I never said the first wikipedia entry was incorrect. You didn't understand that first wikipedia entry.
Last edited:
GW: Separating facts from fiction
- Thread starter Lucifuge Rofocale
- Start date
-
- Tags
- fiction separating
I never said the first wikipedia entry was incorrect. You didn't understand that first wikipedia entry.
Lucifuge Rofocale
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2001
- Messages
- 968
No, you said it was correct ,sorry. Look at my post and see that I intended to write that. Then I questioned you about plants being CO2 emissors, wich they are. But then I said that they expell more O than CO2. Both facts are true.
---I'll edit my response to JJ
I think you have placed a little too much emphasis on what you think is an error in the use of the word "fuel". The mentioned article uses the word "fuel" as energy. While I do not use the word in this way the author of the article clearly is using "fuel" as "energy".
Note this paragraph near the end of the article:
delphi_ote
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 5,994
You copied and pasted text. Please don't pretend like that was taxing. All the points you mimicked were addressed in the linked articles, though they did not directly spell out the specific lines of text and state afterward, "I am now going to debunk the previously stated quote." Apparently this is what your third grade reading comprehension requires.
I'm not going to babysit you through anymore science. You clearly need to feel special, and being the one who "knows the truth" about global warming strokes your fragile ego. This delusion that there isn't any evidence for global warming is too important to you to let something like facts get in the way.
If you have any interest in the underlying science, you already have the resources at your disposal to learn more. I've heard this exact same "argument" too many times already from Intelligent Design advocates to feign interest in your version.
I stand corrected, for what little difference it makes.
Utter and complete nonsense. You have mischaracterized the Woods Hole research which included...
http://www.whoi.edu/mr/pr.do?id=10346
Back to the OP, I ask you for the second time what is your take on the validity of the work by the discredited buffoons who can't tell degrees from radians?
Let's take it one at a time please. In precisely which post(s) do you refute Lambert (see post #8)?
Geckko, once I reviewed the thread it seemed to me that your implication that I was posting hypocritically was an innocent mistake. I corrected the record and hope you will so acknowledge.
Here's the offending phrase:
Maybe I'm placing too much emphasis on the word fuel, but note that they directly compare the "fuel" consumption of the French TGV (an electric train, shock, horror) to that of a car and a plane. This is, at least, misleading. I would really like to know how they figured out the fuel consumption of an electric train... Did they convert the whole thing to the same energy units or something? Or did they just made it up?
They should know that these kinds of claims are precisely what people tend to remember when they make think about subjects like fuel conservation. If they can't get things simple and clear regarding this, why should I take the rest of the article seriously?
Anyway, I know I'm nitpicking...
Last edited:
Lucifuge Rofocale
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2001
- Messages
- 968
I didn't refute Lambert because he was referring to another study. But I'm reviewing Lambert's site on a second look, specifically the posts about the same topic I was trying to discuss here, and , boy...that's what I had to do from the first time.
Look at Lambert´s site (http://timlambert.org/2005/08/mcintyre/) and see for yourself if the theme is closed. McIntyre is posting there and also you'll learm about the errors Lambert has made himself.
Interesting reading . I guess it would be interesting for you. There are 3 pages of comments.
Last edited:
Time out. Do you refute that M&M confused degrees with radians in their critique of Mann?
Lucifuge Rofocale
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2001
- Messages
- 968
Well, first, it not was M&M. it was one of them in another paper, not the one we are talking about. It was a paper about economics signals in climate change wich I haven't been able to find ever. But M&M acknowledged the error, yet finding others errors in Lambert's work.
"McKitrick Corrections Published
Ross McKitrick has re-published the paper that Tim attacked with such fanfare, with corrections to the error Tim found.
While the error was major (angles erroneously in degrees rather than radians), the effects were minor.These corrections having been made, there is no change to the conclusions.
In other words, the paper still stands, and the conclusions still stand. The corrected paper is available at link
I would like to commend Ross McKitrick for publishing the paper, the data, and the analysis code. This has allowed the error to be found early on. McKitrick acknowledged the error immediately, corrected it, and published his corrections.
Contrast this with the actions of Michael Mann, who withdrew his data from public view when questions arose, refused to answer questions, and has been very reticent about the whole matter. It is clear which one is searching for the truth …"
The corrected paper:
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/gdptemp.html
"McKitrick Corrections Published
Ross McKitrick has re-published the paper that Tim attacked with such fanfare, with corrections to the error Tim found.
While the error was major (angles erroneously in degrees rather than radians), the effects were minor.These corrections having been made, there is no change to the conclusions.
In other words, the paper still stands, and the conclusions still stand. The corrected paper is available at link
I would like to commend Ross McKitrick for publishing the paper, the data, and the analysis code. This has allowed the error to be found early on. McKitrick acknowledged the error immediately, corrected it, and published his corrections.
Contrast this with the actions of Michael Mann, who withdrew his data from public view when questions arose, refused to answer questions, and has been very reticent about the whole matter. It is clear which one is searching for the truth …"
The corrected paper:
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/gdptemp.html
I think Lucifuge is correct. The paper you are referring to was written by McKitrick & Michaels, not McKitrick & MacIntyre.
Also, I don't think the paper was a critique of Mann Bradley & Hughes or any other proxy reconstruction, but something completely unrelated.
Here's the offending phrase:
Maybe I'm placing too much emphasis on the word fuel, but note that they directly compare the "fuel" consumption of the French TGV (an electric train, shock, horror) to that of a car and a plane. This is, at least, misleading. I would really like to know how they figured out the fuel consumption of an electric train... Did they convert the whole thing to the same energy units or something? Or did they just made it up?
They should know that these kinds of claims are precisely what people tend to remember when they make think about subjects like fuel conservation. If they can't get things simple and clear regarding this, why should I take the rest of the article seriously?
Anyway, I know I'm nitpicking...
I tend to think those sorts of claims are important for public consumption.
For example I reckon a significant proportion of people would think that switching to an electric car would help combat climate change, when in fact that could increase CO2 emissions.
True, these unqualified individuals have written a series of flawed papers on the topic, and I'm glad you have acknowledged that one of those papers confused degrees with radians.
Lucifuge Rofocale
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2001
- Messages
- 968
Have you read the nest part of my post?
The rest of your post is diversionary. Lambert is not a climatologist; he does not pretend to be a climatologist. Mistakes Lambert may or may not have made will not change the fact that Lambert exposed the degrees/radians buffoonery.
Here again is refutation of M&M from expert climatologists, including Mann.
False Claims by McIntyre and McKitrick
This site is the work of expert scientists (including Mann):
Dr. Gavin Schmidt
* climate modeller at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
* PhD in Applied Mathematics from University College London
* NOAA Postdoctoral Fellow in Climate and Global Change Research
* cited by Scientific American as one of the 50 Research Leaders of 2004
Dr. Michael E. Mann
* Penn State University faculty, positions in the Departments of Meteorology and Geosciences, and the Earth and Environmental Systems Institute (ESSI)
* director of the Penn State Earth System Science Center (ESSC).
* M.S. degree in Physics from Yale University
* Ph.D. in Geology & Geophysics from Yale University
Dr. Caspar Ammann
* climate scientist at National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
* Ph.D. from the Department of Geosciences at the University of Mass
Dr. Rasmus E. Benestad
* physicist
* work with climate analysis on a Norwegian project called RegClim
* affiliations with the Norwegian Meteorological Institute (met.no)
* D.Phil in physics from Atmospheric, Oceanic & Planetary Physics at Oxford * wrote the book 'Solar Activity and Earth's Climate' (2002), published by Praxis-Springer
* council of the European Meteorological Society
Dr. Raymond S. Bradley
* Director of the Climate System Research Center (www.paleoclimate.org) at the University of Mass
* Distinguished Professor in the Department of Geosciences
* Doctor of Science (D.Sc) degree from Southampton University (U.K.) for his contributions to the field of paleoclimatology.
(and others)
Yep, it all depends from where the electricity comes from. At this point, I'm more in favour of fuel efficiency myself: doing more with less.
Lucifuge Rofocale
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2001
- Messages
- 968
And you said I was obtuse. Go to the lambert site I posted and look how a real debate about a paper goes.
If you don't want to address the neither the papers nor the objections to MBH, then Good bye.
BTW I'm aware of the link you cited. Is from DEC 2004 . The current discussion about their flaws is exactly where I'm pointing you IN THE SAME LAMBERT'S SITE YOU PROVIDE ME.
If you don't want to address the neither the papers nor the objections to MBH, then Good bye.
BTW I'm aware of the link you cited. Is from DEC 2004 . The current discussion about their flaws is exactly where I'm pointing you IN THE SAME LAMBERT'S SITE YOU PROVIDE ME.
I don't do whack-a-mole, especially when based on vague non-assertions. You have already conceeded that Lambert was correct when he exposed the fact that there was a degrees/radians screw-up. Get over it and move on.
delphi_ote
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 5,994