Simple Question About AGW

[TrueSceptic]

I notice that Steve McIntyre has given up his frenetic attempts to understand the whole physical basis of global warming, and is now just back to attacking the temperature record. Good move, I think he was cracking up.

I don't agree with him (surprise!), but he does at least argue the data, and not just repeat the all-too-common right-wing fantasist drivel that so pollutes the deniosphere.

 

[mhaze]

..... attempting to establish the A in AGW.

for blogs, etc i'd be interested in CREDIBLE 'no AGW' material, because all i can find is partisan horse droppings by zero-credibility political hacks like Steven Miloy, the Ann Coulter of science.

Well, just start with Andrew's list.

That should keep you busy for a while.

Andrew's list
AMSU Global Daily Temps
Analysis Online
AccuWeather (USA)
- AccuWeather Canada (Canada)
- AccuWeather UK (UK)
- AccuWeather International (International)
Atmoz
Bob Carter’s Blog
Art Horn’s “The Art of Weather”
Blue Crab Boulevard
Bald-Faced Truth
Bill Meck’s Blog
Blue Hill Observatory, Milton MA
Climate Audit (Stephen McIntyre, B.Sc. Mathematics, Canada)
Climate Police (Joseph Conklin, M.S. Meteorology, USA)
Climate Science (Roger A. Pielke, Ph.D. Meteorology, USA)
Climate Skeptic (USA)
CO2 Science (Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, USA)
Comment & Information on Climate Change (Robert (Bob) M. Carter, B.Sc. Geology, Ph.D. Paleontology, Australia)
Climate Resistance
COAPS Climate Study US
Climate Debate Daily
Craig James’ Blog
Demand Debate
Doomsday Called Off Documentary
Earth Changes
EcoMyths (Graham Smith, Associate Professor of Geography, University of Western Ontario, Canada)
EnvironmentNC (John Locke Foundation, USA)
ecoEnquirer (USA)
Facts on Energy (Institute for Energy Research, USA)
Friends of Science (Canada)
Global Warming Hoax
Global Warming.org (The Cooler Heads Coalition, USA)
Global Warming and the Climate (Norway)
Global Warming Debunking News and Views (Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, USA)
- Global Warming Petition Project
Global Warming Heartland (The Heartland Institute, USA)
Global Warming Hyperbole (USA)
Global Warming Hysteria (UK)
Global Warming Information Center (National Center for Public Policy Research, USA)
Global Warming Skeptics (USA)
Greenie Watch (John J. Ray, Ph.D. Psychology, Mensa Member, Australia)
Hall of Record
Harris-Mann Climatology & Long Range Weather (USA)
ICECAP (International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, USA)
IPCC Fourth Assessment
Ice Age Now
Junk Science (Steve Milloy, B.A. Natural Sciences, M.S. Health Sciences, USA)
- Demand Debate
- Ultimate Global Warming Challenge
John Coleman’s Corner
James Spann’s Blog
John McLean’s Global Warming Issues
John Daly’s What the Stations Say
Junk Science
Jennifer Marohasy
Johnston's Archive - Environmental Topics (Wm. Robert Johnston, B.A. Astronomy, M.S. Physics, USA)
Gary Sharp’s It’s All About Time
Landsurface.org, The Niyogi Lab at Purdue
Metsul’s Meteorologia
Marshall Institute Climate Change
Models, Methods, Software
NC Watch
Norcalblogs
NOAA
NiceWeather.com (Joseph Conklin, M.S. Meteorology, USA)
Not by Fire but by Ice (USA)
Number Watch (John Brignell, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus Electronics & Computer Science, UK)
Popular Technology Climate Links
Planet Gore (National Review Online, USA)
Ponder the Maunder (USA)
Prometheus - The Science Policy blog (Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Colorado, USA)
Powerlineblog
Predict Weather (Australia, New Zealand, UK)
Raptor Education Foundation
Ross McKitrick Google Home Page
Reid Bryson’s Archaeoclimatology
Roy Spencer’s Nature’s Thermostat
Real Climate
Ross McKitrick (Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Economics, Canada)
Scientific Alliance
Small Dead Animals
Surface Stations
Sufacestations Gallery
Surfacestations Main
Science Bits
Science & Environmental Policy Project (S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Physics, USA)
Science & Public Policy Institute (USA)
Science is Broken (Gary Novak, M.S. Microbiology, USA)
Spiked - Environment (UK)
Still Waiting for Greenhouse (Australia)
TCS Daily - Science Roundtable (USA)
The Association of British Drivers - Environment (UK)
- Global Warming Links
The Global Warming Challenge (J. Scott Armstrong, B.A. Applied Science, B.S. Industrial Engineering, Ph.D. MIT, USA)
The Global Warming Hoax (USA)
The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (New Zealand)
The Politics and Environment Blog (Jennifer Marohasy, Ph.D. Biology, Australia)
TechCentralStation
The Heartland Institute
Science and Environmental Policy Project
The Reference Frame (Luboš Motl, Ph.D. Theoretical Physicist, Czech Republic)
Tom Nelson Blogroll
The Week That Was by Fred Singer
The Inhofe EPW Press Blog
Tom Skilling’s Blog
The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition
The Tropical Meteorology Project (William M. Gray, M.S. Meteorology, Ph.D. Geophysical Sciences, USA)
US Senate Environment & Public Works Committee (USA)
ViziFrame
Wisconsin Energy Cooperative
Vaclav Klaus, Czech Republic President
Watts Up With That? (Anthony Watts, Meteorologist, USA)
- SurfaceStations.org
Warren Meyer
WeatherShop
Willaim Briggs
Warmal Globing
Warwick Hughes - Free Lance Science Research (Australia)
- Errors in IPCC Climate Science Blog
World Climate Report (Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Ecological Climatology, USA)
WeatherStreet (Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Meteorology, USA)
- WeatherQuestions
WeatherAction (Piers Corbyn, B.Sc Physics, M.Sc Astrophysics, UK)
​

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Pseudoscientific Varochian Neo-Alarmism noted.

I know I'm going to regret this, but I have to ask - what's the difference between 'alarmism' and 'neo alarmism'? Did you merely note that some libbies use 'neo-conservative' in a deregatory way and think it sounded cool, or is there some sort of point?

 

[zeusbheld]

Well, just start with Andrew's list.

That should keep you busy for a while.

there's a lot of crap on there. if i haven't already said i'm not interested in shameless political hacks like Miloy. let me make it perfectly clear right now: "JUNK SCIENCE" is a complete waste of bandwidth.

also, forget anything with "hoax" in the title; i don't own a tinfoil hat and don't plan on one. like most conspiracy theories, all the climate conspiracy theories i've seen are pretty loony. i've read papers by some of the more controversial pro-AGW scientists--Hansen for example--and while they may be wrong, and a lot of people may still agree with them, that ain't enough to call it a conspiracy. the stench these sorts of arguments give off is exactly why i'm calling for credible, science-based blogs critical of AGW. it's not that i believe conspiracies never happen; Enron was real. but hey i'll gamble and risk missing something good by ignoring all conspiracy theories thanks. it's a risk i'm willing to take, tinfoil isn't my color thanks.

now if you wouldn't mind winnowing out the conspiracy nuts and political hacks and limiting it to AGW-SKEPTICAL science-based blogs, i'm still interested. incidentally, "real climate" is full of scientists, true--but pretty strongly pro-AGW. pro-AGW science blogs are easy to find.

 

[zeusbheld]

I know I'm going to regret this, but I have to ask - what's the difference between 'alarmism' and 'neo alarmism'? Did you merely note that some libbies use 'neo-conservative' in a deregatory way and think it sounded cool, or is there some sort of point?

you could at least look it up for yourself in weakiepedia. *yawn.*

incidentally, neocon isn't necessarily derogatory, it's just linked to a very specific strain of conservatism.

 

[mhaze]

If it's impossible to falsify research then it's not even at the hypothesis level yet. To have a hypothesis that will eventually be accepted as a theory, it must be falsifiable. No mention of labs, cyclotrons, etc need enter into this discussion.

Why is it that perfectly rational and intelligent people want to give the AGW hypothesis a pass on this part of the scientific method? Is it fear that waiting too long will doom us? Maybe so, but the scientific method got us this far and I say let's stay with the thing that got us here. I'm very skeptical that the scaremongers using AGW for their agenda are correct anyway.

Slime, AGW theory requires a "hotspot" in the middle troposphere levels, this hotspot being most pronounced in the tropics due to radiative effects being the most pronounced. As I have presented research which shows this hotspot does not exist, or arguably exists but is a faint shadow of what AGW theory would require, it seems that at here is a hypothesis of AGW that has been refuted pretty nicely.

 

[mhaze]

there's a lot of crap on there. if i haven't already said i'm not interested in shameless political hacks like Miloy. let me make it perfectly clear right now: "JUNK SCIENCE" is a complete waste of bandwidth.

also, forget anything with "hoax" in the title; i don't own a tinfoil hat and don't plan on one. like most conspiracy theories, all the climate conspiracy theories i've seen are pretty loony. i've read papers by some of the more controversial pro-AGW scientists--Hansen for example--and while they may be wrong, and a lot of people may still agree with them, that ain't enough to call it a conspiracy. the stench these sorts of arguments give off is exactly why i'm calling for credible, science-based blogs critical of AGW. it's not that i believe conspiracies never happen; Enron was real. but hey i'll gamble and risk missing something good by ignoring all conspiracy theories thanks. it's a risk i'm willing to take, tinfoil isn't my color thanks.

now if you wouldn't mind winnowing out the conspiracy nuts and political hacks and limiting it to AGW-SKEPTICAL science-based blogs, i'm still interested. incidentally, "real climate" is full of scientists, true--but pretty strongly pro-AGW. pro-AGW science blogs are easy to find.

Well, I anticipated responses like this but have no intention of shaping up a list to meet your particular interests. You're welcome to do that, since it's you that would like it. By the way, all of your arguments yada-yada-yada above quoted can be applied to "pro-AGW blogs" by the score, as I am certain you realize.

You wanted a list, you got a list.

 

[mhaze]

I know I'm going to regret this, but I have to ask - what's the difference between 'alarmism' and 'neo alarmism'? Did you merely note that some libbies use 'neo-conservative' in a deregatory way and think it sounded cool, or is there some sort of point?

Derogatory? No, to the contrary. Unlike 90% of the Warmologists posting at JREF, Varoche makes a serious effort to find literature to support AGW.

 

[varwoche]

You've posted links to articles that can't be retrieved without payout $, knowing that people would not pay the $ out. Your summaries of the articles content may or may not reflect the actual scientific conclusions.

What a pile of drivel.

Consider, for a moment, how often I've posted an article that clearly cut into the AGW-warming point of view, and how it got picked at based on nuances of grammer

Ditto but more so. The reason your cites get "picked at" is because they are so often abject jokes.

 

[zeusbheld]

Well, I anticipated responses like this but have no intention of shaping up a list to meet your particular interests. You're welcome to do that, since it's you that would like it.

gee thanks, sport. that's like going into Burger King, asking for a cheeseburger and having them tell you "there's probably one in the dumpster." we'd both be slightly better off if you hadn't bothered. but hey, no biggie, at least you didn't charge me for the dumpster-dive.

By the way, all of your arguments yada-yada-yada above quoted can be applied to "pro-AGW blogs" by the score, as I am certain you realize.

with all due respect... NO ◊◊◊◊ SHERLOCK! your Nobel prize is in the mail. check to follow.

You wanted a list, you got a list.

with all due respect, NO.

i asked for:

for blogs, etc i'd be interested in CREDIBLE 'no AGW' material, because all i can find is partisan horse droppings by zero-credibility political hacks like Steven Miloy, the Ann Coulter of science.

you even quoted it in your response.

yet you regurgitated a list so random that it included not only Miloy, but freakin' "Real Climate"? you're aware they're pro AGW???? apparently not.

maybe you'd better sit down for this.... this may shock you.... but i *can* google. no really, i can. seriously.

point of my request was that, if anyone had done *their own* homework and found the kind of resources i was looking for, and if they are interested in sharing them, i'm interested. with all due respect, is there any reason i should expect the rest of your thinking to be any less sloppy and haphazard?

if you're playing to the cheap seats, that's fine, why pretend you're responding to what i'm looking for?

 

[zeusbheld]

a post so nice, i posted twice. d'oh.

 

[mhaze]

What a pile of drivel.

Ditto but more so. The reason your cites get "picked at" is because they are so often abject jokes.

You are welcome to produce links that link to actual scientific papers and have them considered on their merits or lack of. As it is, you've got unsubstantiated assertions. Pretty simple.


Anthropogenic:

Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
(Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 439-468, 1 September 1999)
- Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, Willie Soon

Global warming
(Progress in Physical Geography, 27, 448-455, 2003)
- W. Soon, S. L. Baliunas

Human Contribution to Climate Change Remains Questionable
(EOS, Transactions, American Geophysical Society, Vol 80, page 183-187, April 20, 1999)
- S. Fred Singer

Industrial CO2 emissions as a proxy for anthropogenic influence on lower tropospheric temperature trends
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 31, L05204, 2004)
- A. T. J. de Laat, A. N. Maurellis

Implications of the Secondary Role of Carbon Dioxide and Methane Forcing in Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
(Physical Geography, Volume 28, Number 2, pp. 97-125(29), March 2007)
- Soon, Willie

Methodology and Results of Calculating Central California Surface Temperature Trends: Evidence of Human-Induced Climate Change?
(Journal of Climate, Volume: 19 Issue: 4, February 2006)
- Christy, J.R., W.B. Norris, K. Redmond, K. Gallo

Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties
(Climate Research, Vol. 18: 259–275, 2001)
- Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Eric S. Posmentier

Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties. Reply to Risbey (2002)
(Climate Research, Vol. 22: 187–188, 2002)
- Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Eric S. Posmentier

Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties. Reply to Karoly et al.
(Climate Research, Vol. 24: 93–94, 2003)
- Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Eric S. Posmentier

On global forces of nature driving the Earth's climate. Are humans involved?
(Environmental Geology, Volume 50, Number 6, August, 2006)
- L. F. Khilyuk and G. V. Chilingar

Quantitative implications of the secondary role of carbon dioxide climate forcing in the past glacial-interglacial cycles for the likely future climatic impacts of anthropogenic greenhouse-gas forcings
(arXiv:0707.1276, 07/2007)
- Soon, Willie

The continuing search for an anthropogenic climate change signal: Limitations of correlation-based approaches
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 24, No. 18, Pages 2319–2322, 1997)
- David R. Legates, Robert E. Davis

 

[mhaze]

.....

Link no worky.

Andrew's List

http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=2050

 

[fsol]

What a pile of drivel.

Ditto but more so. The reason your cites get "picked at" is because they are so often abject jokes.

THey also get picked at when they don't say what he thinks they say. Not because of some grammatical nuance either.

 

[fsol]

From the third of your links -

Now, as it happens, I don’t like to use already collected before a prediction to test a prediction. I don’t like that the IPCC does that. But, oddly enough, the IPCC seems to do this all the time, and includes already existing data in their predictions. So….

1. if you think calling the IPCC’s “2001-2010″ predictions, made in 2007 ‘predictions’ even including the eariler data is fair, and
2. if the IPCC would normally use this 2001-2007 data to “confirm” their “prediction”, made in 2007
3. then, it is, in some sense, fair to falsify their “predictions”, based on the same data the IPCC would use to confirm their predictions.

As you can see, the current Hadley trend is flat, flat, falt.
So yes, if the flat trend in Hadley data persists to the end of 2010, that would be inconsistent with projections of the predicted 2.0C/century trend. Only lower rates of increase would be consistent with the actual weather to a 95% confidence level.

Support for David Rodale's assertion that in the last decade, it has not been warming.

It's just a shame for DR that the data doesn't support his assertion.

 

[mhaze]

THey also get picked at when they don't say what he thinks they say. Not because of some grammatical nuance either.

Whether I agree with your specific comments or not, this is the same standard of critical examination that should be applicable to Varoche's linked papers with their ostensible assetions.

Except that I provide the source material to allow such critical discussion.

Thanks for making my point.

And since you dismiss scientific evidence out of hand without even reading it, and since you scare-quote "climate science" as if it's not real science, I see no point in jumping through hoops on your behalf. Sorry 'bout that.

Yep, well, who knows, varoche. Maybe some of those links do support your radical non mainstream view of AGW, but no one will ever know, because no one is going to go pay $9 - 35 per article to find out, will they?

You've posted links to articles that can't be retrieved without payout $, knowing that people would not pay the $ out. Your summaries of the articles content may or may not reflect the actual scientific conclusions.

What a pile of drivel.

Prove it.

 

[varwoche]

You are welcome to produce links that link to actual scientific papers and have them considered on their merits or lack of.

Indeed, linking directly to peer-reviewed papers is the ideal. Unfortunately, as you know, papers that are available online for free are in the extreme minority.

This means that we often must link to indirect sources. And obviously, we must always take into account the possibility that the science is not accurately portrayed. For this reason, it's important to link to unbiased sources as best we can and avoid sources that willfully twist the facts.

This of course is the worst case scenario -- citing agenda-driven, non-expert propagandists who are proven liars. This could aptly be described as the mhaze scenario, and it has no place on a skeptical forum.

(Thanks for the links btw.)

 

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by mhaze
You are welcome to produce links that link to actual scientific papers and have them considered on their merits or lack of.

​

Indeed, linking directly to peer-reviewed papers is the ideal. Unfortunately, as you know, papers that are available online for free are in the extreme minority.

This means that we often must link to indirect sources. And obviously, we must always take into account the possibility that the science is not accurately portrayed. For this reason, it's important to link to unbiased sources as best we can and avoid sources that willfully twist the facts.

This of course is the worst case scenario -- citing agenda-driven, non-expert propagandists who are proven liars. This could aptly be described as the mhaze scenario, and it has no place on a skeptical forum.

(Thanks for the links btw.)

Ah, an answer with no content except a personal attack. The only reasonable response is to repeat my simple and polite request.

You are welcome to produce links that link to actual scientific papers and have them considered on their merits or lack of.

 

[zeusbheld]

Link no worky.

Andrew's List

http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=2050

right. a list including a crappy, skewed agitprop documentary (at least the music's not... too.... spooky). have you been fitted for your tinfoil hat yet?

i'll check out the list of apparent science papers you posted though. meanwhile, watch out for those Bilderbergers.

rather than fighting hype with science, fight it with.... hype. it's about as entertaining (and only slightly less poorly crafted) as "Loose Change."

no... wait... THERE'S the spooky music.

i guess credibility's not in your best interest.

 

[zeusbheld]

THey also get picked at when they don't say what he thinks they say. Not because of some grammatical nuance either.

he seems to be doing everything within his power to drive fence-sitters toward tree-hugging irrationality.