Couler does not claim to be a scientist. I forget the converative mormon on CNN (Glen Beck>). He has done anti-AGW stuff on his show, but I don't expect scientific papers from him.
Dr Bell, however, has made claims that I would like him to verify (as would defense lawyers if he did not chicken out of the libel lawsuit)

Quote:

How about Dr. Suzuki? How many peer reviewed articles on climate change has he written? Oh, wait... he's a fruitfly guy so his AGW blather is exactly that (blather) yet his words are dutifully published as gospel, even when he's dead wrong. Is it okay if I don't hold my breath waiting for your academic outrage against him?


I am certainly not a fan of Mr Suzuki, but he does not claim to be a renowned climate scientist. Again, Dr Ball does. Dr Suzuki and the "Goreacle" quote geeks who aint seen the sun in years.


Quote:

hate to break it to you, but a couple of your "undisputed facts" have been disputed. We've only been measuring the temperature of the earth for a short time taken in the context of global scale.



And for that short time what has temperature been doing ? If you graph temperature rise and carbon dioxide what do you get ?
There are methods for determining temperature from the past as well. There is a whole filed "PaleoiClimatogy" or something like that


Quote:

Even now, no methodology of temperature measurement is being consistently applied to the majority of the measurements. There's a word for scientists who use insufficient and non-standardized samples to extrapolate data... and it isn't complimentary...


Climate researchers take data from where they can get it. The Earth is a real system, not a laboratory. It is really easy to say "hah!' you do not have 100 perfect data (that line worked in OJ's trial). But, hey, I will let you come up with a better model. All these people who nitpick small aspects of climate models shoud come up with their onw.

Quote:

GHGs are believed to trap heat but when kwlafayette asked about basic experiments, you mocked him. Does that mean you don't know of these basic experiments and you're accepting it on faith?


I have already posted the reasons why I mocked him. He claims that he understands the scientific method, but the guys who spent their life in the field do not. He claims to have a knowledge of science, but then demonstrates he does not understand very basic principles.
Someone has already posted a link to the "basic experiment" he is talking about - it was from the last centure I believe. I cannot think of any anti-AGW scientist who would agree with what he is implying.
While I have never performed that particular experiment, I don't really need to. The properies of the carbon dioxide molecule are very well known.

Quote:


The CCC have decided the "science is in" and they're attacking anyone who tries to poke holes.



Gee, there are lots of guys who do real research and they don't seem to get attacked. Its the guys like Dr Ball who do. There are people who publish in peer reviewed journals who come up with alternative theories who are not attacked.
It is when you cherry pick data, misquote people and use arguments meant to sway a guilible public rather than to prove a point that you get attacked


Quote:

Most of us aren't scientists but we're not blind or stupid either. Perhaps if you scientific types weren't quite so condescending, we could discuss these matters and you could persuade us instead of being rude.


Its the people who seem to imply that there is some sort of conspiracy that prevents there brilliant piece of data from being considered that annoys me. That all these guys who spent their lives studying hard science just don't know what they are talking about.
That they hide or fudge the data to make things work. That they are so stuipid that they never tested the basic properties of a carbon atom. THAT is condescending.

BTW I am not really a strong believer in catastrophic global warming. We can tell that carbon dioxide has been increasing. We can tell that the earth has warmed as a result but I have not been sold on where it goes from here. (the increased temperature could cause an increase in daytime clouds which would reflect energy back into space before it his the earth).
peter_puck





Joined: 15 Dec 2007
Posts: 82
Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6
votes: 1

PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 10:22 am    Post subject: Amazingly enough ... Reply with quote

Quote:

Who funds the other side? Or are we to believe that taking money from big oil taints ones virtue, while taking money from, the environmental lobby somehow enhances it? If you are going to make an emotional appeal to motive, instead of arguing the facts, then the motives of the other side are fair game.


Research councils mostly. If something was funded by the "big insulation" I would not view it as unbiased either.
Most of the basic research that is being used predates the global warming controversy anyways. Some of it from a period where some people though the earth may cool because of smog.

Certainly the ethanol lobby is starting to work on junk science of its own, but there were no big players trying to create a global warming scare when this all started.

All I was pointing out was that the person in question appears to be being paid to deliver an opinion - much like the scientists on OJ's defense team.
If there was a spokesman for the ethanol industry who said that idaho would flood if we did not switch to ethanol, I would not believe him either.
peter_puck





Joined: 15 Dec 2007
Posts: 82
Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6
votes: 1

PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 11:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:


peter_puck wrote:
The concentrations of greenhouse gases has been increasing due to human activity - that is undisputed.


Really?



None of the quotes below deal with the statement you are questioning. "Greenhouse gases have been increasing due to human activity.

Almost all the what is in the quotes in not really disputed by the AGW types (except perhaps the role of the sun).

"carbon dioxide was higher in the past and temperatures were colder, therefore carbon dioxide does not cause higher temperatures" is faulty logic and a really lousy scientific argument It is like the people saying "people who live near power lines have higher rates of cancer, therefore powerlines cause cancer. It ignores other variables.
If someone could explain in a scientific fashion why carbon dioxide in the enviroment would not behave the same way it does the lab, I would like to see that.

It is basic science that CO2 traps heat, and that an increased amount of it would cause it to trap more heat TO SOME DEGEE. From most of the serious anti-AGW stuff I have read this basic fact is not really a question.

The big question is the effect on the system. CO2 variation by itself will not even come close to what the catastrophic global warming crowd predicts. For that you need some sort of feedback effect. (increased CO2 causes increased wate vapour which causes more heat which causes the ice to dissapear which causes more heat to be absorbed, which causes the oceans to release C02..which causes..blah blah blah. (and yes, there are natural processes that will counter these process)
How that runaway effect works is not basic science. There are lots of unbiased scientists who try to model this and they have come to the conclusion that there will be some sort of runaway effect that will raise temperatures - they just disagree on how much. Without having a clue how to make a climate model, I tend to agree with the consensus of the climate model folks.



Quote:



Quote:
To gain perspective on the subject of climate change, one needs to look at the past. While the data are not exactly global and not always of the best quality, certain conclusions can be reached. The Earth's climate has never been steady; it has either warmed or cooled - without any human intervention. The measured variations have often been large and rapid - larger and more rapid than those predicted by climate models for the year 2100. In the last 3000 years, i.e., during recorded human history, temperatures in the North Atlantic have changed by as much as 3°C within a few decades [Keigwin, 1996]. During the most recent Ice Age, the variability has been even greater. Is the climate more stable during warmer periods? We cannot be sure, but the evidence points in this direction [Singer, 1998].


Quote:
What about the association of climate change with atmospheric greenhouse gases? On the time-scale of hundreds of millions of years, carbon dioxide has sharply declined; its concentration was as much as 20 times the present value at the beginning of the Cambrian Period, 600 million years ago [Berner, 1997]. Yet the climate has not varied all that much and glaciations have occurred throughout geologic time even when CO2 concentrations were high.


Quote:
None of the climate models incorporate the effects of a variable Sun. It has always been assumed that solar variability is simply too small, but this view is now changing. Even if the radiative forcing from changes in solar irradiance is less than that from GHGs, the variability of the Sun in the ultraviolet is much greater. Evidence is now forthcoming that UV-caused variations of the ozone layer or changes in solar particulate emissions ("solar wind") could (indirectly) influence atmospheric circulation or cloudiness - which in turn can cause significant climate changes [Svensmark and Friis-Christensen, 1997]. Climate models generally do not incorporate the large surface albedo changes that have come about through land-clearing for agriculture and, more recently, through reforestation in some parts of the world.





[/quote]
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 3:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

peter_puck wrote:
If not big oil, what the heck is his source of funding. Again, Dr Ball can just reveal it and make me look stuipid.
The last organization he was involved with later admitted they were funded by "big oil", after, again refusing to reveal its donor list for years.

You need no help from Dr. Ball... and he's under no compulsion to reveal his donors. I can understand why they refuse to reveal their donor lists. As I said, to do so exposes yourself to the dirision of the desmogblog types.

By the way, “Big Oil” does not exist as monolithic entity. These are numerous private oil companies who have an interest in exploring this subject. I don’t see a problem with oil companies funding research so long as the results are peer reviewed... but you paint any kind of oil funding as being somehow sordid.

Who funds your research, peter_puck?

peter_puck wrote:
No, because they say is not sexy enough. They will not say that all the other scientists are somehow part of a giant conspiracy. Many of them, if you ask them straight up will admit their views are outside the mainstream.
There were some in the "Great Global Warming Swindle". They said they were misquoted.

You think Dr. Ball is sexy? Give me a break! The CCC will attack anyone who dares question their warped vision of the future. As for the “misquotes” in the GGWS, I wonder how they balance against the scientists in IPCC who insist there is no consensus as is frequently represented?

peter_puck wrote:
The "Goreacle" does not claim to be a scientist. He is a TV pitchman. Rush Limbaugh does not claim to be a scientist. Ann Couler does not claim to be a scientist. I forget the converative mormon on CNN (Glen Beck>). He has done anti-AGW stuff on his show, but I don't expect scientific papers from him.
Dr Bell, however, has made claims that I would like him to verify (as would defense lawyers if he did not chicken out of the libel lawsuit)

So it’s okay for the Goreacle to sell his warped vision of the future, including sending his recruiting film to schools for free, because he’s not a scientist, but if someone disputes the Goreacle, his credibility is open to attack. Nice double-standard.

peter_puck wrote:
I am certainly not a fan of Mr Suzuki, but he does not claim to be a renowned climate scientist. Again, Dr Ball does. Dr Suzuki and the "Goreacle" quote geeks who aint seen the sun in years.

Don’t you find that disquieting? Folks who know nothing about the climate making loud public statements? Shouldn’t you be outraged?

peter_puck wrote:
And for that short time what has temperature been doing ? If you graph temperature rise and carbon dioxide what do you get ?
There are methods for determining temperature from the past as well. There is a whole filed "PaleoiClimatogy" or something like that

As I said, those who use flawed data deserve the results they get... and the whole “methods of determining temperature” gack, sorry, those are estimates, not measurements. If you’re willing to make conclusions extrapolated on a combination of estimates and flawed data, maybe we should be asking about your academic qualifications...?

peter_puck wrote:
Climate researchers take data from where they can get it. The Earth is a real system, not a laboratory. It is really easy to say "hah!' you do not have 100 perfect data (that line worked in OJ's trial). But, hey, I will let you come up with a better model. All these people who nitpick small aspects of climate models shoud come up with their onw.

Thank you for proving my point(s). The earth is not a static laboratory and pretending you can draw conclusions on flawed data, let alone extrapolate future climate change, is ridiculous. I won’t do it. You shouldn’t either. In fact, you should be telling those who claim “the science is in” to STFU because they’re embarrassing your profession. Start with Dr. Suzuki and the Goreacle.

peter_puck wrote:
I have already posted the reasons why I mocked him. He claims that he understands the scientific method, but the guys who spent their life in the field do not. He claims to have a knowledge of science, but then demonstrates he does not understand very basic principles.
Someone has already posted a link to the "basic experiment" he is talking about - it was from the last centure I believe. I cannot think of any anti-AGW scientist who would agree with what he is implying.
While I have never performed that particular experiment, I don't really need to. The properies of the carbon dioxide molecule are very well known.

As I said earlier, I will leave kwlafayette’s defence to himself. My point was debate should involve attacking the points, not the person.

peter_puck wrote:
Gee, there are lots of guys who do real research and they don't seem to get attacked. Its the guys like Dr Ball who do. There are people who publish in peer reviewed journals who come up with alternative theories who are not attacked.
It is when you cherry pick data, misquote people and use arguments meant to sway a guilible public rather than to prove a point that you get attacked

Isn’t that what the Goreacle and Dr. Suzuki do? Carefully cherrypicked data, misquotes, using arguments designed to panic people into taking action? Dr. Suzuki is one step worse than the Goreacle since his supposed “not-for-profit” foundation sockpuppets through desmogblog.

So I expect we’ll be hearing you attacking the Goreacle and Dr. Suzuki both then? How about roundly condemning sending “Convenient Lies” to public schools since most of the assertions in it have been debunked and it does not represent the facts in a clear and balanced manner?

peter_puck wrote:
Its the people who seem to imply that there is some sort of conspiracy that prevents there brilliant piece of data from being considered that annoys me. That all these guys who spent their lives studying hard science just don't know what they are talking about.
That they hide or fudge the data to make things work. That they are so stuipid that they never tested the basic properties of a carbon atom. THAT is condescending.

BTW I am not really a strong believer in catastrophic global warming. We can tell that carbon dioxide has been increasing. We can tell that the earth has warmed as a result but I have not been sold on where it goes from here. (the increased temperature could cause an increase in daytime clouds which would reflect energy back into space before it his the earth).

The point is the earth has warmed before in the past. We have fossil evidence of tropical conditions in the arctic. CO2 has increased in the past but, unlike the Goreacle's claims, those rises always follow the temperature rise, not lead it.

There is insufficient “hard” data to extrapolate anything beyond that. So the “science is NOT in” and anyone who says it is needs to be read the riot act. Put an end to the double standard of allowing nonscientific AGW spokesmen to blather unchallenged while attacking any and all AGW skeptics.

-Mac
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 4:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kwlafayette wrote:
A straw man is the attacking of a weaker parallel argument, instead of the argument a person is actually making.

If this is directed at me, how was my comment a strawman?
You suggested that research funded by private companies should be of higher quality.
Are tobacco companies not private companies? Is their research of higher quality?
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 4

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


McCain, speaker of truth.

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB