March 2007 might go down in science history as the month the global warming skeptics struck back.
From a British documentary debunking myths currently being advanced by the alarmists to Al Gore being challenged to a debate, scientists across the questionably warming globe have clearly thrown down the gauntlet.
The most recent event transpired at a conference in Oxford today, where some noted scientists stated that Hollywood is not doing the world a service by overstating and exaggerating the risks of climate change.
As reported by the Daily Mail (emphasis added throughout):
Leading climate change experts have thrown their weight behind two scientists who hit out at the "Hollywoodisation" of global warming.
Professors Paul Hardaker and Chris Collier, both Royal Meteorological Society figures, criticised fellow scientists they accuse of "overplaying" the message.
Wise words, wouldn’t you agree? The article continued:
Professor Hardaker warned against the "Hollywoodisation" of weather and climate seen in films such as the 2004 smash hit film The Day After Tomorrow, which depicts terrifying consequences after the melting of the Arctic ice shelf.
Such films, he said, only work to create confusion in the public mind.
Hardaker offered suggestions:
"I don't think the way to make people pay attention is to make them afraid about it," he said.
"We have to help them understand it and allow them to make choices - because the impact of climate change is going to mean we have got some quite difficult choices to make both in policy and as members of the public.
"Unless we can understand the science behind it, we can't be expected to get our heads around making these difficult choices."
Presenting events such as the shutting off of the Gulf Stream, creating a cooling effect, and the rise of temperatures together could be "confusing", he said, unless it is made clear that the former is far less likely than the latter.
He said the scientists should avoid being forced to make wild predictions about the future in response to climate change sceptics such as those seen in Channel 4's recent programme, Global Climate Swindle.
He said: "We must be careful not to sensationalise our side of the argument or Hollywoodise the argument otherwise you end up in an ever increasing cycle of claim and counter-claim.
"We have to be clear about what our level of understanding is and to be clear about where we are making judgements based on understanding."
Hardaker wasn’t alone in these sentiments:
Dr Peter Stott, manager of understanding and attributing climate change at the Hadley Centre for Climate Change, said he believes scientists have to make it clear there is a long way to go until we know how bad climate change will be.
He said: "There is a lot more research to do to understand about exactly what effects its going to have on you and me in the future."
He said that while he welcomed a growing public awareness about the dangers brought about by films and headlines, informed debate was vital.
"I think it is important that having said there is a problem, it would be unfortunate if people got the impression that there's nothing we can do about it because there is a lot we can do to change the future of climate change," he said.
Hmmm. Reasoned debate? About a scientific issue that has now been politicized by politicians and media representatives in several countries?
What a concept.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Comments Policy
I agree
March 19, 2007 - 12:42 ET by belagI agree with the statements: there shouldn't be sensationalization in films. When people watch a movie, they're smart enough to realize that it's make believe.
The purpose of Hollywood should be just to popularize the concept.
As regards evidence, I was asking this to some other readers in another post. Regarding the evidence for/against global warming:
What kind of evidence would you accept? What would convince you, one way or the other? Are you already convinced?
I am convinced that the cli
March 19, 2007 - 13:05 ET by 1sttofightI am convinced that the climate is changing. But then it is always changing and has been for millions of years.
Mans influence on the climate is very, very tiny if any at all.
Convinced?
March 19, 2007 - 16:44 ET by belagAre you convinced? Can anything I say change your mind? If not, I guess, we cannot agree.
If you want to change your mind (or mine), feel free to respond.
You didn't say anything yet, moron
March 19, 2007 - 19:01 ET by SportPoliticsYou didn't say anything yet, moron. God you people have serious problems. I get the feeling immediately I'm talking to an insane retard.
First you ask if anyone has formed an opinion on the issue. Then you wane into let's have a debate depending on you being convinced or convincing others. Then, in the very next response after you get just one very bland taker that says they understand climate changes, you bail out entirely declaring that well then,no debate shall ensue, and you can't change anyone's mind, and noone can change yours. (you have yet to state what yours is here - BUT it has become all too obvious. )
In other words, you're an insane moronic twit, and so kookballed, that having never seen you before, I am fully aware that you're a Gore supporting agw liberal freak. ( Yeah, I've seen thousands of the same type of moronic, retarded,fake closed minded false offers crap already.)
You make me SICK.
IF YOU WANT TO CHANGE YOUR MIND, feel free to respond. ( You have my Glorious permission )
I see you are still speakin
March 19, 2007 - 19:04 ET by BlameTheMediaI see you are still speaking with dignity, sport.
Yeah
March 19, 2007 - 19:05 ET by SportPoliticsYeah, I always expect someone else to change their mind when they respond.
I mean really, it must be permanent retardation or deranged insanity.
What's the problem?
March 19, 2007 - 21:21 ET by belagI've no idea what your problem is sport.
The poster said he believe climate is changing but it's not man-made. I believe climate is changing and it's man-made. I was asking him what kind of evidence he'd like.
I've no idea why it's so hard to understand that and why you're calling me a retard.
So, if you believe so strongl
March 19, 2007 - 21:36 ET by UnsaneSo, if you believe so strongly that climate change is done only because of mankind, what was causing Exit Glacier to melt in 1780?
Do you support the expanded use of nuclear power (it works for 78.5% of France's needs)?
Why was I chipping ice off my truck last January here in TX? That kind of thing is a rarity even without "global warming". If the earth is warming dramatically over the past 20 years like the doomsayers proclaim, then I shouldn't be chipping ice off my truck, at all.
Why are China, Mexico, and India, among others, exempt from the Kyoto Protocol?
Why is tropical deforestation not addressed anywhere in the Kyoto Protocol?
Why were there no major hurricanes in the Atlantic to speak of in 2006?
Why did it snow in Lisbon and New Delhi in 2005-2006? Why did it snow in Johannesburg in July 2006? Why did it snow SOUTH and EAST of San Antonio for Christmas 2004 (again, San Antonio RARELY if EVER gets snow)?
Why was the world's record high set in 1922?
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
A reply to most of your points
March 20, 2007 - 01:38 ET by belag1. Most of the points of your post can be answered in a few lines. The answer is: it's global warming.
That means it doesn't say anything about local variations. It doesn't say anything about particular years.
It says, as a whole, the world is warming. The global average temperature is going up. Almost nobody denies this, not even most of the "skeptics". They disagree about whether it's man-made.
2. Regarding policy, like Kyoto, I'll address this fully in a future post.
Thank you for re-emphasizing
March 20, 2007 - 21:52 ET by UnsaneThank you for re-emphasizing my point, but not answering my questions. If this is all about GLOBAL warming, then I SHOULD notice the effects in my little corner of the world, not to mention at other places I have been.
Please also note that I don't know, nor will I claim, that there is a warming or cooling trend, and even if there IS one, we are quite some ways from determining what mankinds involvement is, if any.
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Belag
March 19, 2007 - 13:06 ET by Noel SheppardBelag,
Is this a philosophical discussion or a scientific one? Is this one where there are actual facts that can be relied on and assumed as such, or is everything up for debate, and nothing is real?
If the answer is the latter, I pass. As I mentioned in a previous thread, at my current age, I only have philosophical discussions with a drink in my hand. :-) ns
It's a scientific one
March 19, 2007 - 16:43 ET by belagIt's a scientific discussion.
Yes, I'd like to ask you, what kind of evidence would you like? Have you already made up your mind?
The reason I gave a philosophical argument was because I was specifically asked. I have no problems with sticking to science.
You have no problems sticking
March 19, 2007 - 17:00 ET by NL207You have no problems sticking to science?
Pretty funny, don't you think, since there is just about zero science in the Hollywood version of Global Warming.
Leftists love "science" when it's on their side
March 19, 2007 - 17:14 ET by RJNL, leftists LOVE sticking to "science" as long as it agrees with their social engineering plans. Funny, though, how they've all completely ignored THIS scientist:
Prominent French scientist reverses belief in anthropogenic global warming....Dr. Claude Allegre, a socialist and a strong early advocate of Global Warming theories is now a skeptic.
"With a wealth of data now in, Dr. Allegre has recanted his views. To his surprise, he now believes the many climate models and studies failed dismally in establishing a man-made cause of catastrophic global warming. Meanwhile, increasing evidence indicates that most of the warming comes of natural phenomena. Dr. Allegre now sees global warming as over-hyped and an environmental concern of the second rank. He says the arguments of those who see catastrophe in climate change are simplistic and an artificial obstacle that creates fear."
TO RETURN TO THE POINT OF THE THREAD, Dr Allegre uses the words "over-hyped" and has come to believe that the arguments of the GWers are "simplistic."
Seems to me some of their sci
March 19, 2007 - 19:10 ET by NL207Seems to me some of their scientists got hosed in a debate in NYC a few days ago by GW skeptics.
It should be obvious that will be the outcome in any such public debate for some time to come because the MSM has so propagandized the issue that many Americans are completely unaware of the opposing arguments. They are only hearing them for the first time in open debate. This wll be a frustrating time for the AGW crowd, but they have no one to blame for this but themselves.
Ignorance of Allegre
March 19, 2007 - 21:27 ET by belagI have not ignored Allegre. Indeed I accepted that he's a skeptic. So's Richard Lindzen who was at the debate. Richard Lindzen is also a well known expert in the field.
I don't deny there are skeptics. But there are always skeptics in every branch of science. Einstein didn't believe in quantum mechanics, even though he was one of the founders.
I don't want to repeat everything in the other thread, but to summarize, I'm going for overwhelming scientific consensus, not unanimity.
Again, I ask. Have you made up your mind? Will anything I say convince you? If not, no point in having a debate.
So, if we don't just throw up
March 19, 2007 - 21:38 ET by UnsaneSo, if we don't just throw up our hands and immediately exclaim "belag, you are right, we are wrong", there's no point in having a debate?
Sounds like you are not after debate but religious conversion...
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
That's funny, belag
March 19, 2007 - 21:56 ET by RJFunny. belag, you say you haven't ignored Allegre, then you proceed to do so. Do you know more science on the subject than he? Is that why it's so easy for you to walk away, saying "oh, well, he's a skeptic....sigh."
As for "scientific consensus", I've explained before that I'm among those who don't believe in the concept. I think that it's a lazy and convenient crutch. Further, I've read virtually every post and argument on the subject of GW for the past year, and the vast majority of what I see are feeling-based, not fact-based, arguments...like yours seem to be. Look for a pretty good post on the subject of "consensus" farther down this thread. It's written by "NavyLT."
Finally, after observing your debate style, I think I'm probably a great deal more willing to look at what the other side is saying than you are. I think you're exclusively about "making points", rather than taking in what the other person is saying. Long, drawn out "debates" with people who have that perspective bore me, because those people are invariably disingenuous. And that, not because I've "made up my mind", is the reason I have no interest in having a debate with you, belag.
There is no consensus. You
March 19, 2007 - 22:00 ET by NL207There is no consensus.
You saw how easily Lindzen and friends whipped two pretty good scientists? Gavin Schmidt and Richard Somerville are not weak minded by any stretch of the imagination, just, in my estimation, misguided. Brenda Ekwurzel on the other had is just a political hack. She is no match in any thinking contest for Michael Crichton.
In fact, if they manage to live long enough, I suspect both Schmidt and Somerville may come around to Lindzen's way of thinking. But only time will tell that story.
This is what will convince me: These AGW folks develop a comprehensive model of how the Earth's climate system works and can explain with the backing of experimental confrmaation the following items: (1) The general evolution of the planetary climate system over the last 550 Million years for which we have good geologic records including the major climatic variations and the mechanisms that drove them. (2) The casue of the sudden planetary cooling which occurred in the middle Eocene about 44 Million years ago. (3) the complete workings of the Ice Age cycle which has dominated the Pleistocene epoch (4) Complete justification for calling the last 12,000 years the holocene, when there seems to be no geological reason for doing so. (5) produce a SINGLE climatic model that can correctly regress all of the know datasets and last but not least, (6) correctly predict at least 20 years of planetary climate. When they can do all this, then I will buy their doom and gloom predictions.
Because they can presently do NONE of this, these AGW climatologists are shown to be ignorant of how the earth's climate system actually works.
Belag
March 19, 2007 - 21:06 ET by Noel SheppardBelag,
I'd like to see evidence that the current warming trend that appears to have begun in the mid-'70s after a cooling trend isn't just another in a long lasting cycle of what has been observed for centuries nay millenia. In fact, many of the scientists I read believe that we've already begun a cooling trend, and point to the fact that 1998 may have been the peak in this cycle.
Even NOAA data support this (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2006/ann/ann06.html):
What's interesting is the last time NOAA improved its data set was in the mid-'80s. Isn't it fascinating that it corresponded with a warming cycle?
Of course, these changing data sets also concern me, for in the end, we're really not comparing apples to apples when we look at anything using different data sets, and different technologies, wouldn't you agree?
We're getting all excited about a possible 0.6 degree rise in temperature over 100 years. Most scientists believe this to have a margin of error of at least 0.2 degrees. Frankly, I think it could be a hell of a lot more.
For instance, that same NOAA article reported:
This raises some very interesting questions for me. First of all, how many stations existed 100 years ago? Certainly fewer, correct? Furthermore, how much do these adjustments for urbanization and instrument changes impact the veracity of the data collected?
100 years ago, how many times a day were temperatures being taken at each station? Today, it's likely 24/7 via satellite, correct? As such, the highs might be more accurate, as might the lows, correct?
100 years ago, we weren't measuring temperature with degree decimal points, correct? Today we are.
In the end, because of technology, additional stations, satellites, digital thermometers, etc., etc., maybe our data collection is significantly more accurate than 50 and 100 years ago. Do you think that's possible, or completely disregard it?
With that in mind, since we're looking at just a 0.6 degree rise in 100 years, is it possible that all of these confounding variables might impact our findings enough to completely negate this rise? And, as we have been seeing 70 year cycles of cooling and warming for centuries nay millenia, if 1998 is indeed a top in this cycle, couldn't we wait another five or ten years to see whether temperatures moderate just as they've done in the past before we begin radical changes to our economy in a fashion that could negatively impact poor countries around the world much more than ours?
This seems particularly logical given statements made exactly one month ago by Susan Solomon of NOAA (http://newsbusters.org/node/10923):
If temperatures were 3 to 5 degrees warmer 125,000 years ago, couldn't this current rise just be normal climate change for this planet? Isn't this also supported by the fact that temperatures on Jupiter, Mars, and Pluto have also all been rising the past 20 to 30 years?
Finally, I want significantly more conclusive evidence concerning the supposed direct relationship between rising CO2 levels and rising temperatures which most of the scientists whose work I respect totally refute. ns
Noel,This is the same guy who
March 19, 2007 - 21:23 ET by NL207Noel,
This is the same guy who could not understand that a system of two mutually recursive differential equations constitutes a feedback engine.
How do you expect him to grasp all of this?
NL
March 19, 2007 - 21:33 ET by Noel SheppardNL,
Well, I don't think anything I've presented is extraordinarily complex. And, though I didn't see the differential equations discussion, Belag has not presented himself as being in any way intellectually challenged.
Frankly, he strikes me as a bright guy with a different point of view who is willing to put a lot of effort into proving his point. Though I don't agree with him, I still respect his desire to have a well-reasoned debate -- or am I being obtuse again like I was with Tantalus earlier today? :-) ns
I think Belag's mind is close
March 19, 2007 - 21:41 ET by NL207I think Belag's mind is closed. Your well intentioned post is long enough that I think he will ignore most of it because he disagrees with the conclusions it must force. Denial. Its not just a river in Egypt any more!
Noel,Forgive me for butting i
March 19, 2007 - 21:50 ET by BlondeNoel,
Forgive me for butting in here....
But, I followed Tantalus' posts for a day or two....and caught it. However, I certainly understand how you would misconstrue it...no one likes being called a Nazi (trust me when I tell you this...I've been labelled that by, um, oh never mind).
But obtuse is not particularly part of your make-up Noel.
You are far too kind to many here...but that is part of your charm.
And now, if this post disappears into the ether...I'm done...for tonite.
Regards, N.
Blonde
March 19, 2007 - 22:09 ET by Noel SheppardB,
Actually, as I didn't know the SN, I should have done a search of his history before jumping to the conclusion I did. However, I don't take kindly to being called a Nazi, maybe even in fun. Although, Mel Brooks did make Hitler and his boys look awfully humorous -- in the original version, of course, and not the Broadway redux. As such, maybe I was being too sensitive.
That said, after reading some of his posts, he's pretty darned clever. I hope we see more of him. ns
Noel,That's understandable.
March 19, 2007 - 22:18 ET by BlondeNoel,
That's understandable. At work, I have NB up, while I wait for gigantic data downloads. But I really can only read a bit.
I thought it was pretty clever...but I suspect he won't try it again, for a while.
One of my other fave new posters is Chicago Republican (bloody Nole!...yes, I spelled THAT correctly) and his forum posts to ThoughtPolice.
It is so fun to see the new talent here.
I feel old and stupid, mostly. And the politics are starting to get me down. But I still love the posts here, and most particularly, Noel....your flair with with the pics. And of course, the wonderful posts by the stalwart NB's.
Blonde, 'old and stupid' ? Naw, stop it. :-) ACA
March 19, 2007 - 23:09 ET by acaiguanaBlonde, 'old and stupid' ? Naw, stop it. :-) ACA
When I hear the 24 year old kid discussing the Hillary Advertisement on 1984 with Rush, then I felt old and stupid.
Like my daughter, they live on MySpace and UTube. Their frame of reference is so 2007. Mine is so 19??.
So, clean it up kid.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
Noel With all due respect. Ge
March 19, 2007 - 22:21 ET by danboNoel With all due respect. Get used to being called a Nazi. That's the attack of the left. And sometimes we do it in anger.
Just as I assume (if it hasn't happened yet.) Members of the left and especially the AGW mafia will dig into your past and try to connect you to something. It's happened to me (not here), and I'm a small fry. Even a minnow.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
A minnow, danbo!That's rich.D
March 19, 2007 - 22:30 ET by BlondeA minnow, danbo!
That's rich.
Did you see this sad thing today?
Someone, earlier, referenced scuba diving as a "dangerous" sport. It's only dangerous if you dive beyond your limitations. Fools.
I know we're going off subjec
March 19, 2007 - 23:22 ET by danboI know we're going off subject. So... LOL
Sorry to hear about that. Sounds like they screwed up. No safety reel. I understand the Grove has been cleared of problems like cables entrapments etc. (I've been in the Grove's cargo hole.) As my training to overhead environments has been through caverns/caves where safety lines are the rule. And the training to avoid entanglements.
The divers didn't sound like complete idiots as they did have stage tanks. However, my understanding is some of the old wreck instructors/divers don't use them. (Reel usage was started in cave diving. Wreck divers feared entanglements.) The 3rd diver sounds like he found his way out with so little air he didn't risk the air hunting for the stage tanks. And decided the likelyhood of dying from bends was less than drowning. And lost the bet. (Like the father/son team that died on the U-Who.)
Have you ever dove the Spiegel Grove? A neat dive. I dove it once when it was laying on it's side. And twice after it righted itself. It is fairly deep. If my memory is correct the bridge is about 75 or so feet. Where it rests on the sand it's about 130/35.
Hopefully this summer I'll get to dive the Oriskany. The upper portions are about 60 feet. the flight deck is about 130. I've heard word of mouth of fatalities on the "O". People get suckered into diving deeper than they should. And staying too long. I've made that mistake. And learned to watch my no-deco limits.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
DB
March 19, 2007 - 22:35 ET by Noel SheppardDB,
Given pieces that I've written about Markos, Hamsher, et al, if there was any good dirt about me available on the Internet, I think someone would have dug it up already. As you know, these folks can be pretty vicious.
As I'm sure you're aware, my writing carries strong opinions, but is typically respectful in its presentation. Even when I debated Stark a few months ago, the Netroot reviews were pretty favorable.
In the end, if you can't get your message across without vitriol, why bother doing it? ns
Err. Noel Are the proxy data
March 19, 2007 - 22:04 ET by danboErr. Noel Are the proxy data calibrated to fractions of a degree? Even though such proxy's as tree rings are the result of 3 or 4 variables that I can think of. So I guess we have a digital thermometer in a tree ring.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
Mann's tree ring proxies are
March 19, 2007 - 22:11 ET by NL207Mann's tree ring proxies are highly massaged data. The precision is artificial. There is a statistician from George Mason University named Ed Wegman who has critiqued Mann's technique from a statistical point of view. You should be able to google this paper. Wegman more or less concurs with the McItrick and McIntyre assertions that Mann over analyzed his data and improperly applied statistical theory to get his results. Of course, the realclimate people have a great deal to say about this.
NL
March 19, 2007 - 22:23 ET by Noel SheppardNL,
Everything that Mann created has been debunked. Frankly, this guy is quite the laughing stock amongst the AGW skeptics. :-) ns
The fact that the statistical
March 20, 2007 - 13:50 ET by NL207The fact that the statistical analysis portion of Mann's tree ring work has been impeached has not in any way prevented the AGW community from continuing to present the 'hockey stick' as evidence there was no medieval warm period and that the present warming trend is new, extreme, and hitherto unprecedented.
Danbo
March 19, 2007 - 22:22 ET by Noel SheppardDan,
But is that how we would be basing temperatures for the past 100 years? Wouldn't data that recent be from recorded air temperature readings rather than tree rings? NOAA has been around for over 200 years, correct? ns
Noel I'm not sure if NOAA has
March 19, 2007 - 22:42 ET by danboNoel I'm not sure if NOAA has been around that long. May have. But much before 1880 or so records get real limited.
However. Most of the info they use as In Mann's history of temps (the hockey stick) was proxy data till about 1980. Then they spliced in instrument data.
Being instruments and proxies are apples and oranges. If one were to use proxies. It would be appropriate to use proxies all the way through. But (though it has been hard to confirm) it is my understanding that the proxies since 1980 does not confirm the increased temperture record. And as one poster in climateaudit.org noted. It's sexier when you splice in instrument data.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
DB
March 19, 2007 - 22:48 ET by Noel SheppardDB,
So, all the temperature data prior to 1980 is by proxy from trees? Why would that be? Certainly, we've been taking air temperatures since well before then?
If that's the case, who gives a rat's ass about any of these numbers?
Of course, as you know, "sceptics" don't! ;-) ns
P.S. NOAA history: http://www.history.noaa.gov/noaa.html
If the numbers are only going
March 19, 2007 - 23:34 ET by danboIf the numbers are only going back to about 1880 maybe 1870 or so. (I'm not sure about 1970. You're "probably" looking only at instrument data. Especially if it's only to a specific location. But remember GISS etc has been doing funny things with temperture histories. Check out some of the discussions over at www.climateaudit.org.
However when you get back to longer records like 400 years or 1000 years,; you will be looking at a lot of proxy data. Unfortunately, the people at the Mann team let the cat out of the bag when they told us they used proxt till about 1980 and switched only then to instrument data. So they used proxy data in the 1920's 50's 70's.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
Replies
March 19, 2007 - 23:04 ET by belagI'll address your points one by one
1. You say, it's possible that the increase in temperatures that
we observe may've stopped in 1998. We are, for the moment, accepting
the data on the site as correct?
I'll use the same source you gave me.
A basic principle in statistics is that you'll expect some spikes. For example, yes, 1998 was the warmest year recorded.
But if, it's true, as you say, that global warming stopped in 1998, we should observe same or lower temperatures afterwards.
On the same site, you see the temperature anomalies in the previous years - till 2005. The link is here.
Ignore
the blue line in the graph - that's showing some sort of fit. The red
bars represent the temperature anomalies. You can see, 1998 was a sort
of spike in the graph. If we ignore 1998, the temperatures continue to rise
(as a whole - there were some lower) after 1998 (compare pre-1997 and
2000-2005). Also, 2006 was higher than the previous (almost the same as
1998).
Now, I'm no expert, but my explanation is, 1998 could be just an
exception. I don't know enough about the field to say exactly what
happenned in 1998. But you expectspikes in any data, there's no exact correlation.
2. You say that 0.6C could just be experimental error and 100yrs
ago, people didn't record temperatures using decimal points, since
there were no digital thermometers.
Actually that's not true. It's quite easy and possible to record temperatures to a decimal point
using a normal mercury thermometer. You can see that in an ordinary
thermometer when you take your temperature - to see if you have fever
or not.
Temperature meausrements to a decimal point are routine even going back 100 years. Rest assured, it's possible and easy.
When
they say for example 3.2C +/- 0.2C that uncertainty includes both
experimental uncertainty (by instruments) and statistical uncertainty
(due to sampling). There are mathematical estimates of exactly how
uncertain the data is. I'm not a statistician, but I know at least that
much.
Yes we have more sophisticated instruments today,
that's why we can compare 1998 and 2006 which were so close (0.04C
difference). But the accuracy of the early 20th century instruments was
sufficient for the conclusion.
4. Regarding sea level 125,000 years ago. I don't deny that
Earth's climate has changed - a lot - in the past. That's not the
issue. The issue is the following. Is the recent climate change attributable to man-made factors? In other words - the A in the AGW.
5. Yes, it's possible that all the planets could be warming up -
Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Earth. But nobody suggests that they're related.
To be related, you'll have to show a lot of things. You'll have to show
the heating was during the same time period. That the different
heating/cooling records match on the different planets. If it's due to
the sun, you'll expect that the farther planets heat less and the Earth
heats up more. All sort of things. That's why nobody suggests this,
because these things are not observed.
6. Temperature dependence upon CO2. First may I ask which scientists you respect refute this?
I'll
give you data I respect. Do you mind if I quote the IPCC? If not, I can
show you other statements of virtually every scientific organization on
Earth.
http://www.grida.no/...
It summarizes the natural effects on climate and the man-made effects. You can read the details in the main body of the report.
If you want me to quote a source different from the IPCC, I can do that too.
belag, I'm going to jump in, because I can. ACA
March 19, 2007 - 23:21 ET by acaiguanabelag, I'm going to jump in, because I can. ACA
Let me walk you through some common sense as applied to models and science.
First, we can agree that climate change occurs. Which I think my quote of your comment proves. Right?
Second, we can agree that it is possible when a freight train is moving down the track, if one puts a large enough push engine at the back, the acceleration will increase and the train will move faster. You would agree with this idea, no?
So, the issue is whether man, that would be you and I, are pushing the natural trend of the Earth's warming to an extreme that would accelerate it unnaturally. This is true, correct? This is the issue.
Now, we have two scenarios here.
One, the engine that is being pushed somehow has kenetic forces that will 'feed' off itself and take any further acceleration into a self-sustaining mode of more than rapid, but gigantic acceleration. That would mean that 'all of a sudden' the warming 'takes off' on its own and accelerates due to the 'push' to a velocity that doesn't just excede expectations from the natural; but excedes expectations from the curve.
I hope you are following me here.
What I am saying is that there is assumed a 'take off' point of no return. Right? That is what the extremist global warmers want us to believe.
The second scenario would be that the curve is simply adjusted upwards on the axis by some miniscule amount, say .4 of a degree. That would mean that the curve still follows the laws it followed before, just that man did not 'push it over the edge'.
Catch my thinking here?
So, I'm having a hard time getting past this simple point.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
Analogy
March 20, 2007 - 01:48 ET by belagI'll try to talk in terms of your analogy.
There's a freight train. It's being pushed or pulled by an engine. Why does it need to do that? To counter friction.
If you attach an engine, the train moves faster.
If you stop the engine, the train slows down.
That, in principle, (although it seems more complicated in this case) is the argument about GW. You try to reduce CO2, in the distant future (you have to give time to "friction" to work) temperatures will go down. If you don't, temperatures will keep going up.
If you want more specific details of the analogy do tell me.
Your entire argument rests on
March 20, 2007 - 12:12 ET by NL207Your entire argument rests on 2 assumptions, neither of which has been proven fact by science. One of them is even proven false.
(1) Atmospheric CO2 concentration is the dominant term in the global warmth equation. This is false. Atmospheric CO2 is not even the dominant term in the greenhouse gas component of the equation. H2O vapor plays that role. Both are subordinate to solar irradiance.
(2) Humans are responsible for all or nearly all of any increases in atmospheric CO2 measured over the last 150 years. This is still subject to question.
Belag
March 19, 2007 - 23:49 ET by Noel SheppardBelag,
1. That link goes to a graph using old data sets. As such, it is irrelevant. That said, what is relevant is that according to the new data sets which NOAA will be using effective January of this year, 1998 is the warmest year on record. Forgive me, and I don't mean to be derogatory, but this means that 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 were all colder. If 2007 is also cooler, that will be nine consecutive years. Wouldn't you like more evidence that this isn't the beginning of a cooling trend -- similar to those that have followed similar length warming trends for centuries nay millenia -- before we decide to destroy the economy and ruin the lives of potentially billions of people in lesser developed nations who need energy to advance from the stone age?
Please refute this if you can using information supplied by NOAA with their new 2007 data sets.
2. Yes, we do measure body temperature in tenths. However, have you ever seen an analog air temperature thermometer that does this? Have you ever heard temperature reported by meteorologists in tenths? Do you think such existed 50 and 100 years ago?
4 (3 missing). Well, you might dismiss the importance of this, but I don't. If temperatures indeed were 3 to 5 degrees warmer 125,000 years ago before cars and such were created, this is germane to the argument regardless of whether you agree. It is evidence that temperatures have risen well higher than they currently are without man's influence.
5. You are quite wrong. There are many who believe the warming on other planets is related to ours. In fact, much to all of our surprise, National Geographic recently published an article on this very subject (http://newsbusters.org/node/11122). This is but one example. Much of the skepticism about AGW stems directly from the heating of Mars, Jupiter, and Pluto. If you didn't know this, go do some reading on the subject.
6. I receive information from scientists around the world by e-mail on a daily basis. Many of the names would be familiar to you, but I have no interest in betraying their trust. Regardless, you know who the skeptics are, and if you're really interested in learning their views, you should read EVERYTHING they've written on the subject. ns
Noel, belag isn't going to 'refute' your point. He's not capabl
March 20, 2007 - 00:16 ET by acaiguanaNoel, belag isn't going to 'refute' your point. He's not capable.
I've asked him a binary question.
I"ve been invited to partake in the economic side of MRC, maybe I should.
This stuff is outside the realm of people's lives. I hate to go micro here but it seems that the idea is:
It's all aca's fault!
ACA
Reply
March 20, 2007 - 01:24 ET by belag1. The link is not to old data sets. It's the data set till 2005
(the 2006 we already know about from your report - it was very close to
1998).
Here's the data from the 2006 report (this is the latest - since 2007 is not yet over - the 2007 one links to this one)
http://www.ncdc.noaa...
(It says 2005 because it uses techniques from a 2005 paper)
I found that graph here:
http://www.ncdc.noaa...
As you can see, the trends are the same
I agree, 1998 was warmer than 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005. (2006 I'm not certain, in any event it's very close).
I already gave an explanation of why this is so. When looking at
data you don't give importance to any one particular year. Spikes in any data set
are inevitable. As I said, if you ignore 1998 (I don't know what caused
the spike in 1998), temperatures continue to increase (as a whole).
The blue curve
in the graph represents a 5 year running mean (which is a standard
statistical practice to de-emphasise any particular year's data). As
you can see, it has continued to rise after 1998.
2.
Yes I think it's possible to measure air temperature in the tenths. In
addition to normal thermometers, very sophisticated temperature sensors
were built even 100 years ago. Thermistors in 1930. Resistance
thermometers were built before 1900. These are more sensitive than you
even need for this.
Also, it's not just the data from the met stations. It has been
reconfirmed from many other sources, like ice core data, tree ring
data. Lots of different ways.
The last 50 years have been very certain indeed. But the last 100 years are of sufficient certainty
So I believe it's easily possible to measure upto tenths of a degree.
4.
Well, I guess that's true, there's evidence of Earth's climate varying
in the distant past which has nothing to do with man. Of course if you go back millions of years, the variations were still more erratic. But that doesn't mean man cannot change climate at present.
5. Yes, people have suggested that the sun is causing global warming. You can see that in the global warming movie too.
First note, that your article says nothing about Mars, Jupiter etc.
Dissent is an important part of science, in fact any field. Let
me ask you, what is your criterion of believing/not believing a
particular theory?
The NatGeo article clearly notes, that the
views are contrarian and almost every other scientist disagrees with
that. In the same article, it gives a link to another article which
notes that the IPCC report already incorporates the sun's variation and
found them to be negligible.
Contrarian views are important. Again, the point is who do you
believe? Are you believing the contrarian view because of a soft spot
for dissenters? Are you using any criteria to believe/discard a theory?
6. Again, yes, you might receive emails from others. But what is your criteria for believing the theories they have?
Skeptics
are important. But how do you know a skeptic is right while the
mainstream isn't? The natural question is: what criteria do you use?
NIce try belag
March 19, 2007 - 13:10 ET by RJNIce try to once again redirect the thread, belag. Your last questions are not the point of the thread, which is 1) using movies to sensationalize the issue, as Al Gore has done, and 2) having informed debate rather than deliberately using sensationalizaton and fear to win the argument.
As for people "being smart enough to realize it's make believe," if that were true, teachers around the U.S. and the world wouldn't be forcing children to watch Gore's movie because they would know better. Also, if that were true, then the children forced to watch it wouldn't be brain-washed into believing the AGW bs.
RJ
March 19, 2007 - 13:19 ET by Noel SheppardRJ,
Well, and the point about "smart enough to know it's make believe" is dismissive of what these scientists said, for their suggestion is that people aren't smart enough, or, at least, aware enough.
You know, fear and anxiety aren't always controllable regardless of intellect. We go to a horror movie, and even intelligent people get scared if the film is well done. To this day I won't walk up a dark staircase because of the movie "Psycho." And, I always think about this film when showering in a hotel or motel.
Does that mean I'm not smart enough, or just that the film had a lasting impact?
Movies and television very much impact societal behaviors and thoughts. Those who don't believe it and argue to the contrary are kidding themselves.
And, as it relates to this topic, we now know that many scientists -- including global warming believers -- have stated unequivocally that Gore exaggerated his claims in AIT. As this was presented as a documentary, what percentage of the American people is intelligent enough to see through the fiction? Therein lies the real danger. ns
Noel
March 19, 2007 - 13:31 ET by RJGore and his fellow travelers have been deliberately dishonest from the start, and that has so far prevented a reasoned debate. I posted the following on another thread earlier today:
"Columnist Steven Milloy recalls talking with Mr. Gore in 2006 about the 1997 Kyoto Protocol he helped negotiate as vice president. "Did we think Kyoto would (reduce global warming) when we signed it?...Hell no!" said Mr. Gore, according to Mr. Milloy...
...the former vice president then explained that the real purpose of Kyoto was to demonstrate that international support could be mustered for action on environmental issues....which may explain his growing use of the global-warming hype that concerns many mainstream scientists."
P.S. Noel, regarding scare movies, my son and I refused to see the Blair Witch Project because we enjoy camping and figured it would likely affect us. ;^>
I’m sorry to intervene
March 19, 2007 - 14:03 ET by RDWI’m sorry to intervene Noel but as the acting director of liberal thought, here at NewsBusters, you are to cease and desist making more than 3 rational arguments per day regarding your posts on Global warming (starting 3/25/07) By order of the following directive. Sorry I had to be so ruff.
March 21, 2007. The following interoffice memo was intercepted by the poster SportPolitics and sent to Mark Finkelstein who sent it to Roger the Shrubber who passed it on to Jack Bauer. He sent it to me; my name is Tantalus, Tantalus the insane.
In accordance with the by-laws of CBS News and for the purposes of disclosure I certify that this memo is 100% fake, but accurate.
3/18/07 21:03 from the desk of Matthew Sheffield: Managing Editor
Dear Mr. Bozell,
Brent, thank you for dinner last week the steaks were great but I thought that schmidt fellow would never shut up, although he’s funny when he does his Al Gore impression. However I need to talk business.Mr. Bozell, the liberals over here at NewsBusters are getting their collectivist a**’s clobbered by our Conservative “Nazi” posters. These Libs are a bunch of name calling M*@*%# F^%^@*&#! Goons. They constantly spout off a litany of freaking whack job conspiracy theories and frankly Brent, I think we need someone to who can bring them back to reality. Know anyone?
3/19/07 09:24 from the desk of Brent Bozell. Publisher
Dear Matt, I know of only one poster at NewsBusters who is crazy enough to herd in that bunch of cats, He can articulate the liberal position with a clarity of mind only Rosie O'Donnell can appreciate, yes I’m talking about Tantalus the insane, and furthermore he writes like a 15 year old girl, he’ll be perfect!
As you know Matt, we must stay neutral at NewsBusters and let the market place of ideas take its course, But given enough time or Kibble, I think we can persuade Mr.Tantalus to join our team.
There is just one more thing, Matt; he talks to dead people.
Make it so, number 1
Sincerely L. Brent Bozell
Tantalus
March 19, 2007 - 14:38 ET by Noel SheppardTantalus,
Speaking of insane, didn't you state to someone in another thread yesterday that I was a Nazi? With that in mind, are you expecting me to be cordial after being so attacked? ns
Seriously, My apologies, I
March 19, 2007 - 14:52 ET by RDWSeriously, My apologies, I am obviously not very funny. I have been called a Nazi myself. But I meant it in exactly the opposite meaning, as a kind of mockery of the liberal name-calling I am used to receiving. I recall William F. Buckley once regarding racism - to paraphrase, that the constant use of the accusation dilutes its importance-. I have looked at many sources of art which try and link anyone who is a conservative with the Nazi's who were actually Socialist. I'll just drop the shtick.
Yikes!
March 19, 2007 - 15:41 ET by RDWHave I been Voted Off the Island?
The flying Imam : Tantalus the Insane. (There is madness in every answer)
Tantalus
March 19, 2007 - 16:00 ET by Noel SheppardT,
Are you saying this was schtick: http://newsbusters.org/node/11484/300920#comment-300920? Honestly? This was a joke?
As for island votes, I might be one of the few people in America that hasn't seen one installment of "Survivor" -- and that's no joke! ns
Yes and upon re-reading i
March 19, 2007 - 16:10 ET by RDWYes and upon re-reading it I promise I will not seek any employment as a comedian, I'll keep my night job. P.s. Not seeing Survivor is to your credit, believe me.
But I would still like to keep my job as a spokeman for the NewsBusters liberals.
Tantalus
March 19, 2007 - 16:21 ET by Noel SheppardT,
After reading some of your comments in other threads, it appears the joke is on me. Forgive me, but I'm not always so obtuse.
As for head leftist spokesperson (let's try to keep this gender neutral for those you care to represent, thank you!), we've gotten a flood of rather promising resumes from DKos and DU as word got out you were about to be sacked. As such, no promises! :-)
Sorry for the confusion. Carry on. ns
noel forgot the following:
March 19, 2007 - 16:51 ET by tumbler_2007Go piss up a rope, tantylus anal rententlyus . . .
A generic response to my fe
March 20, 2007 - 07:12 ET by RDWA generic response to my fellow lunatics, but especially (drum roll) tumbler.
tumbler I have admired your posts for decades now and I think you’re spot on. As a self-described amateur raceologist. I study they qualities of each race with determination and dedication and my findings show the “what” and “why” for each racial trait.
For instance everyone knows that Blacks can’t swim, Whites can’t dance, Latinos can’t speak English. But what does this have to do with nationalism and the economy you ask? I like to think of people as dogs. E.g. (Anglo Saxon & Italians) make up the Sporting group and (Gays) make up the Toy group or (Poor dogs like me) make up The working group There are also the Terriers, (Latinos and especially Mexicans) and the Whinerwanters (insert personal choice) and who can forget the (Arabs & Blacks) in the Herding Group. Like in Plato’s Republic, each to his own, (maybe that’s Marx). Each dog has a job to do and if they can get along and want to party and do the wild thing then each dog needs to sniff the others…well you know, Ta da! no more races. Then what are you going to do?
By identify which group is best, at say… picking lettuce, or chopping heads off, I like to refer to my brown La Raza race chart. This chart allows me to calculate the desired qualities of the various races and divide it by the ratio of entitlements plus Pi over the square root of –1; I the then add 2 parts per 20 million. By using this formula I can select the most qualified applicant for the most appropriate entitlement.
As the make believe Past President of the NAACP, I have found race bating very useful in lobbing Congress for increases in tax revenue or allocating (my tax dollars at work) And just to confirm your attitude on race, I think Mexicans really are the best of breed. But lest you think that I am just your lap puppet. I must disagree with your implied assumption! No! Not all dogs go to heaven. NO THEY DON’T, DAMN IT!
Do I smell bacon?
Mexico; Love it or leave it!
If Mexicans can make it in Los Angeles they can make it anywhere. Except Mexico of course.
Why do you ask? Because the Mexican is keeping the man down and vice versa!
Do not respond to this post. I have some Tequila to drink.
The flying Imam
: Tantalus the Insane. (There is madness in every answer)
OK, now I'm nervous
March 20, 2007 - 08:08 ET by RJOK, now I'm nervous. Not only did I enjoy that post, but I believe I understood all of it.
Geez RJ, me too. :-) ACA
March 20, 2007 - 08:16 ET by acaiguanaGeez RJ, me too. :-) ACA
Once in a while even a blind sow gets an acorn.
:-)
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
And here I thought I was th
March 19, 2007 - 16:55 ET by Tim the EnchanterAnd here I thought I was the only Hollywood tripe non-watcher in the US! Here's a short list of what I haven't seen, or intend to:
American Idol, Survivor, Big Brother, Dancing With The Stars, etc., etc., etc.
I find my critters far more entertaining, intelligent, and emotionally satisfying.
PS- Noel- are you the one with the cockatiel? They're fascinating, but they're also imps. Mine has a passion for shiny things, pens, pencils, buttons, and zippers. She also loves to strafe Scotty, my African Grey.
Tim
March 19, 2007 - 21:23 ET by Noel SheppardTim,
Yep, I've got the cockatiel. Great pet. ns
Noel....I haven't seen one in
March 19, 2007 - 22:38 ET by bigtimerNoel....
I haven't seen one installment of that silly, inept, unrealistic, pathetic, shallow show either...and never will...
So I guess so far that makes two of us.
LOL!
I'll just drop the shtick.
March 19, 2007 - 16:04 ET by MightyMouth"I'll just drop the shtick."
Not likely, you're nothing but "shtick".
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it."