Atmospheric CO2 has gone up 20% since 1960

[CoolSceptic]

Yet you are willing to hazard the fate of hundreds of millions of human beings on the very same wager...

I'm pretty sure everything I've discussed on this thread is SCIENCE, not POLICY. If you want to know what my policy opinions are, try asking for them like an adult rather than assuming you know what they are.

Unless you are claiming to be a mindreader, that is? Perhaps you should send that in to Randi. You might make a million.

 

[BenBurch]

No, science informs policy. And certain people attempt to subvert the truth of science to warp that policy. Its disgusting.

 

[Wangler]

And certain people attempt to subvert the truth of science to warp that policy. Its disgusting.

IMHO, this is a problem that works both ways.

 

[BenBurch]

IMHO, this is a problem that works both ways.

I'd be just as upset if I saw lies in the other direction. So far, I have not.

Reality is not something you can change by ideology, and its important to remember that.

 

[macdoc]

IMHO, this is a problem that works both ways.

citation for your assertion??....

I have one

Manufactroversy (măn’yə-făk’-trə-vûr’sē)
N., pl. -sies.

1. A manufactured controversy that is motivated by profit or extreme ideology to intentionally create public confusion about an issue that is not in dispute. 2. Effort is often accompanied by imagined conspiracy theory and major marketing dollars involving fraud, deception and polemic rhetoric.

http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/04/manufactroversy/

The history of this is clear in the denier realm with the likes of Exxon muzzling it's own scientists....

 

[macdoc]

Meanwhile back in the real world...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090817190638.htm

snip

ScienceDaily (Sep. 27, 2009) — Heavier rainstorms lie in our future. That's the clear conclusion of a new MIT and Caltech study on the impact that global climate change will have on precipitation patterns.


But the increase in extreme downpours is not uniformly spread around the world, the analysis shows. While the pattern is clear and consistent outside of the tropics, climate models give conflicting results within the tropics and more research will be needed to determine the likely outcomes in tropical regions.

 

[DogB]

I'd be just as upset if I saw lies in the other direction. So far, I have not.

Would you like me to start pointing them out for you?

How about the United Nations Environment Programme using an unreviewed graph from Wikipedia in an official report.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7138

You reckon they'd be a bit gun shy of anything that looks like a Hockey stick wouldn't you?

 

[lomiller]

IMHO, this is a problem that works both ways.

One side has the published literature backing it up the other prefers to have it’s “discussion” on internet blogs.

 

[lomiller]

You reckon they'd be a bit gun shy of anything that looks like a Hockey stick wouldn't you?

Every single reconstruction published in real journal shows a hockey stick. I’m sure there are plenty of crackpots who wish that were suppressed, though.

 

[DogB]

Every single reconstruction published in real journal shows a hockey stick. I’m sure there are plenty of crackpots who wish that were suppressed, though.

You're defending the UNEP's use of Wikipedia as a primary source?

 

[DogB]

Every single reconstruction published in real journal shows a hockey stick. I’m sure there are plenty of crackpots who wish that were suppressed, though.

To quote Richard Smith's discussion of Edward Wegman's presentation at the 2006 Joint Statistical Meetings.

A number of other commentators have acknowledged the flaws in the Mann reconstruction but have argued that this does not matter because the answers have been verified by other analyses. Ed's own response to that was given in the equation
Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science.

 

[BenBurch]

If it were a lie, I'd be upset.

As its a UN report, and those are filed immediately in the circular file on the floor next to the desk by scientists, and because it wasn't actually wrong in its conclusions, I'm not even slightly bothered.

See, you conspiracy theorists seize upon any anomaly or imperfection in official pronouncements as some sort of proof of the conspiracy you have dreamed up. If course it is no such thing, but merely proof that governments, like Soylent Green, are made of people. Now you can deny again that you are not maintaining a conspiracy theory, but you aren't fooling anybody but yourself on this one.

 

[a_unique_person]

To quote Richard Smith's discussion of Edward Wegman's presentation at the 2006 Joint Statistical Meetings.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...missing-piece-at-the-wegman-hearing/#more-328

A beat up, but a very successful one.

 

[lomiller]

You're defending the UNEP's use of Wikipedia as a primary source?

Who cares, it’s a presentation aimed at a non-technical audience.

 

[lomiller]

Funny Wegman didn’t say anything like that in regard to the errors McIntyre made.

Wegman didn’t go into this doing politics not science and he got burnt. Now he is trying to cover his a**. If he as practicing science he would have put at least some effort into finding out if the error he was looking at had any impact on the results. He didn’t, he didn’t even try. That’s why the AAAS labeled the who effort as an attack against individual scientists rather then a search for understanding.

 

[Tumbleweed]

I dunno, Pacific satellite looks a little active, more like early Nov than late Sept. Then again equinox storms always seem to have a lot of punch. anecdotally speaking.
So , is there any way to measure systemic or seasonal increase/ decrease in high/low intensity over time in the Northern Pacific? Not a change in average barometric pressure, because an equal increase in high pressure intensity, if coupled with an equal increase in low pressure intensity gives no change in average. But perhaps actual measurements of barometric readings at key spots, buoys and such, jetliner readings on regular scheduled flights, etc. transposed to show an ever fluctuating sine wave on a graph , from say, 1950 to present and see what you have got going on intensity-wise

 

[Wangler]

Who cares, it’s a presentation aimed at a non-technical audience.

This is a curious stance...just use any ol' graph, because it's to be shown to a non-technical audience?

Weird.

 

[BenBurch]

If the graph was not used to derive the conclusions and was for illustration only, it is no more than a typical stupid error.

 

[CoolSceptic]

I was able to view the article for free at

http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...d=918210&md5=f2f7d4d2356ab5452fb98ca6fca46333

I don't know if this will work for everyone.

When I tried it from home, it required a $30 download fee, but I could get it from work. It is an interesting article, and embraces the issues presented by the Hurst phenomenon (unlike the unscientific stance of many posters here who dismiss it without understanding it - even making absurd allegations that we should not carry out legitimate scientific research in case it affects policy - a disgraceful position for any scientist).

Based on a quick read of the paper - without confirming any of the detailed analysis inside - the paper embraces LTP as an important part of climate analysis (as did Rybski et al.). A good test is applied within the paper, which appears to be more sensitive than that applied by Koutsoyiannis et al.

I also agree with the paper that there are several problems with the present palaeoclimate reconstructions; Halley notes his results are very sensitive to scaling errors (cf. von Storch and Zorita), plus highlights a sensitivity to spatial sampling of the instrumental record, a problem which can only be worse for the reconstructions. These sensitivities could match or exceed the magnitude of the effect being measured (discussed in the paper), and therefore it is difficult to have full confidence in these results until these issues are properly resolved.

Halley observes the same inconsistencies between the statistics derived from the reconstructions, in particular that the reconstructions yield non-overlapping confidence intervals for many statistics. Again, this suggests the present state of palaeoclimate reconstructions are inadequate for this purpose.

So for many aspects of the study, Halley agrees with and reinforces the position presented by Prof. Koutsoyiannis. The statistical result is an interesting one, and needs the palaeoclimate community to step up and resolve several issues on their doorstep.

 

[a_unique_person]

Funny Wegman didn’t say anything like that in regard to the errors McIntyre made.

Wegman didn’t go into this doing politics not science and he got burnt. Now he is trying to cover his a**. If he as practicing science he would have put at least some effort into finding out if the error he was looking at had any impact on the results. He didn’t, he didn’t even try. That’s why the AAAS labeled the who effort as an attack against individual scientists rather then a search for understanding.

It's all McIntyre does.