GW: Separating facts from fiction

Bjorn said:
And here's why I ask:

You said two posts ago that "I'm willing to concede that GW is a foregone conclusion" and yet I get/got the impression that you don't. My English is not good enough sometimes to catch subtleties, but "concede that it is a foregone conclusion" is not the same as being "not so much a skeptic"?
Click to expand...
That's fine. Ask all you want. I'm happy to correct or clarify. In all honesty being imprecise is something that I do with some frequency and I wish more people would get me to clarify first. However the long debates due to my being imprecise are my own fault.

The evidence seems sufficient and the weight of the scientific community is enough to keep me from debating whether or not the earth is warming. I concede the debate. I concede that the earth is in a warming phase. I concede that the majority of scientists believe that this warming is significant and will have wide ranging implications.

I hope that helps.
 
I'm also convinced that there is a GW. Wich I'm not convinced is about AGW. Lambert's papers and error discovering by him made me MORE pro M&M, because Tim has been very exahustive researching fails in M&M studies and the only two errors he could find were in papers completely unrelated to the famous MBH refutation. I guess that, if Lambert or any other would have find errors in the MBH refutation papers they would have proclaimed it to the entire world, with his usual fanfarre. The fact that such proclamation is not anywhere in his site makes me think that they reviewed it and couldn't find any error.
 
I followed every link you sent to me. I posted the very discussion about the paper you cited in the second link (wich left all the questions I listed in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1463131&postcount=241 open) and I told you that that was the subject of discussion in Tim Lambert's site (since I didn't want to send you to climate-audit, wich has all the points raised in the refutation covered. I tought you won't go there. You even don't want to go to Lambert's site to read the discussion about the paper you sent me).
The main point is that, despite MBH claims , there was a Medioeval GW, wich almost trashes the idea of AGW.
I'm now in refutation phase. I made my mind about GW, and now I think that is not Anthropogenic. So I'll dedicate my efforts to read any other materials outside M&M and MBH wich try to demostrate that there is AGW. I guess we will find an answer pretty soon , because the contribution of Metane due to tropical forrest is starting to be investigated. It would completely change the way we understand the greenhouse effect if the findings are confirmed.
About the other links you sent to me, most of then talk about GW and how fast is that happening. Since I don't argue against GW, wich I think is real, you have no comment from me for most of your links.

You seem to think that the climate issue is easy to study. Is not. Scientists are divided about what is causing the current GW and the arguments are hard to find and harder to follow. There are tons of variables that should be taken into account in models and lots of considerations.
But there is a fact that has been ovelooked AFAICT: Many sources you cite says that GW is increasing a lot faster than the models predicted. The conclussion is, of course, that the models are WRONG wich is my main contention about the issue. A model which takes into account the effects of the principal greenhouse gas (H2) and the contribution of metane is yet to be developed.
Enought rant. If you have more material supporting AGW other than Mann's (and better, taking another variables into consideration) please post it here.
 
Geckko said:
There is certainly a lot of useful work in this area, but the UCAR press release refers to a rejected journal submission. It should have zero weight in any discussion of this matter.
Click to expand...
While I have no reason to doubt you, this feedback isn't useful without a citation so that I can confirm.
 
Lucifuge Rofocale said:
Scientists are divided about what is causing the current GW and the arguments are hard to find and harder to follow. There are tons of variables that should be taken into account in models and lots of considerations.
Click to expand...


Why does it matter about the WHY? Can you explain this? Have you dealt with the issues around seawater pH? How about the issues of diatom/shellfish carbonate uptake (obviously I don't refer to the ones with silicate tests, now)?

But why does the WHY matter? We'd better understand this, yes? We'd better control what we can, and figure out what to do with the rest, yes?
 
Maybe a better problem for you would be the next transformation of the sun into a supernova. Since the why doesn't matter, you can use your time to better control what you can do and figure out what to do with the rest ;)

Seriously, bad policies lead to massive death. Are you familiar with the DDT EPA's fiasco? Are you aware of how many people died because of stupid policies made mandatory for the same institutions that now are behind the AGW agenda? Are you aware of the costs of the Kyoto protocol, speccially for under developed countries?
 
varwoche said:
While I have no reason to doubt you, this feedback isn't useful without a citation so that I can confirm.
Click to expand...

It is probably best to start from the default and confirm that it has been published. The problem being that journals don't typically announce that they have rejected articles (too many). I think you will have trouble finding Amman (2005) published.

If it hasn't, that doesn't necessarily mean the paper is irrevocably flawed, but you should then bring the substance of the paper to the debate so others can make up their own minds.
 
Last edited:
It's rubbish.

eg.

Sir David King, the science advisor to the British Government has said that the threat of global warming is more serious that the threat of terrorism. I wonder if he would dare to repeat that in public after the recent London terrorist bomb attacks.
Click to expand...

Yes, he would. The impact of AGW is predicted to be much worse than that.

I could go on, but he repeats the 'it's just an industry' lie, where greedy scientists line up for to feed at the trough again. He decries personal attacks on skeptics, yet doesn't skip a beat as he makes attacks on the AGW mainstream.
 
a_unique_person said:
It's rubbish.

eg.

Yes, he would. The impact of AGW is predicted to be much worse than that.

I could go on, but he repeats the 'it's just an industry' lie, where greedy scientists line up for to feed at the trough again. He decries personal attacks on skeptics, yet doesn't skip a beat as he makes attacks on the AGW mainstream.
Click to expand...
?

That's it? That's your critique of the article? Hmmm.....
 
a_unique_person said:
If I had a full time job promoting the science of AGW, I would devote more time to an answer. Alas, others have got their snouts in the trough ahead of me.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. You won't mind if I don't dissmiss the article for Tu Quoque reason?
 
a_unique_person said:
If I had a full time job promoting the science of AGW, I would devote more time to an answer. Alas, others have got their snouts in the trough ahead of me.
Click to expand...

Seems to me you're saying, those promoting AGW are doing it for the personal financial benefit generated.

Freudian slip? Or have you come to the realization that if you don't conclude there is a problem, you're unlikely to get further grants to continue to study the non-problem?
 
BobK said:
Seems to me you're saying, those promoting AGW are doing it for the personal financial benefit generated.

Freudian slip? Or have you come to the realization that if you don't conclude there is a problem, you're unlikely to get further grants to continue to study the non-problem?
Click to expand...

Oh not that canard again! I think you need to be reminded that there are quite a few large economic forces that oppose AGW, and that it would be financially rewarding for a reputable scientist to align himself (or herself) with them.
 
Lucifuge Rofocale said:
I followed every link you sent to me.
Click to expand...
That's still confusing to me. Using what criteria do you weigh one analysis by two non scientists over the eight different scientific studies that I cited, each from eminently qualified scientists and based on a variety of methods, supporting AGW?

The main point is that, despite MBH claims , there was a Medioeval GW, wich almost trashes the idea of AGW.
Click to expand...
According to you and two non scientists, and contradicted by the body of evidence presented.

About the other links you sent to me, most of then talk about GW and how fast is that happening.
Click to expand...
Check again. Most of them are about AGW.

You seem to think that the climate issue is easy to study. Is not.
Click to expand...
I am quite aware that the issues are complex -- so complex that trying to debate the science in depth via copy/paste on a politics discussion board is imo pointless (unless members wish to post/prove their CVs so that readers can decide how much weight to assign to opinions posted, and said CVs better be major league).

If you have more material supporting AGW other than Mann's (and better, taking another variables into consideration) please post it here.
Click to expand...
Done in spades (scroll up to post #251).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom