How To Be A Global Warming Sceptic

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by mhaze
You've been given the citation, the article is online, aud all the supporting data is online. CA website, left side, main page. I take it you do understand now that it is the case, a well known one, that removing the pines does exactly what Diamond said.
​

I wanted you to confirm this. What this tells us is what MM claim to be the case, not what is the case. This shows only that you are willing to believe the claims made by 2 people in preference to the work of many climate scientists. It tells us far more about you than it does about the 'Hockey Stick'.
​

Quote: Further, that using tree rings for temp reconstructions is no good.

Again, why should I accept that claim? Because you say so? Because a couple of "sceptics" and their credulous followers say so?

What it shows is that I supported an argument made by Diamond with a reference to a professional, peer reviewed journal article (JGR) that supports his assertion, further, that upon request for the data and methods by you, I provided them.

You have made the following comment -

What this tells us is what MM claim to be the case, not what is the case. This shows only that you are willing to believe the claims made by 2 people in preference to the work of many climate scientists.

No, TS. Those seem to be your personal delusions. Science works by the formulation of hypotheses and their refutation, followed by revisions to the hypotheses or new concepts. In this context phrases such as "MM claim", "you are willing to believe", and the full but curious statement "willing to believe the claims made by 2 people in preference to the work of many climate scientists" indicate a basic misunderstanding of the scientific method. Or did you think this was some kind of popularity contest?
Now you've lapsed back into a curious dialetic, reminiscent of junior high cafeteria food fights.

It tells us far more about you than it does about the 'Hockey Stick'.

You know nothing about me. It tells you nothing except a bit of the current peer reviewed science concerning Mann 1998 and the responses and rebuttals thereof.

Again, why should I accept that claim?

As far as I am aware, that's of no concern to anyone.

 

[mhaze]

http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/601511/an-emerging-truth.thtml

An interesting read and if you go to the page, it links to many fascinating articles.

The known and understood large scale presence of warmer propaganda, whether attributed to

• inclination of the media for sensational stories
• liberal bias
• influence by governments with pro-AGW legislated bias (EG Britian-BBC)
• reporter laziness (printing the latest media release by Environmental Defense Fund or Greenpeace)
• or any other cause

has relatively nothing to do with whether scientists think there is actually significant AGW. It affects public perceptions. Whether scientists think there is significant AGW is not settled, neither in the last decades, the present, or the coming decades.

As your article shows, the current and future path the planet takes is a surprise to the seers and popes of climate science. It would be a curious turn if the public knew the facts of science before certain scientists...

 

[Alric]

Well this is easy to settle. Are there any peer-reviewed published articles that puts in doubt the overall idea that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are causing climate change?

Don't use a nitpick point or an esoteric discussion of low impact to the overall conclusion.

 

[Diamond]

It's present, of course. It's not the case. The case stands alone even without the hockey stick.

The case has yet to be proven. Certainly you haven't bothered.

For some reason, its for the skeptics to prove that anthropogenic greenhouse gases aren't responsible for recent warming rather than for you or anyone else to prove that they are, having taken consideration of all other possibilities.

For the life of me, it feels like atheists having to prove that Christ didn't rise from the dead, rather than for the xtian believers to prove that he did.

Huh, prove it.

Nope. You prove that the Hockey Stick and related phenomena are true.

You could try by posting any evidence that carbon dioxide rise precedes warming. I asked you this over 4 years ago, and I'm sure that's adequate time for you to find something to show us. Unless of course, it doesn't exist.

As far as Dr Mann teaching the others to produce irreproducible trash, you could get Al Gore to stop reproducing the Hockey Stick like this in his Powerpoint presentation in "An Inconvenient Truth" and stop him trying to deny that its the Hockey Stick.

Or the IPCC to stop doing anti-science like this in the AR4:

A picture that could well have been subtitled "F*** you McIntyre - Reproduce This!"

 

[mhaze]

That black graph looks familiar. So he's not yet corrected the right hand temperature scale, or is that showing that we've got a "cooling hockey stick"?

As lazy and irresponsible as unscientific.

 

[Alric]

I'd like to know why those graphs don't look like a hockey stick to you.

 

[hammegk]

Well this is easy to settle.

You, and others, wish.

Are there any peer-reviewed published articles that puts in doubt the overall idea that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are causing climate change?

Not that I've seen. The questions include "how much", "when", "what does cloud formation do to the equations", etc.

Yeah, I know; permafrost melt, glaciers, ice caps, flood Bangladesh, blah-blah-blah.

Don't use a nitpick point or an esoteric discussion of low impact to the overall conclusion.

There is no overall conclusion, other than scientists are inept at politics, and some are good at finding research gravy-trains.

 

[mhaze]

You, and others, wish.

Quote:
Are there any peer-reviewed published articles that puts in doubt the overall idea that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are causing climate change?


Not that I've seen. The questions include "how much", "when", "what does cloud formation do to the equations", etc.

Yeah, I know; permafrost melt, glaciers, ice caps, flood Bangladesh, blah-blah-blah.

What Alric may be unaware of is that the scientists (and us on this discussion also) are more in agreement as to the effect of greenhouse gases than we are in agreement on the effect of greenhouse gases as modulated by positive or negative feedbacks.

Warmers would ignore the latter, or be downright ignorant of it, whatever. The IPCC lists most of the feedbacks as "low understanding".

According to warmers, the effect of CO2 is multipled by three (or six, for Hansen Warmology) due to the feedbacks.

But the feedbacks are said to be poorly understood. In many cases it is not clear to IPCC (concepts formulated for AR4 in mid 2006 to mid 2007) whether the sign of the feedback is positive or negative.

Good reference here, climate-skeptic.com.



An Unconvenient truth.

Warmology Translation: Deniers spread doubt and confusion.

 

[Pixel42]

You could try by posting any evidence that carbon dioxide rise precedes warming.

In past warmings, you mean? Why would it? What natural process causes the amount of CO2 in the atmsophere to spontaneously increase by 33% over a couple of centuries?

Past warmings have been initiated by many things - variations in the earth's orbit, plate tectonics (e.g. a continent drifting away from a pole) etc etc. As oceans and permafrost warm CO2 is gradually released, causing further warming. But this is, as far as we know, the first warming in the history of the earth that has been initiated by a sudden, spontaneous and extremely rapid rise in CO2. Because this is the first time in the history of the earth that a species has arisen which has suddenly released millions of tonnes of CO2 (sequestered over millions of years in fossil fuel) in a very short period of time by burning it.

I have seen this explained many times in these threads. If you've really been reading them for four years, why you are still expecting anyone to post such evidence?

 

[TrueSceptic]

What it shows is that I supported an argument made by Diamond with a reference to a professional, peer reviewed journal article (JGR) that supports his assertion, further, that upon request for the data and methods by you, I provided them.

You have made the following comment -

What this tells us is what MM claim to be the case, not what is the case. This shows only that you are willing to believe the claims made by 2 people in preference to the work of many climate scientists.

No, TS. Those seem to be your personal delusions. Science works by the formulation of hypotheses and their refutation, followed by revisions to the hypotheses or new concepts. In this context phrases such as "MM claim", "you are willing to believe", and the full but curious statement "willing to believe the claims made by 2 people in preference to the work of many climate scientists" indicate a basic misunderstanding of the scientific method. Or did you think this was some kind of popularity contest?
Now you've lapsed back into a curious dialetic, reminiscent of junior high cafeteria food fights.

The delusion is that one peer-reviewed paper can overturn anything on its own just by merely existing.

The way science works is that if such a paper is convincing and its findings are replicated throughout the scientific community, it becomes the new orthodoxy. That has certainly not happened in this case; indeed it has been shown to be flawed.

Do you have any idea how many papers have been published and failed to overturn the consensus?

Babble on all you like, but we are just arguing about the relative credibility of work neither of us are addressing directly. Alll we see is unsupported claims repeated ad infinitum.

It tells us far more about you than it does about the 'Hockey Stick'.

You know nothing about me. It tells you nothing except a bit of the current peer reviewed science concerning Mann 1998 and the responses and rebuttals thereof.

I know quite enough, in the context of these forums: you are arrogant, offensive, ignorant and mendacious. I have no idea what you are like outside of here but that is not relevant.

 

[mhaze]

The delusion is that one peer-reviewed paper can overturn anything on its own just by merely existing.

You asked a question, you got an answer, you shifted the goalposts, you got another answer, you shifted the goalposts again, you got another answer, you lapsed into frantic juvenile nonsense at that point and have not yet emerged, but are not expected to.

The way science works is that if such a paper is convincing and its findings are replicated throughout the scientific community, it becomes the new orthodoxy. That has certainly not happened in this case; indeed it has been shown to be flawed.

That is a subject that can be discussed on it's merits by whoever chooses to do so, yourself self excluded by your consensus of one.

Do you have any idea how many papers have been published and failed to overturn the consensus?

No relation to subject at hand; implicit presumptions appear to be...

• hockey stick = consensus
• bristlecones = good science
• tree rings = plausible temperature proxy.

Babble on all you like, but we are just arguing about the relative credibility of work neither of us are addressing directly. Alll we see is unsupported claims repeated ad infinitum.

We are not arguing. You are trying to avoid the simple fact that you asked a question and I answered it in a way that unsettled your prejudices. You may be arguing. I am not.

I know quite enough, in the context of these forums: you are arrogant, offensive, ignorant and mendacious. I have no idea what you are like outside of here but that is not relevant.

Wheeeee!!!!!!! Insults by Trues***!!! Please check your balance in the bank of intellectual credibility. It appears you are overdrawn on intelligence and your brain is in imminent danger of foreclosure.

Warmology Translation: Anyone not in agreement with Warmology = arrogant, offensive, ignorant and mendacious

 

[TrueSceptic]

You asked a question, you got an answer, you shifted the goalposts, you got another answer, you shifted the goalposts again, you got another answer, you lapsed into frantic juvenile nonsense at that point and have not yet emerged, but are not expected to.

Rubbish. Diamond made a claim. I challenged it. All you have done is provide "evidence" from the source in dispute in the first place. See a problem with that?

I moved no goalposts.

That is a subject that can be discussed on it's merits by whoever chooses to do so, yourself self excluded by your consensus of one.

No relation to subject at hand; implicit presumptions appear to be...

• hockey stick = consensus
• bristlecones = good science
• tree rings = plausible temperature proxy.

We are not arguing. You are trying to avoid the simple fact that you asked a question and I answered it in a way that unsettled your prejudices. You may be arguing. I am not.

Your argument (!) is based on claims from the source in question. A tactic that even you should see as ridiculous.

Wheeeee!!!!!!! Insults by Trues***!!! Please check your balance in the bank of intellectual credibility. It appears you are overdrawn on intelligence and your brain is in imminent danger of foreclosure.

Warmology Translation: Anyone not in agreement with Warmology = arrogant, offensive, ignorant and mendacious

No insult. Simple statement of fact. We have seen numerous examples of this; in fact, it would be harder to find posts where you don't behave like that.

 

[mhaze]

Quite fascinating. A denial of "a source".

Please show where "the source" was first mentioned by Diamond.

 

[Alric]

I love the TED Talks. Interesting speakers with ideas on the very edge.

Much to my delight Nobel Laureate Al Gore gave a talk!

Here is the link:

http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/243

As usual the portions on arctic melt and stratosphere heating were most enlightening.

 

[mhaze]

I love the TED Talks. Interesting speakers with ideas on the very edge. Much to my delight Nobel Laureate Al Gore gave a talk!
Here is the link: http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/243
As usual the portions on arctic melt and troposphere heating were most enlightening.

ideas on the very edge

Of Sanity, Reality, Pseudoscience, Alarmist mythology, Political propaganda?

By the way - did he explain this set of facts?



No?

Figures.

 

[Alric]

Some graphs for discussion from Al Gore's talk:

I never thought about this before. Stratosphere cooling is expected because heat is trapped by lower atmosphere anthopogenic CO2.

Discussion is welcomed.

 

[mhaze]

Please provide the documentation set and source for the data in the chart entitled "Northern Sea Ice Extent", if possible.

 

[Alric]

Don't have it. Its from the talk. If its like an inconvenient truth the results will be published soon in a left wing rag like Science or Nature.

 

[Alric]

Actually I bet they come from here. He actually mentions this group in the talk:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

Hey! They look like inverse hockey sticks!!

 

[mhaze]

Don't have it. Its from the talk. If its like an inconvenient truth the results will be published soon in a left wing rag like Science or Nature.

Okay. It just looked like that chart was quite different than the cryosphere chart, which I was familiar with. Just wondering.

He does not state his sources, then, and they are not listed on the slide.