TIGHAR
Chatterbox => Extraneous exchanges => Topic started by: Tim Mellon on August 20, 2014, 12:24:33 AM
-
This matter deserves it's own thread, so I have copied the initial comments to a new venue.
Tim Mellon
T5
Posts: 787
Blast off!
X
Re: Niku VIII Funding
« Reply #48 on: August 19, 2014, 06:26:37 PM »
Quote from: Andrew M McKenna on August 18, 2014, 08:48:59 PM
Quote from: Tim Mellon on August 18, 2014, 08:33:30 PM
Fraud is very upsetting. It is usually related to some form of money grabbing.
So is paradigm shift. It is usually related to some form of entrenched money grabbing that doesn't like the change.
Andrew
Andrew, there's really not much new about the globe warming: it has been the case for the last 20,000 years. Not really a paradigm shift.
What is new is the political hype, the disingenuous hockey stick by Michael Mann, and the bastardization of datasets to make political points. This is not science.
Tim
Chairman, CEO
PanAm Systems
TIGHAR #3372R
-
Bravo! I nearly did this yesterday, good call.
Well, since it came up...
I've been reserved on this as I never wanted to get into the politics here, really, or interfere with TIGHAR's efforts at the mission... but I have to admit that with the 'science in' on it, yes - the earth has a breathing life of its own, and our influence is... overblown IMO.
I do see value in understanding our physical environment - which does change (cooling over last several years, I believe), and believe we should be responsible stewards. But all the hype we've had dumped on our heads by those who've intimidated and contrived is no more than a rip-off and power grab, IMO - scare tactics to fleece us as far as I am concerned.
-
Tim
You neglected to start at the very beginning of the discussion:
... and the whole climate change thing seems to upset a lot of people.
Fraud is very upsetting. It is usually related to some form of money grabbing.
Based upon the above, I take it that you believe that climate change is a fraud, yet you then go on to say that global warming has been going on for 20,000 years. Once again you display an inconsistency in your position, while offering nothing substantive to back up anything you are proposing, fraud or 20,000 years of global warming.
So which is it, and let's see what you back it up with.
Andrew
-
Based upon the above, I take it that you believe that climate change is a fraud, yet you then go on to say that global warming has been going on for 20,000 years.
Mr. McKenna, Tim Mellon said, "Andrew, there's really not much new about the globe warming: it has been the case for the last 20,000 years."
With respect, I did not take it as him saying that "global warming has been going on for 20,000 years", but global warning has been a case for that period of time. That seems to me, not to be a statement that it has 'been going on'. Can't speak for Mr. Mellon but that is the way I took it. In any event, I believe that it is far too polarizing to be part of the focus of another expedition on Nikumaroro.
-
And further, Andrew, CO2 has only been spewing into the atmosphere for less than 200 years. The cause of warming lies elsewhere, possibly sun flare cycles.
The fraud consists of assertions that global warming is man-made.
-
And further, Andrew, CO2 has only been spewing into the atmosphere for less than 200 years. The cause of warming lies elsewhere, possibly sun flare cycles.
The fraud consists of assertions that global warming is man-made.
I tend to separate the two - the 'inseparable', in fact - given that politics typically co-opts all things...
We have 'climate change', no question; there can be many reasons for it - many contributors, large and small.
What I tire of is the "Chicken Little" assertion - that man has somehow single-handedly triggered some dooms-day event, and that life as we know it must grind to a halt - economies knocked off their petro-bases overnight, etc. to "save the planet".
What is observable is that the planet is not even behaving as the doom-sayers have predicted - data was clearly manipulated and those who dared challenge that were blackballed as non-thinking rabble. Meanwhile, those who profit by fanning the flames of fear got not only a pass, but fame - for a time: the public by-and-large doesn't like swallowing Chicken Little's feathers, it seems...
None of that means I don't favor understanding our climate - and its very real changes. I also don't particularly object to this being studied at remote places like Niku if resources can be shared advantageously with those who do such things, etc. But it is not a primary mission for TIGHAR, as I see it - and I just don't buy the hysteria that so often has gone with the topic.
-
Interesting perspective, Chris - with real experience.
I don't doubt we emit harmful stuff and should curb pollution, etc. - nor do I deny the need for real study. The problem I have is with runaway assumptions - as you pointed out, we lack hard data to prove much about this, so it is hard to know what to focus with urgency on, etc.
Acid rain wasn't alleviated overnight but had to be understood and dealt with in a way that the economy could swallow. Same with these other things.
Oh well - I'm way off my intended turf here, I guess. Back to looking for lost airplanes, at least for a bit...
-
Chris, I think you have a valid point.
Petroleum is a passing phase, and I think we will sooner run out of its need before we run out of its supply. Hydrogen, graphite, fusion and many other advances will propel mankind beyond the internal combustion process before the end of the 21st Century.
The Malthuseians (and your Ludites) just don't get it: mankind has the ability to invent its way out of any problem, so long as the politicians keep their crooked little noses out of the process.
-
Tim et al
I just trying to get a grip on where you guys stand.
When you see a graph like this
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi.fig5.png (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi.fig5.png) - also attached
It doesn't make you wonder about whether or not the change is related to mankind's use of fossil fuels, i.e. man-made? Not even a little bit?
Or is NOAA just part of the "fraud"?
amck
-
A few points:
1. The data now apparently shows that the world has actually been in a slight cooling trend for the past 18 years.
2. My own hunch is that the climate is largely affected by the sun-spots. Even Eric Holder can't do much about that.
3. The CT Dept of Environmental Protection published a study years ago showing that during the last Ice Age, the Ocean adjacent to Connecticut was 450 feet lower than it is today. The weight of the ice (over a mile thick) pushed the CT shore area down over 100 feet.
4. The NOAA graph goes back but 300 years. The CO2 has increased only 50% in that time. There was a time 500 million years ago (can't remember the name of the Age, but you can ask the Dept of Interior) when the concentration of carbon dioxide was over 100 times it's current concentration. Yet Nature has survived nicely.
So NOAA is not part of the fraud; just those who insist that the data in their graph proves that man is responsible for global warming.
-
Tim gives a sensible summary to me of what this is really about, and a bit more insight than we'll get from the fear mongers to boot.
I respect the NOAA data - but that is all it is, 'data', which is akin to what Disraeli warned us about concerning statistics: take care lest they simple be made to say what one says they are.
I have no doubt that rising CO2 levels have a 'greenhouse effect'; I have great doubt that man alone is anywhere near responsible for what we have seen. The cooling trend Tim mentions is also demonstrable, as I understand it. Nature remains a far greater force than man, to wit the time in the past with carbon dioxide extremes far greater than we're seeing today (vulcanizing?).
BTW, the sun is hotter (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/jul/18/20040718-115714-6334r/?page=all) than usual - I don't see that factor among the NOAA data here, for one thing. So while I'm sure NOAA has wonderful data, I look at the set and find it wanting for the sake of this discussion - where, fairly, are the other factors that also affect global temperatures? I won't call NOAA fraudulent, I don't know that they are - but I call that chart flawed if one wishes to use it to prove that man is causing these changes.
At the end of it - I don't dispute science - but that is the point: we've gotten way too much noise that has been involved in hijacking the science to its own ends and attempting to create what amounts to panic. We're not getting enough unfettered, quiet science to fully understand the changes our planet is undergoing.
The earth has its own complex cycles as it exists in a complex universe - and I'm not overly alarmed at the changes - as Tim pointed out, nature adapts - so must we, as real changes come. Yes, some short term effects may be harmful to our existence - but man is quite adaptable. What I think we don't need are a bunch of half-assed hysterics hi-jacking the science and running our economic system into the ground to drive us all into mud huts and onto ox carts pulled by ants.
That's where I 'stand', if it's important.
-
Its may be useful to have the accurate information to form your opinion about a subject. Here is a link to a web site that provides the information on climate change:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed.html#.U_Xxm0gm2CT
-
One more piece of reading for those who interested in climate change. The link below discusses changes in atmospheric CO2 and climate over geological time scales.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past-intermediate.htm
-
A few points:
1. The data now apparently shows that the world has actually been in a slight cooling trend for the past 18 years.
No, they do not. That canard is solely based on the fact that 1998 remains the warmest year on record, disregarding that it was an El Nino year (which causes extra heating). Nine of the ten hottest recorded years have happened since 2000, and the total heat balance of the world (which includes the atmosphere and ocean) has increased.
2. My own hunch is that the climate is largely affected by the sun-spots. Even Eric Holder can't do much about that.
The Sun has a large effect on climate, as without it we wouldn't have one. The Sun, however, has gone through no significant changes (in total output or due to sunspots) that relate to the changes we have seen over the past 50 years. There are plenty of scientific papers about this, so we already know your hunch is incorrect.
3. The CT Dept of Environmental Protection published a study years ago showing that during the last Ice Age, the Ocean adjacent to Connecticut was 450 feet lower than it is today. The weight of the ice (over a mile thick) pushed the CT shore area down over 100 feet.
I'm not going to address this, except to point out that taking one cherry picked data point is a poor way to discuss this topic.
4. The NOAA graph goes back but 300 years. The CO2 has increased only 50% in that time. There was a time 500 million years ago (can't remember the name of the Age, but you can ask the Dept of Interior) when the concentration of carbon dioxide was over 100 times it's current concentration. Yet Nature has survived nicely.
So NOAA is not part of the fraud; just those who insist that the data in their graph proves that man is responsible for global warming.
The argument that "the climate always changes, therefore we have nothing to do with the current heating" is spurious. The Earth was undergoing a long cooling cycle, which has rapidly reversed in the past 100 years; the only change in the atmosphere that wasn't a "natural" occurrence is our dumping of CO2 into the atmosphere. The Sun has nothing to do with this. The only large source of heating left is human.
And, the idea that it's a fraud is ludicrous. Thousands of scientists would have to be in on it, from nations all around the world (including US enemies). It's just not a credible argument, but it's made in an attempt to undercut the science data that opponents don't want to look at in totality.
Also, scientists aren't in this for the money, the resources they get to do research are just enough to do the research; very few of us make enough to become wealthy. A vast amount of money is involved in the oil economy, and keeping that dominant is a much more lucrative endeavor, which means a very large monetary incentive to undercut anything that would challenge that. That's why we see states like Oklahoma trying to stop solar power, because the oil lobby got them to pass laws. Somehow, people think that scientists have a larger financial interest in this than the oil industry, which is just flat wrong.
In the end, physics doesn't care what you think, it will do what it will do, and if you ignore it you will end up paying. Any kid who does something stupid and falls down knows this. Ignoring the heating, or pretending it's not happening, or attacking the messengers, won't matter when the ocean rises and Niku ends up underwater.
Reed
-
A few points:
1. The data now apparently shows that the world has actually been in a slight cooling trend for the past 18 years.
No, they do not. That canard is solely based on the fact that 1998 remains the warmest year on record, disregarding that it was an El Nino year (which causes extra heating). Nine of the ten hottest recorded years have happened since 2000, and the total heat balance of the world (which includes the atmosphere and ocean) has increased.
Surely you've examined the records for the past 20,000 years, Dr. Riddle...
2. My own hunch is that the climate is largely affected by the sun-spots. Even Eric Holder can't do much about that.
The Sun has a large effect on climate, as without it we wouldn't have one. The Sun, however, has gone through no significant changes (in total output or due to sunspots) that relate to the changes we have seen over the past 50 years. There are plenty of scientific papers about this, so we already know your hunch is incorrect.
Did I mention 20,000 years, not just 50?
3. The CT Dept of Environmental Protection published a study years ago showing that during the last Ice Age, the Ocean adjacent to Connecticut was 450 feet lower than it is today. The weight of the ice (over a mile thick) pushed the CT shore area down over 100 feet.
I'm not going to address this, except to point out that taking one cherry picked data point is a poor way to discuss this topic.
Oh, I guess the remainder of the Atlantic Ocean wasn't 450 feet lower...
4. The NOAA graph goes back but 300 years. The CO2 has increased only 50% in that time. There was a time 500 million years ago (can't remember the name of the Age, but you can ask the Dept of Interior) when the concentration of carbon dioxide was over 100 times it's current concentration. Yet Nature has survived nicely.
So NOAA is not part of the fraud; just those who insist that the data in their graph proves that man is responsible for global warming.
The argument that "the climate always changes, therefore we have nothing to do with the current heating" is spurious. The Earth was undergoing a long cooling cycle, which has rapidly reversed in the past 100 years; the only change in the atmosphere that wasn't a "natural" occurrence is our dumping of CO2 into the atmosphere. The Sun has nothing to do with this. The only large source of heating left is human.
I guess the Little Ice Age is myth and/or spurious.
And, the idea that it's a fraud is ludicrous. Thousands of scientists would have to be in on it, from nations all around the world (including US enemies). It's just not a credible argument, but it's made in an attempt to undercut the science data that opponents don't want to look at in totality.
Also, scientists aren't in this for the money, the resources they get to do research are just enough to do the research; very few of us make enough to become wealthy. A vast amount of money is involved in the oil economy, and keeping that dominant is a much more lucrative endeavor, which means a very large monetary incentive to undercut anything that would challenge that. That's why we see states like Oklahoma trying to stop solar power, because the oil lobby got them to pass laws. Somehow, people think that scientists have a larger financial interest in this than the oil industry, which is just flat wrong.
Even having a cushy research job is incentive enough, forget about becoming wealthy.
In the end, physics doesn't care what you think, it will do what it will do, and if you ignore it you will end up paying. Any kid who does something stupid and falls down knows this. Ignoring the heating, or pretending it's not happening, or attacking the messengers, won't matter when the ocean rises and Niku ends up underwater.
Don't forget, Niku like most volcanic islands, is also sinking. So is Connecticut. So, in fact, is the whole East Coast of the United States. Few of you scientists give this phenomenon due credit.
In fact, Dr. Riddle, Michael Mann is just the visible tip of a melting iceberg, mixing datasets to his own liking, and essentially abandoning the scientific method. He and you and I probably won't be around for the onset of the next Ice Age, but as sure as shooting it is on the way. Then you can go back to studying "Global Cooling" the way you did in the 1970s as a reaction to the possibility of a Nuclear Winter. Government funding will flow without interruption.
-
The question is not whether the planet has ever been warmer in the past; it has. The question of most urgent interest to the human race is the range of conditions over all of human history. The planet is warmer than it has been during our tenure here. So the real question is whether the warming will, if it continues, take us outside the range of conditions that sustain human life.
Planet Earth will still be here either way, warm or cool. It doesn't depend on us to exist.
-
The question is not whether the planet has ever been warmer in the past; it has. The question of most urgent interest to the human race is the range of conditions over all of human history. The planet is warmer than it has been during our tenure here. So the real question is whether the warming will, if it continues, take us outside the range of conditions that sustain human life.
Planet Earth will still be here either way, warm or cool. It doesn't depend on us to exist.
And it has been colder than during our tenure.
IMHO, the question is whether the human race can adapt itself sensibly to either extreme while remaining solvent and retaining our humanity.
-
I always like to think of the term "climate change" sort of like "military intelligence"- both oxymoron's!
Due to the nature of our world's atmosphere it will always be in a state of change.
-
I always like to think of the term "climate change" sort of like "military intelligence"- both oxymoron's!
Due to the nature of our world's atmosphere it will always be in a state of change.
Oh so correct – ever since Earth developed an atmosphere, hundreds of millions of years ago, climate has constantly (and likely, cyclically) changed! Nothing unusual about it, and doubtful that it can be triggered or impeded by man. There is nothing as pathetic and dangerous than politicized science! >:(
-
Bingo Will! Right on!
-
I see that Mr. Mellon wants to argue dishonestly.....
By using the word "recorded", I was obviously talking about temperatures measured using modern methods. This record goes back to the 1880s, and is considered the "modern" temperature record. Measurements of temperature beyond that are developed using various methods, some more accurate than others (which is why there is uncertainty in some of those temperature ranges). The statement of "what about the last 20,000 years" is as ludicrous as if I pointed out the Earth was so warm 4.5 billion years ago that the rocks were liquid...it's a true fact, but it has nothing to do with the discussion. In fact, statements like that show how insecure someone is in their understanding of the totality of the data, physics, and real questions.
The idea that humans can't affect the climate is also wrong, and we've seen it clearly in the past. Or, not so clearly...Los Angeles had smog that was so thick you couldn't see the mountains from less than 5 miles away, but now it's always clear enough to do so. That's local climate, but we also have acid rain and its effects across the eastern US (caused by pollution), desertification due to cutting forests, and how the oceans are becoming more acidic and running out of fish. And then there is the ozone hole over Antarctica...the chemical reactions that break down ozone are caused by human created CFCs, and reducing the production of those has stopped the growth of the hole. That's a global effect we had, so it's an ignorant statement to say humans can't affect the entire global climate. We already have...the idea that the climate is always changing so we can't affect it is illogical on its face, and ignores millennia of evidence.
And, it's throwing stones in glass houses to call a research scientist job "cushy". It's better than working at McDonalds, but I have yet to fly on a private jet, ride in a limo, or do all those other things wealthy people get to do whenever they want. In fact, I have a lot more in common with the geologists who do oil exploration, and no one would call their lives cushy...unless they wanted to distract from the people who had really cushy lives and were trying to distract anyone from noticing.
Politicizing the science is not being done by the scientists. It's an easy experiment to show that adding CO2 to a bottle of air causes it to heat up faster than a bottle of air alone. It's basic physics, and a lot of the other things involved in climate change are not difficult concepts. The hard part about climate science is all of the interrelations, and how slowly things can change. It's those who will lose their largess if the world community decides to cut back on CO2 emissions to mitigate the effects of climate change who are attacking the scientists personally (as seen above against Dr. Mann) and who bring out lies (it wasn't scientists who said there was global cooling in the '70s, it was journalists) to support their attacks. The same propaganda strategy was used against scientists studying the idea that smoking caused lung cancer. You can tell because people spout off about things like "scientists aren't studying the sinking US east coast!" when in fact that is included in the models of sea rise rates.
If someone is using lies to support their argument (as Mr. Mellon is), then you have to doubt the accuracy of anything they have to say. I can't say that he's knowingly lying, it's completely possible that he's ignorant of the facts, but it behooves everyone to find out the facts for yourselves (from scholarly articles and reputable websites that report the science and NOT the propaganda from either side of the political debate) and decide what is really going on.
Reed
-
I see that Mr. Mellon wants to argue dishonestly.....
By using the word "recorded", I was obviously talking about temperatures measured using modern methods. This record goes back to the 1880s, and is considered the "modern" temperature record. Measurements of temperature beyond that are developed using various methods, some more accurate than others (which is why there is uncertainty in some of those temperature ranges). The statement of "what about the last 20,000 years" is as ludicrous as if I pointed out the Earth was so warm 4.5 billion years ago that the rocks were liquid...it's a true fact, but it has nothing to do with the discussion. In fact, statements like that show how insecure someone is in their understanding of the totality of the data, physics, and real questions.
The idea that humans can't affect the climate is also wrong, and we've seen it clearly in the past. Or, not so clearly...Los Angeles had smog that was so thick you couldn't see the mountains from less than 5 miles away, but now it's always clear enough to do so. That's local climate, but we also have acid rain and its effects across the eastern US (caused by pollution), desertification due to cutting forests, and how the oceans are becoming more acidic and running out of fish. And then there is the ozone hole over Antarctica...the chemical reactions that break down ozone are caused by human created CFCs, and reducing the production of those has stopped the growth of the hole. That's a global effect we had, so it's an ignorant statement to say humans can't affect the entire global climate. We already have...the idea that the climate is always changing so we can't affect it is illogical on its face, and ignores millennia of evidence.
And, it's throwing stones in glass houses to call a research scientist job "cushy". It's better than working at McDonalds, but I have yet to fly on a private jet, ride in a limo, or do all those other things wealthy people get to do whenever they want. In fact, I have a lot more in common with the geologists who do oil exploration, and no one would call their lives cushy...unless they wanted to distract from the people who had really cushy lives and were trying to distract anyone from noticing.
Politicizing the science is not being done by the scientists. It's an easy experiment to show that adding CO2 to a bottle of air causes it to heat up faster than a bottle of air alone. It's basic physics, and a lot of the other things involved in climate change are not difficult concepts. The hard part about climate science is all of the interrelations, and how slowly things can change. It's those who will lose their largess if the world community decides to cut back on CO2 emissions to mitigate the effects of climate change who are attacking the scientists personally (as seen above against Dr. Mann) and who bring out lies (it wasn't scientists who said there was global cooling in the '70s, it was journalists) to support their attacks. The same propaganda strategy was used against scientists studying the idea that smoking caused lung cancer. You can tell because people spout off about things like "scientists aren't studying the sinking US east coast!" when in fact that is included in the models of sea rise rates.
If someone is using lies to support their argument (as Mr. Mellon is), then you have to doubt the accuracy of anything they have to say. I can't say that he's knowingly lying, it's completely possible that he's ignorant of the facts, but it behooves everyone to find out the facts for yourselves (from scholarly articles and reputable websites that report the science and NOT the propaganda from either side of the political debate) and decide what is really going on.
Reed
Dr. Riddle, to use such invective in unbecoming and inappropriate. We can disagree without being uncivil, I hope.
As to "cushy", would you care to disclose your salary, health benefits, and other perks (such as tenure)?
As to Michael Mann, his use of statistics has clearly been shown to be dishonest.
I disagree that the focus on the cycle of Ice Ages is ludicrous (or spurious). This naturally occurring phenomenon, in a fairly regular pattern, is not just incidental to the change of climate, and obviously cannot be attributed to human activity.
Politicizing the science, as you say, is not by the scientists, I agree. It is by politicians like Al Gore, who unlike you, do fly around in their private jets while hypocritically preaching energy conservation to the rest of the population. And Al Gore does not admit that Florida is subsiding.
You have misquoted me in several instances. Please desist.
-
Hi All
Am no scientist or academic but i do believe that global warming is due to man made creations for example
The earth is a bubble agreed ?, the only 3 things that can enter earths bubble are A - Sun solar rays, B - Meteorites, C - comets,
To exit the bubble it takes a shuttle with the thrust of
Sea level Vacuum
100% thrust 1,670 kN (380,000 lbf) 2,090 kN (470,000 lbf)
104.5% thrust 1,750 kN (390,000 lbf) 2,170 kN (490,000 lbf)
109% thrust 1,860 kN (420,000 lbf) 2,280 kN (510,000 lbf)
I have 3 possible answer's
Answer 1: Every time an object bursts out the bubble the earth atmosphere shrinks = the smaller the space the easier to heat.
Answer 2: when earth had entered it's habit ant age it was balanced, However due to the continuous building of sky scrapers the earth is developing an egg type rotation
Answer 3: Human race is evolving and with that so is the amount of people with central heating, so work it out if the heat created by man kind can't exit the bubble ?
What's the bubble going to do ?
-
The Sun has a large effect on climate, as without it we wouldn't have one. The Sun, however, has gone through no significant changes (in total output or due to sunspots) that relate to the changes we have seen over the past 50 years. There are plenty of scientific papers about this, so we already know your hunch is incorrect.
Reed
This paper (http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/1997/11.06/BrighteningSuni.html) from Harvard (1997) seems to disagree with your above assertion, Dr. Riddle.
-
The Sun has a large effect on climate, as without it we wouldn't have one. The Sun, however, has gone through no significant changes (in total output or due to sunspots) that relate to the changes we have seen over the past 50 years. There are plenty of scientific papers about this, so we already know your hunch is incorrect.
Reed
This paper (http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/1997/11.06/BrighteningSuni.html) from Harvard (1997) seems to disagree with your above assertion, Dr. Riddle.
Tim, you neglected to mention the controversy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soon_and_Baliunas_controversy) over the paper you cited.
As I mentioned in an earlier post on the thread this discussion started on, I think anyone interested in understanding the politics of climate change 'controversy' might want to read the book Merchants of Doubt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt).
-
Steve, wouldn't you have to agree with me that "disagreement" and "controversy" are pretty much synonimous?
-
I always like to think of the term "climate change" sort of like "military intelligence"- both oxymoron's!
Due to the nature of our world's atmosphere it will always be in a state of change.
Here's another one, Jeff:
"Scientific Consensus"
-
Steve, wouldn't you have to agree with me that "disagreement" and "controversy" are pretty much synonimous?
So you want to discuss the meanings of the words ‘disagreement’ and ‘controversy’ rather than the substance of what the link I provided (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soon_and_Baliunas_controversy) says about the credibility of your Harvard paper?
-
Steve, wouldn't you have to agree with me that "disagreement" and "controversy" are pretty much synonimous?
So you want to discuss the meanings of the words ‘disagreement’ and ‘controversy’ rather than the substance of what the link I provided (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soon_and_Baliunas_controversy) says about the credibility of your Harvard paper?
The Sun has a large effect on climate, as without it we wouldn't have one. The Sun, however, has gone through no significant changes (in total output or due to sunspots) that relate to the changes we have seen over the past 50 years. There are plenty of scientific papers about this, so we already know your hunch is incorrect.
Reed
This paper (http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/1997/11.06/BrighteningSuni.html) from Harvard (1997) seems to disagree with your above assertion, Dr. Riddle.
Tim, you neglected to mention the controversy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soon_and_Baliunas_controversy) over the paper you cited.
As I mentioned in an earlier post on the thread this discussion started on, I think anyone interested in understanding the politics of climate change 'controversy' might want to read the book Merchants of Doubt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt).
One more piece of reading for those who interested in climate change. The link below discusses changes in atmospheric CO2 and climate over geological time scales.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past-intermediate.htm
Its may be useful to have the accurate information to form your opinion about a subject. Here is a link to a web site that provides the information on climate change:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed.html#.U_Xxm0gm2CT
You Sir can Google till your hearts content, but until you post the links to both sides of the debate on 'Global Warming/Climate Change', your opinion falls short. I can cite dozens of books, hundreds of bookmarks I have on the subject and even the Climate Science geeks can't even come to a consensus. All the graphs and data sets mean nothing as they are skewed to the individuals or organizations mindset on the subject, as is yours. This issue will not be solved in this forum topic or any other for that matter. The only thing it will cause is derision among the posters and accomplish nothing but incivility, derision and hard feelings.
I believe Jeff Lange said it best,
"Due to the nature of our world's atmosphere it will always be in a state of change."
I believe it should be left at that in the interest of harmony.
-
Back (http://climateaudit.org/2006/04/27/treydte-moberg-soon-and-baliunas/)and forth, Steve. (No hard feelings).
-
You Sir can Google till your hearts content, but until you post the links to both sides of the debate on 'Global Warming/Climate Change', your opinion falls short. I can cite dozens of books, hundreds of bookmarks I have on the subject and even the Climate Science geeks can't even come to a consensus. All the graphs and data sets mean nothing as they are skewed to the individuals or organizations mindset on the subject, as is yours. This issue will not be solved in this forum topic or any other for that matter. The only thing it will cause is derision among the posters and accomplish nothing but incivility, derision and hard feelings.
Yes, Mark, there are always two sides to a story but the two sides aren’t always equally plausible. So for example, people who don’t believe in evolution can always point others to Creation Science web sites for the ‘other side’ of the story. The scientific consensus is that the theory of evolution has a strong scientific basis and that creation science does not, regardless of the fact that creation scientists produce papers alleging to show that traditional radioactive dating techniques are wrong, coal deposits are 1,000 years old, etc.
So, my problem with the arguments made by skeptics of climate change on this thread is that all I’ve heard is a bunch of non-sequiturs, references to badly flawed research, etc. People can have, and in fact do, have reasoned disagreements about how sensitive the earth’s climate is to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, but that isn't what has been happening on this thread.
No hard feelings.
-
More grist for the mill. Tree Hugger.com (http://www.treehugger.com/climate-change/what-earth-will-look-if-climate-change-melts-all-ice.html)
-
Yes, Mark, there are always two sides to a story but the two sides aren’t always equally plausible. So for example, people who don’t believe in evolution can always point others to Creation Science web sites for the ‘other side’ of the story. The scientific consensus is that the theory of evolution has a strong scientific basis and that creation science does not, regardless of the fact that creation scientists produce papers alleging to show that traditional radioactive dating techniques are wrong, coal deposits are 1,000 years old, etc.
So, my problem with the arguments made by skeptics of climate change on this thread is that all I’ve heard is a bunch of non-sequiturs, references to badly flawed research, etc. People can have, and in fact do, have reasoned disagreements about how sensitive the earth’s climate is to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, but that isn't what has been happening on this thread.
No hard feelings.
It is apparent to me that we have diametrically opposing philosophical differences of opinion, which I will not debate in this venue. I will agree to disagree with 'no hard feelings'.
-
It is apparent to me that we have diametrically opposing philosophical differences of opinion ...
Yes.
It is not possible to do science without a philosophy of science.
The philosophy of science need not be explicitly noticed or stated, but it is present everywhere in what one takes to be evidence, proof, authority, and value.
Science, as such, is not an object of science. You can't see, hear, taste, touch, or smell it. It is not composed of matter-energy and is not located anywhere in the space-time continuum. It is not subject to empirical observation, nor can it be tested in controlled experiments conducted by physicists, biologists, or chemists.
Yes, there are social "sciences" that claim to study science scientifically, but that claim is indicative of their philosophy of science. They are sciences in the Aristotelian tradition, but so, of course, is theology an Aristotelian science. Banning theology from rational discourse is part of the philosophy of science that seems to be dominant at present; whatever counts against treating theology as a science also counts against psychology, sociology, history, and literature.
-
Banning theology from rational discourse is part of the philosophy of science that seems to be dominant at present; whatever counts against treating theology as a science also counts against psychology, sociology, history, and literature.
Marty, I think AGW scientists are only trying to substitute their own religion for yours and mine. Kinda reminds me of ISIS ("My way, or the die way...").
-
Yes, Mark, there are always two sides to a story but the two sides aren’t always equally plausible.
So, my problem with the arguments made by skeptics of climate change on this thread is that all I’ve heard is a bunch of non-sequiturs, references to badly flawed research, etc.
It's not just that Mann produced something that is not plausible, it is that he and his cohorts did it in an entirely dishonest fashion. Read The rise and the fall of the Hockey Stick (http://a-sceptical-mind.com/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-hockey-stick).
It makes The Big Lie (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cl1By29Ee_Y)look like small potatoes.
What is also astounding is that, rather than admitting poorly designed research, they dig themselves in deeper and deeper.
-
Yes, Mark, there are always two sides to a story but the two sides aren’t always equally plausible.
So, my problem with the arguments made by skeptics of climate change on this thread is that all I’ve heard is a bunch of non-sequiturs, references to badly flawed research, etc.
It's not just that Mann produced something that is not plausible, it is that he and his cohorts did it in an entirely dishonest fashion. Read The rise and the fall of the Hockey Stick (http://a-sceptical-mind.com/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-hockey-stick).
It makes The Big Lie (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cl1By29Ee_Y)look like small potatoes.
What is also astounding is that, rather than admitting poorly designed research, they dig themselves in deeper and deeper.
The North Report (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Report), produced by the National Research Council (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Research_Council_%28United_States%29), doesn’t agree with your assessment of Mann’s paper or that of the blog you linked to. Like I said, it’s a matter of the credibility of your sources, and in this case I think the North Report wins out over your blog. I don't think the National Research Council engages in fraud, do you?
No hard feelings.
-
The North Report (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Report), produced by the National Research Council (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Research_Council_%28United_States%29), doesn’t agree with your assessment of Mann’s paper or that of the blog you linked to. Like I said, it’s a matter of the credibility of your sources, and in this case I think the North Report wins out over your blog. I don't think the National Research Council engages in fraud, do you?
The North Report isn't exactly a ringing endorsement. Pretty waffley. 2-1 odds isn't exactly certainty.
As to fraud, who knows when it comes to government-funded entities? I trusted the IRS until recent revelations. I trusted the NSA before recent revelations. And all those plagiarizers like the disgraced Senator from Montana, Joe Biden and Neil Kinnock. Oh, I forgot: the EPA hiding all those official emails (Judith Enck) (http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/24/emails-another-top-epa-official-used-private-email-account-to-aid-environmentalists/) in private email accounts.
BTW, Steve, what exactly are your environmental credentials? I thought you were into astronomy, or is that Dr. Riddle? Would you care to share your CV with us?
-
I think AGW scientists are only trying to substitute their own religion for yours and mine. Kinda reminds me of ISIS ("My way, or the die way...").
Finding it persuasive that there is a connection between anthropogenic carbon emissions and a rise in global temperatures is reminiscent of terrorism? I find the comparison to ISIS extremely offensive and unproductive. Let's dial that back.
-
Finding it persuasive that there is a connection between anthropogenic carbon emissions and a rise in global temperatures is reminiscent of terrorism? I find the comparison to ISIS extremely offensive and unproductive. Let's dial that back.
Sorry, Jennifer Hubbard, not when people use phony science as a pretext to take political action to ruin the world economy and unilaterally relinquish our sovereignty in order to control human behavior. Join their phalanx, if you wish, but not I.
Ask the California farmers (http://m.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/13302/epa-makes-california-farmers-threatened-species/edward-john-craig) what they think about the EPA.
(Not to mention the Endangered Feces Act (http://m.nationalreview.com/article/386028/terrified-epa-begged-dhs-help-hallway-pooping-problems-escalated-katherine-timpf).)
-
I think AGW scientists are only trying to substitute their own religion for yours and mine. Kinda reminds me of ISIS ("My way, or the die way...").
Finding it persuasive that there is a connection between anthropogenic carbon emissions and a rise in global temperatures is reminiscent of terrorism? I find the comparison to ISIS extremely offensive and unproductive. Let's dial that back.
Let's not. Was it an analogy or a comparison or maybe somewhat rhetorical? Don't see it as offensive as the writings of the far left on human induced carbon emissions. Eyes of the beholder. "Anthropogenic", those fifty cent words scare me.
-
Mr. Mellon turned this thread into a political harangue. As a 501 c 3 nonprofit TIGHAR is not permitted to engage in political activity. Mr. Mellon has been banned from participation in the TIGHAR Forum and this topic is now locked.