How To Be A Global Warming Sceptic

[TrueSceptic]

Mhaze,do not link to Motl.He is NOT climate scientist.He is doing theoretical physic and his view on other things is way wrong and flawed.If you want to make point,you will have to find somebody better,since Motl (beside theroetical physic) considered on Czech internet as bad person,with bad attitude and who will not usualy bring good arguments for his side.

So Mhaze his blog does not count...and it does no good for your side of debate...

BTW He likes cenzorship of opposition,he banned me from comments for petty reason...

Hi Klimax.

Welcome. I look forward to more from you. Do you have any links to the above?

 

[David Rodale]

Lindzen didn't discover any 'iris'. He had a preconceived notion that there was one, but never came up with any evidence for it.

Cloud and radiation budget changes associated with tropical
intraseasonal oscillations


Where is the direct evidence that CO2 drives temperature? It does not exist.

 

[TrueSceptic]

CapelDodger is the penguin on the right; I'm on the left:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/2238947e0829aa3291.gif[/qimg]

Here's that other penguin video, based on the same original.

 

[CoolSceptic]

There is a problem with your pattern: the opponent is declared a far-lefty-greeny from the instant (s)he expresses any doubt about GWS claims.

Note the irony: with few exceptions, GWS are far-right loons, and proud of it.

Curious. It is certainly true that there is a left/right battle within the political arena (particularly in the US I think) over climate change. And, indeed, those who are blinkered by their political views (i.e. will not look objectively at the science, but will cherry pick claims that support their position), that comes across clearly.

However, I would rather take no notice of that group. My interest are in those that are capable of disaggregating their political and scientific views, taking an objective position on the evidence presented. In my experience, among this group I see little correlation between political position and viewpoint on AGW.

This is just my experience, and I appreciate as such a subjective viewpoint. I can imagine perspectives would be very different depending on whether you are spending more time digging into the science or the political propaganda.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Sure, I'll do your research for you:

No, that would be if I made a claim and was too lazy to support it. I asked you to support yours. Different thing.

Example 1, in which he acknowledges that had RMS made a sensible criticism, rather than their poorly nuanced one, there was scope for an issue, but notes the hypocrisy:

Example 2, hardly a rousing endorsement of Durkin's work:

With regard to the solar / temperature correlation that was used:

All of these are showing Steve is far from convinced by TGGWS. (I share this view; TGGWS, like AIT, are propaganda pieces, and of little interest to those who dig deeply into the science) What niggles, understandably from Steve's perspective, is the one-sided fact-checking that is evident in these debates, and the manner in which the climate scientists ignore or defend identical errors from their own side. This is evident throughout Steve's handful of posts on the subject; you'd have to have the blinkers on pretty tight to miss this nuance.

Not good enough. These were largely in response to criticism of TGGWS already made by others.

Where is McIntyre's unbidden cricticism of TGGWS when it was first shown? Y'know, the sort of thing a real sceptic would do?

 

[TrueSceptic]

Curious. It is certainly true that there is a left/right battle within the political arena (particularly in the US I think) over climate change. And, indeed, those who are blinkered by their political views (i.e. will not look objectively at the science, but will cherry pick claims that support their position), that comes across clearly.

However, I would rather take no notice of that group. My interest are in those that are capable of disaggregating their political and scientific views, taking an objective position on the evidence presented.

That is a worthy viewpoint but I see little evidence that it is at all common, here or elsewhere, especially among GWS.

In my experience, among this group I see little correlation between political position and viewpoint on AGW.

This is just my experience, and I appreciate as such a subjective viewpoint. I can imagine perspectives would be very different depending on whether you are spending more time digging into the science or the political propaganda.

I accept that that is subjective, but do the frequent accusations of "warmers" being "far-left environmentalist radicals" not give it away?

 

[Alric]

Also, in the past the argument was made that AGW was not true simply because Al Gore agrees with it. Oh, and he may have made the wrong attribution to one graph in his movie.

 

[mhaze]

I am reffering to any of his opinios outside of his part of physic.He is no authority on this issue,so you need better sources/links!(His opinios are considered bit extreme!)

And you are correct,climate is in atmospheric physic,but that is completely different part than theoretical.(And yes,that is why I am not so far participating in this discussion.I stand in the middle watching both sides...)

So far your side is however lagging behind GW "party"...

klimax, I am at a loss as to how to view your comments. Motl every now and then analyzes what he thinks is an important article in climate science. Sure I will link to those. Although many of the "warmers" here may be critical of my opinions, I cannot recall any directly ever digging into one of Motl's analysis and refuting it.

Although they are certainly free to do so.

I have NO knowledge of Czech politics by the way.

 

[TrueSceptic]

There were three separate quotes. Two were unambiguous and wrong, one was, at best, ambiguous. You argued the ambiguous one could be read either way and ignored the two that were clearly in error. The ambiguous quote cannot be used to defend the unambiguous errors. You even acknowledged the ambiguous point could be read either way in your #152. The presence of the other two quotes mean your interpretation of the ambiguous quote is contradicting the other quotes; Steve's interpretation is consistent.

Let me show you, again, the relevant passages.
Ward said

Misrepresentation: The programme broadcast on 8 March on Channel Four presented a graph, attributed to “NASA”, purporting to show “World Temperature – 120 Years” between about 1878 and 2002, plotted against some unspecified measurement of temperature change ranging in value from about -0.05 to 0.70. The graph showed an almost continuous decrease in temperature between about 1947 and 1976.

However, this graph does not correspond to any figure for global average temperature that has been published by NASA, and differs significantly from the graphs appearing in its recent publications and on its website (see: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/).

This unambiguously refers to the graph as shown in the original broadcast.
McIntyre said

When a corporation, which has contracts with major insurers, makes highly visible public allegations like this, you’d think that they’d go to the trouble to ensure that the claims are correct. Likewise, when 37 climate scientists sign onto the claim, including temperature specialist, Phil Jones, you’d think that they’d also go to the trouble to ensure that the claim is correct. When they go on to argue that communications with the public - into which category their Open Letter to Martin Durkin published on a website surely qualifies - should have proper due diligence, you’d think that they’d double check that a specific claim like this was true.

and later this

#120. My discussion was of the amended graphic. I made no comment on the unamended graphic. The original graphic appears to have dilated the x-axis on the right. I emailed and added my two cents worth urging Durkin to correct the error. He said that it occurred during the graphic preparation and amended it promptly. Even RMS notes the amendment. In most walks of life, if someone corrects something willingly, no complaint remains, but, hey, this is climate science.

McIntyre attacks Ward for being careless in exposing the graph as a fake, then admits he's talking about a different graph.

Simple enough?

 

[David Rodale]

Allright. That is close to a reference although it does not appear to be published work.

Here is the NPR story link:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025

And here is the conclusion of scientists involved in the study:

"Trenberth and Willis agree that a few mild years have no effect on the long-term trend of global warming. But they say there are still things to learn about how our planet copes with the heat."

There is something that is not understood about this one observation. Consider this quote:

"That becomes clear when you consider what's happening to global sea level. Sea level rises when the oceans get warm because warmer water expands. This accounts for about half of global sea level rise. So with the oceans not warming, you would expect to see less sea level rise. Instead, sea level has risen about half an inch in the past four years. That's a lot."

Hardly the death knell of climate change that mhaze and David Rodale purport.

Moreover, Willis, the main researcher behind the ARGO data has since retracted the cooling statements:

"Most of the rapid decrease in globally integrated 18 upper (0–750 m) ocean heat
content anomalies (OHCA) between 2003 and 2005 reported by Lyman et al. [2006]
appears to be an artifact resulting from the combination of two different instrument biases
recently discovered in the in situ profile data."

http://oceans.pmel.noaa.gov/Pdf/heat_2006.pdf

Note that the main purpose of the ARGO project is not to measure temperature but salinity.

So no. The oceans are not cooling.

Did you even read the thread from last October? This "new revelation" proposed by you now is last year's digestion.

The paper in question is data that is two years old, ok?

Do you think ocean temperature is still measured using buckets and meat thermometers? I'm beginning to wonder if you even think before you type. ARGOS is used for temperature monitoring.

Please attempt to have at least a beginner's grasp of why oceans are most important with regard to "global warming" instead of posting from ignorance. Why do you suppose the obsolete surface station network is being allowed to rot on the vine while most of the research is being put into ocean monitoring and satellite derived temperature data?

Also, your AGW blinders have prevented you from seeing through the smoke in the NPR article. Trenberth knows 5 years of ocean temperatures not warming is significant in light of the "smoking gun" claims made the last several years.

Of course, the Warmologists on this forum can't see the connection.

So warmers, mark this date down. In six months I will remember it.


How not to measure temperature, part 53: Find the NOAA thermometer in this picture


The Sloppy Science of Global Warming

Contrary to what you have been led to believe, there is no solid published evidence that has ruled out a natural cause for most of our recent warmth - not one peer-reviewed paper. The reason: our measurements of global weather on decadal time scales are insufficient to reject such a possibility. For instance, the last 30 years of the strongest warming could have been caused by a very slight change in cloudiness.

Kevin Trenberth, Priest of AGW:

"Unfortunately, we don't have adequate tracking of clouds to determine exactly what role they've been playing during this period," Trenberth says.

During this period????

IPCC level of scientific understand of clouds: Low

 

[Alric]

The paper in question is data that is two years old, ok?

Can you point to the newer data showing ocean cooling?

 

[David Rodale]

He doesn't play games. He shows us graphs based on actual data. Are you accusing him of fraud?

I'm calling you on this. Are you?

He shows graphs that any beginner stat student would understand is irrelevant to the current decade. If you can't see what the disagreement was about, that's your problem. Shall I explain for the nth time?

I can't read his mind. Whatever you attach to his musings is fine with me; in any case, he lost the argument.

 

[CoolSceptic]

No, that would be if I made a claim and was too lazy to support it. I asked you to support yours. Different thing.

You made the original claim about McIntyre's view. You provided no supporting evidence. I questioned it, and found supporting evidence. So yes, I did your research for you.

Not good enough. These were largely in response to criticism of TGGWS already made by others.

That's all McIntyre chose to investigate.

Where is McIntyre's unbidden cricticism of TGGWS when it was first shown? Y'know, the sort of thing a real sceptic would do?

"Unbidden criticism" - this is a political position. Something disagrees with your view, so you immediately criticise. The same false view that CapelDodger came up with. (CapelDodger, amusingly, added the prejudicial language fallacy "right-thinking", which made me chuckle. Haven't seen that one for a while).

What you don't seem to understand is that objective scientists only criticise something after carefully investigating it and weighing up the evidence. That takes time, especially if it is not in a field that the scientist is familiar with. Steve investigated two areas he was familiar with (temperature graphs, instrumental and reconstructed), and found TGGWS unconvincing. He also noted that the criticisms laid at TGGWS by others could also be applied to the palaeoclimate community. These are all valid observations.

Your assertion that he should criticise aspects of TGGWS that he is less familiar with either presumes you know how he should best spend his time (hardly) or that he should make knee-jerk criticism. That is a political game, not a scientific one. Once again, I cross compare the differences in the political debate on AGW and the scientific debate.

 

[David Rodale]

Can you point to the newer data showing ocean cooling?

For Trenberth to admit there is no warming is good enough for me. I'm willing to bet an official data document is forthcoming, are you?

Do you understand that OHC gain/loss is a very slow process?

 

[TrueSceptic]

There were three separate quotes. Two were unambiguous and wrong, one was, at best, ambiguous. You argued the ambiguous one could be read either way and ignored the two that were clearly in error. The ambiguous quote cannot be used to defend the unambiguous errors. You even acknowledged the ambiguous point could be read either way in your #152. The presence of the other two quotes mean your interpretation of the ambiguous quote is contradicting the other quotes; Steve's interpretation is consistent.

Now let's look at the second straw man.
Ward said

Measurements from meteorological stations that have been published by NASA and other agencies show that the there was an overall slight decline in global average temperature between about 1940 and 1976, but much less than that shown on the graph presented in the programme.

McIntyre paraphrased this as

As noted above, Risk Management Solutions and the professors said that no temperature decline of this magnitude occurred in any Hansen global data.

Does the second accurately represent the first?

 

[CoolSceptic]

McIntyre attacks Ward for being careless in exposing the graph as a fake, then admits he's talking about a different graph.

Simple enough?

The original graph was based on a NASA graph. Yes, the x-axis was in error; yes, the graph was out of date. This does not make it a "fake" nor does it make it not a NASA graph, nor does it make it misrepresentation. Sloppy, yes, fake, no. A scientist who took reasonable due diligence before criticising the programme would have made the correct claims, not distorted claims of the type you and RMS made. The nuance is subtle, but seems to have gone over your head.

 

[Round Robin]

Can you point to the newer data showing ocean cooling?

For what it's worth, I emailed NPR to ask if they interviewed Willis before the retraction was published in July, '07 (i.e. sat on the story), or if they interviewed him recently and he was commenting on new data that haven't been published yet.

I'll post the response I get from them.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Kevin Trenberth, Priest of AGW:

You again show us how reasonable and rational you are. Thanks.

 

[TrueSceptic]

He shows graphs that any beginner stat student would understand is irrelevant to the current decade. If you can't see what the disagreement was about, that's your problem. Shall I explain for the nth time?

I can't read his mind. Whatever you attach to his musings is fine with me; in any case, he lost the argument.

How are they irrelevant? Because, you deem them so?

Empty assertions are nothing more than waffle. Explain the disagreement for us, if you can.

 

[TrueSceptic]

You made the original claim about McIntyre's view. You provided no supporting evidence. I questioned it, and found supporting evidence. So yes, I did your research for you.

So I was supposed to prove a negative? Whatever, your examples didn't address the point.

That's all McIntyre chose to investigate.

Chose? Why would that be?

"Unbidden criticism" - this is a political position. Something disagrees with your view, so you immediately criticise. The same false view that CapelDodger came up with. (CapelDodger, amusingly, added the prejudicial language fallacy "right-thinking", which made me chuckle. Haven't seen that one for a while).

You really like being offensive, don't you? That is not true of CD or me; it is, however true of just about every GWS utterance we see, here and elsewhere.

Are you deliberately missing the point? McIntyre appears to spend all his time searching for climate-related articles and trying to find holes in them.

Why would he not apply his microscope to TGGWS?

What you don't seem to understand is that objective scientists only criticise something after carefully investigating it and weighing up the evidence. That takes time, especially if it is not in a field that the scientist is familiar with. Steve investigated two areas he was familiar with (temperature graphs, instrumental and reconstructed), and found TGGWS unconvincing. He also noted that the criticisms laid at TGGWS by others could also be applied to the palaeoclimate community. These are all valid observations.

Are you saying that TGGWS requires any in-depth analysis? Are you also claiming that McIntyre is a scientist?

Your assertion that he should criticise aspects of TGGWS that he is less familiar with either presumes you know how he should best spend his time (hardly) or that he should make knee-jerk criticism. That is a political game, not a scientific one. Once again, I cross compare the differences in the political debate on AGW and the scientific debate.

Strange, considering his knee-jerk criticisms of just about anything from the AGW "Team".

You are as guilty of double standards as he is.