Comments for Global Warming - Again at http://www.randi.org/site , comment 1 to 123 out of 20 comments http://www.randi.org/site Sun, 22 Nov 2009 01:08:08 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/736-global-warming-again.html#comment-12266 Easy grip with ergonomic design and felt at the tip allows for an easier hold and control. The CHI Turbo Digital Ceramic Hairstyling Iron also provides versatile heat settings to achieve the perfect temperature specific to your hair type and style. [url=http://www.newshopstyle.co.uk]CHI Flat Iron[/url] [url=http://www.newshopstyle.co.uk/chi-2-inch-turbo-flat-iron-p-3806.html]Flat Iron 2 Inch[/url] - newshopstyle Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:42:33 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/736-global-warming-again.html#comment-11768 There are published accounts of meetings preceding the IPCC formation. They make it quite clear that a purpose was to disrupt current global economic structure. Some detailed plans to do this are accessible after difficult search and there is little doubt in my mind that they are of hostile purpose. They include quotations of the nature that "It does not matter of we are wrong with the science so long as we can get the public on side". Should a skeptic react to that? Another place for skeptism comes from Willis Eschenbach, who has contributed original and thoughtful input to global warming topics. He wrote on Climate Audit - "I don't know if you noticed, but this is a science blog. Wikipedia is well know for the antics of one Wm. Connelly, a Wikipedia "editor" who ruthlessly censors any climate science postings with non-AGW points of view, to the point where other Wikipedia editors have forced him to put back things that he has erased. Please confine your citations to science, not to Connelly's fantasies …" www.climateaudit.org/?p=867 at post 733. These are social diversions. The skeptic might ask instead, "Is there any controlled, real-life experiment that produces a reult that quantitatively links the magnitude of atmospheric CO2 change (or GHG change) to a change in global temperature in a demonstrated cause/effect manner?" This question remains unanswered after years of asking and numerous attempts to divert and obfuscate. Personally, from a spectroscopy background, I would expect a small amount of warming, so I am not a denialist. But the inability to quantify perhaphs the central relationship of the hypothesis of Global Warming might interest skeptics also. (Please don't qoute numerous IPCC estimates back to me - I've read the main ones and find them lacking the vital link. The most common failing is to invoke a subjective input somewhere). - sherro Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:29:56 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/736-global-warming-again.html#comment-11766 "People who say they will go with the majority opinion as represented by the IPPC should understand that this is a political organisation & has a prior commitment to AGW." This is certainly possible but there are always reasons given by minorities for the majority not to be listened to in any scientific area. They're biassed, politically motivated, sheep, whatever. When you dont know an area well enough to decide for yourself, its still the safest heuristic to use, but by definition as a heuristic it could be wrong. - Otara Tue, 20 Oct 2009 11:24:19 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/736-global-warming-again.html#comment-11761 @alex When I was notified of your responses. what appeared to be the full text of your response and links came through in the email, even if it didn't appear here. I didn't want to reproduce or comment on any of it as I wasn't sure if it wasn't appearing because you'd subsequently removed it or otherwise wanted to change it. I'll work on the basis that the last one I received was intended and follow those links, thanks. Also a shame to leave the thread, but it does seem hard to generally maintain civility over this issue - as much down to the huge complexity of the data as anything else I'd guess. I've fallen into this trap elsewhere of getting quite vitriolic over it - I've yet to make amends, and I'm keen not to repeat the error here or elsewhere. - mrsean2k Tue, 20 Oct 2009 09:56:43 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/736-global-warming-again.html#comment-11760 Gnardude, as I have said before, you cannot be right 100% in science. There is always a degree of uncertainty about it. You always condition your statements on currently available evidence, which changes over time. The concept of right in the usual sense does not exist in science. Some of my specific responses did not go through for whatever reason. So, sorry mrsean2k for that. Have fun giving yourselves stars, guys. Checking out. - alex Tue, 20 Oct 2009 09:40:32 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/736-global-warming-again.html#comment-11753 Alex you wouldn't have to argue credentials if this was really science you are defending. You seem to have a very arrogant position in that respect. As for "Wiki" being your source, you are absolutely untouchable there as it is more accurate than science or even the Bible. No matter how much you link and cut/paste you do not have real scientific proof. Give me some predictions based on your models and we'll see. If you're right you're right, and if you're wrong it was the Earth being wrong. - Gnardude Tue, 20 Oct 2009 05:18:14 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/736-global-warming-again.html#comment-11751 I will just repeat (may be it takes several times for audience to see it) that Watts has neither training nor peer-reviewed papers in climate science, just the radio job. I do not recall saying that simply because he is a Republican (actually, I do not know for sure that he is, although given his views it is a good guess, but that's irrelevant for the question), he does not qualify. I invite you ladies and gentlemen to read what I said again more carefully. Radio job is no substitute for training and, more importantly, a record of serious peer-reviewed work. By the way, I did cut-and-paste of that "FOX News affiliate" from Wiki, so it is an accurate job description. Sorry if that sounded like an ad hom, which certainly it was not. Al Gore, Tim Flannery at al are not climate scientists, and I do not remember anybody calling them such. Have you heard that? The fact that they are global warming activists is not a sufficient quality to classify them as climate scientists. They do not seem to have established reputations as serious climate scientists through relevant training and peer-reviewed pubs. - alex Tue, 20 Oct 2009 04:08:38 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/736-global-warming-again.html#comment-11741 If you have the time and the desire for self-flagellation, you can read the instructions to authors who contributed to past IPCC reports. One requirement is that raw data be made available to others, such as scientists with overlapping interests. Another requirement is that the supervising authors, about a dozen for AR4, were to ensure that all objections and dissenting views dutifully submitted were discussed and the reasons for the subsequent responses given. Now, try to get a copy of the dissenting views and the IPCC authors' comments. It cantake years. This comment verges on the politics of science, but the motivation is to free the science for examination by other scientists who just might be able to contribute helpful input. The United Nations is in the grip of a few wealthy and powerful people. It seems paralysed, like a chook that goes cross eyed and still, before a snake strikes it. - sherro Mon, 19 Oct 2009 23:13:23 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/736-global-warming-again.html#comment-11740 "Let's turn it around: what will convince you? Please cite the specific nature of the facts you will accept. Because it isn't going to be like Galileo dropping cannonballs of the Leaning Tower of Pisa" Well speaking for myself it would help for example if the slope of the ERLB observations of delta F Flux W/sq m (Top of Atmos)versus delta Temp were negative like ALL the 12 models outputs shown in the attached paper. As it is they are positive suggesting the climate sensitivity to GHG is a faction of what the models are based on. Lindzen & Choi, "On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE", Published in Geophysical Research Letters, 26 Aug 2009. [url]http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL039628-pip.pdf[/url] Alex above, you are the one misrepresenting Richard Lindzen. Yes Lindzen is in the minority but given his views & given the initial brief of the IPPC & it's prior commitment at this stage, this is hardly surprising. I believe in the long one he will be vindicated in the science. Reading further back in this blog I am of the opinion that most of your pieces can only be described as propaganda, accentuated with ad hominem on people like Steve McIntyre and devoid of any hard facts. - Geoff Mon, 19 Oct 2009 23:09:42 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/736-global-warming-again.html#comment-11737 People who say they will go with the majority opinion as represented by the IPPC should understand that this is a political organisation & has a prior commitment to AGW. Consider the following observational data & how IPPC 2007 handled it. During the warming in the 1980’s & 1990’s (HADCRUT), which incidentally was not unlike the degree & pace of warming in the 1920’s & 1930’s (HADCRUT), observational data shows that there was a significant increase in the flux of short wave radiation reaching the earth . This is confirmed both by measurements at the earth's surface, by satellite data sets & by measurement of the earth’s albedo (moonshine). Over the period 1985-2000 these data sets ranged from 2-6 watts/sq metre & are far higher than the estimated direct forcing effect of all greenhouse gases of about 0.8 watts/sq metre, accumulated over the same period. (Palle et al, 2005 but see also Pinker et al, 2005, Wielicki et al, 2005 and Wild et al, 2004;2005). http://www.iac.es/galeria/epalle/reprints/Palle_GRL_2005.pdf In IPPC 2007, WG1 confirms a 4% decline in cloud cover in the ISCCP data which is the most likely cause of the above increase in short wave flux. Doesn’t this suggest that those natural causes were far more dominant than anthropogenic greenhouse gases in causing this warming? The above data & arguments were apparently debated in the WG1 (2007) yet the WG1 summary glossed over this & simply questioned the data & no mention was made of this lack of consensus in the SPM. One needs to look at the science supporting both GHG & natural reasons for the recent warming; unfortunately the latter doesn't have a well funded organisation like the IPPC backing it. Beware. - Geoff Mon, 19 Oct 2009 22:13:10 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/736-global-warming-again.html#comment-11735 [quote]Watts has neither training nor peer-reviewed papers in climate science, just doing the funny thing on a radio. That is why he is not qualified. No fallacy here.[/quote] Guilt by association with Fox is the fallacy. Ok so Hansen was a bad choice on my part. How about Al Gore? David Suzuki? Tim Flannery? As for McIntyre, he was an expert reviewer for AR3, so someone felt he was qualified. - Steel Rat Mon, 19 Oct 2009 19:04:42 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/736-global-warming-again.html#comment-11734 Alex, I stress that we are fairly neutral on politics and you immediately write a political ad hom. Disappointing. What about the science? It is just so, so typical of the global warming thingo that people close their eyes to what they do not want to see and spurt off in another direction. Does not work with me. - sherro Mon, 19 Oct 2009 18:54:56 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/736-global-warming-again.html#comment-11733 Watts has neither training nor peer-reviewed papers in climate science, just doing the funny thing on a radio. That is why he is not qualified. No fallacy here. Hansen is not an astrophysicist. he got his MS in astronomy and PhD in Physics with main field in atmospheric physics. The latter is a part of climate science. More importantly, he is best known for his peer reviewed work in radiative transfer, planetary atmospheres, and climate models. Pretty self-explanatory. What are Watts' peer reviewed papers on any of these subjects? Could not find any. - alex Mon, 19 Oct 2009 18:15:56 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/736-global-warming-again.html#comment-11732 As an Australian Skeptic member for years, as a scientist of 30 years, as one who has countered extremist activism in nuclear and forestry projects of world scale, as one who has taken politicians with bad motives before the highest court in our land, I have to say that the Global Warming syndrome is one you should examine very closely. In brief, a number of powerful people, some with newspaper ownership/control, have helped fund the familiar faces of activism into production of a Global Warmng story that does not stand close scrutiny. They hope in return to make squillions of $$, because money is to be made when the financial systems of the world go into rapid change. So don't believe all you read in the newspapers (if you ever did). Global Warming has me wrong-footed because in the past there was every indication that the mainstream was right and I was prudent to side with them. This time, I have little choice but to say that the mainstream view of "settled" science is often wrong on key issues. When you start to examine the bold assertions of the IPCC, you find first one error, then another .... until the avalanche happens. It's not easy work because many sub-disciplines are covered and because certain key authors resolutely refuse to reveal their raw data despite Journal requirements to do so. When some have been forced by Editors, the correlation between bad science and refusal to divulge becomes apparent. I have found example after example of what I would label as deliberate scientific fraud, but I can't say that in public and name names because I don't have the money to fight in Court. But, as an example, try a graph that shows tree rings indicating a modern temperature fall. No problem, just invert the graph, say that Principal Component analysis is insensitive to sign, and press on. You might find it beneficial to go to the blogs climateaudit.org by Canadian Steve McIntyre, or Niche Modeling by mathematician David Stockwell or The Air Vent by Jeff Id. The readers of and contibutors to these blogs in particular are highly qualified as a rule and you will find cutting edge analysis. It is important to note that the position taken by these blog owners, and mine, is not to deny that there is climate change. It is emphasised that the positions are fairly neutral re politics, with the conclusions standing on the quality of the science and maths. That is, correctly "audits", not "opinions". - sherro Mon, 19 Oct 2009 17:50:30 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/736-global-warming-again.html#comment-11730 I don't think it's oddball characters, but the number of links. It's a common spam filtering method, as far as I know. Might be a relatively new feature that someone is forgetting to administer. - Steel Rat Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:36:15 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/736-global-warming-again.html#comment-11729 As was one post that made it to my mailbox, but not to here, strangely enough. Both had lengthy links (to evidence, of course), but I think the real issue must be oddball characters. Perhaps if I had done a tinyurl it would have gotten in. Anyone know? - stevekelner Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:31:58 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/736-global-warming-again.html#comment-11726 [quote]the opinions weren't dumped![/quote] Should have read, [quote]the opinions were dumped![/quote] - Steel Rat Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:10:50 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/736-global-warming-again.html#comment-11725 I think comments with more than a couple links in them are getting placed in a moderation queue, but I don't think anyone is moderating them. My first comment in this thread had a couple links, and it hasn't shown up yet, after a couple days. - Steel Rat Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:09:48 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/736-global-warming-again.html#comment-11724 Nature is such a prestigious journal they don't even require archived data and code for these epic papers. McIntyre had to go searching for the MBH1998 data, found it by accident. Then he gets criticized for not doing enough with it. Amazing. As for McIntyre's credentials. I'd be willing to bet he's got more statistical training and experience than just about any climate scientist. And let's face it. The "hockey stick" papers are nothing more than statistical data manipulation. There's virtually no original field work involved on Mann's part. So because Watts is associated with Fox News and now does weather reporting "for fun" means he, as a meterologist, has no qualifications? James Hansen is an astrophysicist. What are his qualifications as a climate scientist? Try looking up some logical fallacies... And as for "Some statements above are just false. There is no evidence that RealClimate ever hid any evidence." I didn't say they hid evidence. RealClimate doesn't do science, they just to blog posts. The authors of the "hockey stick" papers refused to disclose data and methods required for replicating their results. Or maybe you're conflating two different issues; the refusal to disclose, and the extreme censorship of dissenting opinions on RealClimate? The latter has definitely occurred, but you won't see "evidence" of that at RC, because... umm, the opinions weren't dumped! Duh! I'm sure many of the dumped comments were just vitriol, but many were legitimate questions that RC simply refuses to answer. - Steel Rat Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:08:41 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/736-global-warming-again.html#comment-11723 What percentage of Climatologists would still have a job if they said "We're fine for a while, our entire history is less than a blink of the eye in geologic terms. We don't have an accurate formula to predict the weather yet so let's not panic."? Stevekelner accuses me of writing off opinion as "opinion". Guilty as charged. That is my point. Alex regarding your Pluto reference you would expect to see it in a certain place at a certain time. If you can do that consistently you can be reasonably certain that you have a formula that works. You could show me how I can do it, and we could all predict Pluto's orbit. It would be proven. If you don't have a working model for climate change you are left with opinion. You can't predict the weather. In chemistry we can't say where an electron will be at any one time but we don't poll chemists and get them to speculate it's location. We admit that we know only that it will be within certain parameters. I don't have an "oversimplified view of science methodology" as accused, rather I have studied Geology enough to understand how intellectually arrogant it is to be certain on this matter. You both write long rambling posts which make it not worthwhile for me to address each point. It's a good tactic though, often used by Theists who want to get their piece in and make it take a long time to refute each assertion. I'll just keep picking and choosing at my leisure. - Gnardude Mon, 19 Oct 2009 15:35:11 +0100