• 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

David Rodale said:
Now that everyone knows who JEG really is, by criticizing Leohle like he did, he inadvertently condemned the Mann et al hockey sticks.
Click to expand...

No, he didn't. What he was pointing out was the double-standards exhibited by ClimateAudit. McIntyre was either incapable ( as you clearly are) of recognising that, or was deliberately disingenuous. Emile-Geay didn't claim (in the provided quote) that the R-squared statistics are relevant (a subject of some controversy, as I understand it). He pointed out that ClimateAudit hadn't red-flagged the absence, despite claiming that it's crucially relevant in respect to Mann et al. One standard for what McIntyre et al regard as friendly studies, and another for those they don't.

Reading on,

"
While I fully agree that Loehle should have reported the verification r2 statistics for his reconstruction (and I would be surprised if they were any better than the results for MBH or other Team studies), it is extremely hypocritical (and all too characteristic of Team climate science) for Emile-Geay to criticize Loehle for this omission given the history of obstruction on this matter by Mann and Ammann. If Mann wouldn’t provide this information to the NAS panel even when asked directly, shouldn’t that (and related ) refusals have occasioned Emile-Geay’s disapproval long before his opprobrium against Loehle’s omission of this statistic (an omission which should be corrected)."
Click to expand...

Misrepresenting what Emile-Geay was saying. Emile-Geay was not heaping opprobrium on Loehle's ommission, he was directly referring to the hypocrisy of ClimateAudit. For which McIntyre calls him a hypocrite. Fairly typical of McIntyre, from my limited experience.

Apparently you didn't notice that. No wonder you find ClimateAudit such a comfort-zone.

I alluded to the same thing in my earlier comments on CO2Science and its "proofs" of a warmer MWP than today. Would they survive the McIntyre treatment if they were supportive of AGW? They wouldn't, would they? But they won't be subject to it because that's not what ClimateAudit is about. ClimateAudit is about denigrating AGW whatever happens, and whatever it takes.
 
Last edited:
CapelDodger said:
Is it your contention that claiming AGW as a hoax is rational?

Is it your contention that claiming 9/11 was a hoax is rational?

If your answers to those questions differ, please explain why.
Click to expand...

Hmm....questioned about buffoon, shift to nut, question about nut, shift to hoax....., question about hoax, align hoax with 9/11 conspiracy...

All I did was ask on what basis Inhofe was a buffoon or nut, and getting no serious responses, I posted a bit of his opinions on this subject, "AGW". Just looking over his perspective, looks like he's not a nut, not a buffoon, just another skeptic, but on a subject where you don't like to see skepticism.

Whoopss~!!! That's exactly the issue Inhofe criticizes in the above paragraphs -

Inhofe: January 4, 2005
As I said on the Senate floor on July 28, 2003, "much of the debate over global warming is predicated on fear, rather than science." I called the threat of catastrophic global warming the "greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people," a statement that, to put it mildly, was not viewed kindly by environmental extremists and their elitist organizations. I also pointed out, in a lengthy committee report, that those same environmental extremists exploit the issue for fundraising purposes, raking in millions of dollars, even using federal taxpayer dollars to finance their campaigns.

For these groups, the issue of catastrophic global warming is not just a favored fundraising tool. In truth, it's more fundamental than that. Put simply, man-induced global warming is an article of religious faith. Therefore contending that its central tenets are flawed is, to them, heresy of the most despicable kind.

Furthermore, scientists who challenge its tenets are attacked, sometimes personally, for blindly ignoring the so-called "scientific consensus." But that's not all: because of their skeptical views, they are contemptuously dismissed for being "out of the mainstream." This is, it seems to me, highly ironic: aren't scientists supposed to be non-conforming and question consensus? Nevertheless, it's not hard to read between the lines: "skeptic" and "out of the mainstream" are thinly veiled code phrases, meaning anyone who doubts alarmist orthodoxy is, in short, a quack.

I have insisted all along that the climate change debate should be based on fundamental principles of science, not religion. Ultimately, I hope, it will be decided by hard facts and data-and by serious scientists committed to the principles of sound science. Instead of censoring skeptical viewpoints, as my alarmist friends favor, these scientists must be heard, and I will do my part to make sure that they are heard.[/quote]

​
Looking over his viewpoint as expressed on the Floor, looks like he's -
  • not a nut
  • not a buffoon
Just another skeptic,
 
CapelDodger said:
No, he didn't. What he was pointing out was the double-standards exhibited by ClimateAudit. McIntyre was either incapable ( as you clearly are) of recognising that, or was deliberately disingenuous. Loehle didn't claim (in the provided quote) that the R-squared statistics are relevant (a subject of some controversy, as I understand it). He pointed out that ClimateAudit hadn't red-flagged the absence, despite claiming that it's crucially relevant in respect to Mann et al. One standard for what McIntyre et al regard as friendly studies, and another for those they don't.
Click to expand...

Huh? Loehle invited criticism of his paper, Rabbit did exactly that along with some remarks about CA in general.

Compare this to many other blogs - Tamino and RC come to mind - where critical comments are snipped.

Loehle got a loadful of criticism, including some from pro-AGW, not just Rabbit. Where's a valid complaint about this process? Where's the easy ride given to anyone?
 
mhaze said:
Because there is no organized, coherent "they". It's a blog. But you are right, no one takes on the task of collating what is a vast information, fact and comment base.
Click to expand...

You're so easy to mock it's almost like bullying.

Well, almost no one. I saw one guy had taken the comments from one thread and combined the best of them into a paper that was published, seems like it was on IPCC organization style or the like.
Click to expand...

One guy, one thread, one paper (about what, published where?), and all of a sudden ClimateAudit equates to the IPCC (which, in case you haven't twigged yet, was what aup was alluding to). And presumably McIntyre equates to Hansen as the eminence grise.
 
Buffoon count == 0.

You may be misunderstanding, though.

I said that one thread on CA, the subject of which was the IPCC had been made into a paper on the IPCC, then published.

Alternately, as another politician has said, you may be ...

"misunderestimating".
 
mhaze said:
Huh? Loehle invited criticism of his paper, Rabbit did exactly that along with some remarks about CA in general.
Click to expand...

My mistake, I subsituted "Loehle" for "Emile-Geay" a couple of times. Mea culpa.

Getting back to my substantive point, Emile-Geay was not criticising Loehle's omission of R-squared statistics, as McIntyre pretends, he was highlighting ClimateAudit's hypocrisy in not criticising the omission. I'll edit the post.
 
mhaze said:
Hmm....questioned about buffoon, shift to nut, question about nut, shift to hoax....., question about hoax, align hoax with 9/11 conspiracy...
Click to expand...

Inhofe claimed, of his own free will, that AGW is a hoax. Not just a hoax but the "greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people". My question is : do you regard that as rational?

If it is a hoax, it hasn't just been perpetrated on "the American people". I doubt a buffoon like Inhofe really apreciates that there's a world of any significance outside God's Own Country/The Shining City On The Hill, but there is. Trust me on that, I live in it. So does aup.

All I did was ask on what basis Inhofe was a buffoon or nut, and getting no serious responses, I posted a bit of his opinions on this subject, "AGW". Just looking over his perspective, looks like he's not a nut, not a buffoon, just another skeptic, but on a subject where you don't like to see skepticism.
Click to expand...

Just another sceptic? As a sceptic yourself, does this mean that you identify with this guy? That you think that AGW is a form of religious mania that has swept through the world? Even penetrating the current White House, so often accused of a more established variety of religious mania? (By which I mean born-again rapture-ready Christianity, not neoconservatism; let's not get into that diversion.)

As to my not liking to see scepticism on AGW, who would I have to make such easy fun of if not the likes of you and Inhofe? Philosphers and faith-heads is all, and that got old years ago.
 
mhaze said:
I said that one thread on CA, the subject of which was the IPCC had been made into a paper on the IPCC, then published.
Click to expand...

That's one question answered : the paper was about the IPCC, not about AGW. Another question remains : published where?

Alternately, as another politician has said, you may be ...

"misunderestimating".
Click to expand...

It's not terribly likely though.

I gather there's some diplomatic jam-fest coming up soon to discuss negotiations about the post-Kyoto windbaggery, and I'll bet plenty of material for published papers will emerge from that. Not scientific papers, obviously, but there are other academic fields - History, Economics, Politics, Theoretical Journalism, stuff like that.

eta : International Law (that's seriously academic).
 
Last edited:
CapelDodger said:
Inhofe claimed, of his own free will, that AGW is a hoax. Not just a hoax but the "greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people". My question is : do you regard that as rational?

If it is a hoax, it hasn't just been perpetrated on "the American people".

Just another sceptic? As a sceptic yourself, does this mean that you identify with this guy? That you think that AGW is a form of religious mania that has swept through the world?
Click to expand...

Hmm... AGW as both a hoax and a religion.

Crichton's opinion.
title-environmentalism.jpg
Michael Crichten

This was not the first discussion of environmentalism as a religion, but it caught on and was widely quoted. Michael explains why religious approaches to the environment are inappropriate and cause damage to the natural world they intent to protect.
There are two reasons why I think we all need to get rid of the religion of environmentalism.

First, we need an environmental movement, and such a movement is not very effective if it is conducted as a religion. We know from history that religions tend to kill people, and environmentalism has already killed somewhere between 10-30 million people since the 1970s. It's not a good record. Environmentalism needs to be absolutely based in objective and verifiable science, it needs to be rational, and it needs to be flexible. And it needs to be apolitical. To mix environmental concerns with the frantic fantasies that people have about one political party or another is to miss the cold truth---that there is very little difference between the parties, except a difference in pandering rhetoric. The effort to promote effective legislation for the environment is not helped by thinking that the Democrats will save us and the Republicans won't. Political history is more complicated than that. Never forget which president started the EPA: Richard Nixon. And never forget which president sold federal oil leases, allowing oil drilling in Santa Barbara: Lyndon Johnson. So get politics out of your thinking about the environment.

The second reason to abandon environmental religion is more pressing. Religions think they know it all, but the unhappy truth of the environment is that we are dealing with incredibly complex, evolving systems, and we usually are not certain how best to proceed. Those who are certain are demonstrating their personality type, or their belief system, not the state of their knowledge. Our record in the past, for example managing national parks, is humiliating. Our fifty-year effort at forest-fire suppression is a well-intentioned disaster from which our forests will never recover. We need to be humble, deeply humble, in the face of what we are trying to accomplish. We need to be trying various methods of accomplishing things. We need to be open-minded about assessing results of our efforts, and we need to be flexible about balancing needs. Religions are good at none of these things.

How will we manage to get environmentalism out of the clutches of religion, and back to a scientific discipline?
​
http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speech-environmentalismaseligion.html
 
mhaze said:
Because there is no organized, coherent "they". It's a blog. But you are right, no one takes on the task of collating what is a vast information, fact and comment base.

Well, almost no one. I saw one guy had taken the comments from one thread and combined the best of them into a paper that was published, seems like it was on IPCC organization style or the like.
Click to expand...

What use is it then. The scientific process has moved on centuries ago to creating and recognising a formal process for investigation and recognition of investigation. RC is just a big black hole of random musings, asssertions and cries of "where's Waldo", with ad hoc requests from McIntyre to stick to the point and stop acting like children.

Will McIntyre even state that to what degree his rambling excursions to date deny the validity of AGW. Is he reasonably certain, quite certain, very certain, not certain at all? For all that effort, he may as well make some statement of progress, otherwise what's the point?
 
Last edited:
CapelDodger said:
No, he didn't. What he was pointing out was the double-standards exhibited by ClimateAudit. McIntyre was either incapable ( as you clearly are) of recognising that, or was deliberately disingenuous. Emile-Geay didn't claim (in the provided quote) that the R-squared statistics are relevant (a subject of some controversy, as I understand it). He pointed out that ClimateAudit hadn't red-flagged the absence, despite claiming that it's crucially relevant in respect to Mann et al. One standard for what McIntyre et al regard as friendly studies, and another for those they don't.

Reading on,



Misrepresenting what Emile-Geay was saying. Emile-Geay was not heaping opprobrium on Loehle's ommission, he was directly referring to the hypocrisy of ClimateAudit. For which McIntyre calls him a hypocrite. Fairly typical of McIntyre, from my limited experience.

Apparently you didn't notice that. No wonder you find ClimateAudit such a comfort-zone.

I alluded to the same thing in my earlier comments on CO2Science and its "proofs" of a warmer MWP than today. Would they survive the McIntyre treatment if they were supportive of AGW? They wouldn't, would they? But they won't be subject to it because that's not what ClimateAudit is about. ClimateAudit is about denigrating AGW whatever happens, and whatever it takes.
Click to expand...



Please provide a detailed exposition of how IPCC arrives at 2.5C from 2xCO2.
Click to expand...

That's the paraphrased request Steve McIntyre has asked for on multiple occasions. Thus far, including this forum, nobody has provided such an exposition. He has also stated he's not saying it doesn't exist, but that no such paper has been put forth, even by IPCC which he suggested to them.

As someone noted here, he was not interested in Gerlich's paper.

You're right though, you are very limited.

Here's the actual verbiage which you did not quote:
While I fully agree that Loehle should have reported the verification r2 statistics for his reconstruction (and I would be surprised if they were any better than the results for MBH or other Team studies), it is extremely hypocritical (and all too characteristic of Team climate science) for Emile-Geay to criticize Loehle for this omission given the history of obstruction on this matter by Mann and Ammann. If Mann wouldn’t provide this information to the NAS panel even when asked directly, shouldn’t that (and related ) refusals have occasioned Emile-Geay’s disapproval long before his opprobrium against Loehle’s omission of this statistic (an omission which should be corrected).
Click to expand...



Further,
JEG condemns Loehle's paper, yet:
As we speak in November 2007, Mann has never reported the verification r2 (or CE) statistics for any MBH98-99 steps prior to the AD1820 splice.
Click to expand...

Who is the real hypocrite? It's the Mann defenders propping up junk science.

You also failed to mention that Steve M did not comment on the Loehle discussion for quite some time into the discussion, as was noted at the beginning of the original post.

Here's Steve M's first reply to the discussion, two days after the original posting.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2380#comment-162210

It looks like the only posts you read were from JEG.
 
Last edited:
David Rodale said:
Correlation is not causation right? At some point however it must mean something wouldn't you agree? There certainly is no correlation of CO2 to temperature. Please review the following paper and summarize what is incorrect with references of course.
http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/gwreview_oism150.pdf
Click to expand...

Let me summarize briefly. There is no science supporting the AGW position, so the US should build 500 nuclear power plants to reduce its dependance on foriegn oil.

I'm in.

I don't buy any of his arguements, and see varwoches sig line for rebuttals of all his arguements, but I endorse his solution.
 
bobdroege7 said:
Let me summarize briefly. There is no science supporting the AGW position, so the US should build 500 nuclear power plants to reduce its dependance on foriegn oil.

I'm in.

I don't buy any of his arguements, and see varwoches sig line for rebuttals of all his arguements, but I endorse his solution.
Click to expand...

I fully endorse that solution to the Probable Non Problem of AGW, but do not think that teaching and promulgating greenhouse gas fear driven propaganda is a necessary part of creating a consensus of public opinion for that.
 
Count me in too :)
bobdroege7 said:
Let me summarize briefly. There is no science supporting the AGW position, so the US should build 500 nuclear power plants to reduce its dependance on foriegn oil.

I'm in.

I don't buy any of his arguements, and see varwoches sig line for rebuttals of all his arguements, but I endorse his solution.
Click to expand...
 
a_unique_person said:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter9.pdf

Chapter 6
Click to expand...

Nice try AUP, but it's not there. It would include, as has been clarified previously rather than paraphrased as I did, a peer reviewed paper including all forcings and feedbacks, physics, chemistry etc.

Climate models are not evidence. If they were, there would only be need for one, not dozens with different outputs.
Chapter 9- 339 instances of "model", 52 "climate model".

But hey, go ahead and post it at CA Unthreaded #23.
 
Last edited:
Or just the algorithm that shows how that increment is calculated. It should be very simple and take into account the limit of CO2 as GHG.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom