• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Global warming

back2basics said:
This quote is just great. He says "Unaided judgmental forecasts by experts have no value" because amoungts other things "People confuse correlation with causation". Is he actually saying that the IPCC scientists confuse correlation with causation, a science 101 topic? He really cannot be serious.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid he is quite serious.

“Global Warming: Forecasts by Scientists versus Scientific Forecasts”
We conducted an audit of Chapter 8 of the IPCC’s WG1 Report. We found enough information to make judgments on 89 out of the total of 140 principles. The forecasting procedures that were used violated 72 principles. Many of the violations were, by themselves, critical. We have been unable to identify any scientific forecasts to support global warming. Claims that the Earth will get warmer have no more credence than saying that it will get colder.
 
mhaze said:
I'm afraid he is quite serious.

“Global Warming: Forecasts by Scientists versus Scientific Forecasts”
We conducted an audit of Chapter 8 of the IPCC’s WG1 Report. We found enough information to make judgments on 89 out of the total of 140 principles. The forecasting procedures that were used violated 72 principles. Many of the violations were, by themselves, critical. We have been unable to identify any scientific forecasts to support global warming. Claims that the Earth will get warmer have no more credence than saying that it will get colder.
Click to expand...

Tragic isn’t it?

He should stick to Marketing.
 
mhaze said:
We've put more CO2 in the air and the air should warm up a bit because of that. Relatively affluent, say Western, lifestyles, cause 10-20 tons of CO2 per person to be released. Western lifestyles are a form of behavior, so yes, global warming is real and is at least partially driven by human behavior.

From that one must ask, well, what are we talking about here? Is it a 0.5 C rise over 50 years (does not matter at all) a 6 C rise over 50 years (not good) or a completely unknown rise because we ain't that smart to figure it out?
Click to expand...

Ummm... ok. Weird, but ok.

So, what I'm getting from all this is that you reject the idea that you should have to change your behavior in any way, and therefore you are much more willing to accept evidence and ideas towards solutions that require any personal sacrifice on your part. On the other hand, you embrace evidence and ideas that confirm your belief that your behavior does not have to change in any significant way.

Am I reading this correctly?
 
back2basics said:
Heavyweight in economics? Well he is a Marketing professor, kind of similar. But you would have though Wharton would have made him an actual economics prof. if he was such a heavyweight.

He has no science background, no background in climatology.

And when you look in to this "heavyweight" claim it just doesn't hold up, at all.

Armstrong cites himself more than anybody else cites him.

http://ideas.repec.org/e/c/par65.html

Amazing what a certain amount of skepticism can turn up in just a few minutes.
Click to expand...

97 working papers and 68 published articles.

Amazing what a bit of skepticism can turn up.
 
mhaze said:
97 working papers and 68 published articles.

Amazing what a bit of skepticism can turn up.
Click to expand...
So, shall we post the total number of papers and articles from the people who disagree with him? Would it make a difference?

I'm not sure what your point is here, either... especially since we know that the paper you posted to is being "published" in a less-than-respected journal.
 
JoeEllison said:
Ummm... ok. Weird, but ok.

So, what I'm getting from all this is that you reject the idea that you should have to change your behavior in any way, and therefore you are much more willing to accept evidence and ideas towards solutions that require any personal sacrifice on your part. On the other hand, you embrace evidence and ideas that confirm your belief that your behavior does not have to change in any significant way.

Am I reading this correctly?
Click to expand...

You are on track except for one thing. You use words like "willing", "embrace" and "belief". I do not. To me this is really just calculations.

We can calculate what effect various behavior changes will have on CO2 emissions. And we can calculate what effect going to nuclear powerplants will have. Then we have some actual numerical numbers to tell us what to do, right?

So if the numbers told me behavior change, then I'm for it. They didn't.
 
mhaze said:
97 working papers and 68 published articles.

Amazing what a bit of skepticism can turn up.
Click to expand...

Where were these papers published?

This is not the way critical thinking or skepticism works. You made a claim he was an economic heavyweight. He isn't even an economist. His field is marketing, I should have to explain that a marketing professor is hardly qualified in economics or climatology.

Papers really don't count unless they are peer reviewed and in index journals.

They certainly don't fit those criteria. International Institute of Forecasters was set up by himself, it's not peer reviewed. That accounts for nearly every paper he has ever published. So he publishes his own work? Big deal, this gives him zero credibility. It shows him to be fearful of publishing in peer review journals and a self promoter. He is just not credible, in an sense. Harvard business review is also not a peer reviewed journal..

I am just amazed he was even brought in to the debate.
 
mhaze said:
You are on track except for one thing. You use words like "willing", "embrace" and "belief". I do not. To me this is really just calculations.

We can calculate what effect various behavior changes will have on CO2 emissions. And we can calculate what effect going to nuclear powerplants will have. Then we have some actual numerical numbers to tell us what to do, right?

So if the numbers told me behavior change, then I'm for it. They didn't.
Click to expand...
So, again, this is all a matter of what you're willing and not willing to do, and really not about all that pesky evidence stuff at all? Because, really and truly, that's where you seem to be coming from.
 
JoeEllison said:
So, again, this is all a matter of what you're willing and not willing to do, and really not about all that pesky evidence stuff at all? Because, really and truly, that's where you seem to be coming from.
Click to expand...

And what pesky evidence would that be?
 
mhaze said:
Tragic it is. That the IPCC, which should be just science, has stooped to marketing, and done a poor job of marketing, at that.

A pretty good discussion of Armstrong's work, (both pro and con as I recall) is at climateaudit.org.
Click to expand...


I am done, your sources are terrible which is why your conclusions are wrong.

Everybody you choose to believe is paid for and owned by energy companies. Steve McIntyre is still challenging the original hickey stick report which has been verified in multiple peer reviewed journals. He again doesn't publish, has no credibility, he does have a blog though.

If you cannot see the irony in the link you posted, and the logical flaws then this debate will go nowhere. It's just a waste of time, you don't want to work within the bounds of skepticism and critical thinking, or offer good sources or articles from real journals.

As far as I can tell the last peer reviewed reports questioning methods of climate change science were to do with the suns impact. These have just been blown away by the recent study that shows there is no correlation between sun spot activity and energy reaching Earth.
 
back2basics said:
Well he is a Marketing professor
Click to expand...
Once upon a time this cite -- in the science section of a skeptical forum no less -- would have boggled my mind. Instead, with bleak amusement and a ho-hum, I add marketing professor to the list of goofy cites that I've seen on jref posted by pseudo-skeptics that includes (no joke): a bumbling associate economics professor, Lyndon Larouche, Malloy/junkscience, Michael Crichton ad nauseum, an oil industry businessman :boxedin:, a coal mining engineer, right-wing lobbyist DCI and countless other bags of free market hot air, anonymous bloggers, "here", paid Exxon shills, the Czech president (who freely admits to ignoring scientific evidence), and last but certainly not least, a construction worker.
 
back2basics said:
I am done, your sources are terrible which is why your conclusions are wrong.

Everybody you choose to believe is paid for and owned by energy companies. Steve McIntyre is still challenging the original hickey stick report which has been verified in multiple peer reviewed journals. He again doesn't publish, has no credibility, he does have a blog though.
Click to expand...

THAT'S the sort of thing that people need to be skeptical about. Mining company executives creating websites that pretend to have an interest in objective science, hyping the work of people published in obscure "journals" with substandard peer review, which are then touted as "evidence" by oil company-funded "think tanks". Then, of course, they go straight to Fox "News" and the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal.

The whole thing is a gigantic political scheme to market ideas with little or no scientific merit, right out there in the open for anyone with Google and a spare 15 minutes.
 
Last edited:
back2basics said:
I am done, your sources are terrible which is why your conclusions are wrong.

Everybody you choose to believe is paid for and owned by energy companies. Steve McIntyre is still challenging the original hickey stick report which has been verified in multiple peer reviewed journals. He again doesn't publish, has no credibility, he does have a blog though.
Really?

Do anything but actually debate or refute the actual paper and its arguments by Armstrong.

Another example of increasing the noise to signal ratios.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
mhaze said:
Another example of increasing the noise to signal ratios.
Click to expand...

Nope, another example of how easy it is for anyone to go online and show how much "noise" is produced, and how little "signal" lies behind the anti-GW position.

*shrugs*

You've been taken in by con artists and frauds, and I know it will be almost impossible for you to admit it to yourself, let alone the rest of us. I'm sorry that it happened to you.
 
Has anyone here studied the ice core data? Fascinating stuff. There is another issue as well, that hasn't made it into the model yet.
 
robinson said:
Has anyone here studied the ice core data? Fascinating stuff. There is another issue as well, that hasn't made it into the model yet.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that the ice core data confirms the general consensus that human activity is responsible for the current CO2 levels, which are higher than they have been in the past half-million or so year.

Yes, fascinating how every new piece of evidence helps to support and refine the scientific position.
 
JoeEllison said:
Hans von Storch, anyone?
Click to expand...

Smart guy, but what is your point -

From his article a while back in Der Spiegel

Other scientists are succumbing to a form of fanaticism almost reminiscent of the McCarthy era. In their minds, criticism of methodology is nothing but the monstrous product of "conservative think-tanks and misinformation campaigns by the oil and coal lobby," which they believe is their duty to expose. In contrast, dramatization of climate shift is defended as being useful from the standpoint of educating the public.


The principle that drives other branches of science should be equally applicable to climate research: dissent drives continued development, and differences of opinion are not unfortunate matters to be kept within the community. Silencing dissent and uncertainty for the benefit of a politically worthy cause reduces credibility, because the public is more well-informed than generally assumed. In the long term, the supposedly useful dramatizations achieve exactly the opposite of what they are intended to achieve. If this happens, both science and society will have missed an opportunity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom