Kyoto Debunked

[a_unique_person]

The post that you quoted was a challenge to you to point out where I was using them as "an appeal to authority".

That was what you asserted in your last post before you left the thread.

I can only assume you left the thread before, because you found out you were incorrect in your assertion and didn't want to admit to the error. Or you intentionally misrepresented my position because that is your nature. Which was it? Error or nature. Or show me where I used them as an "appeal to authority".

You seem to be on the same wavelength as yeti when it comes to misrepresenting other people's posts.

I take no one source as being infallible.

If you read my posts in this thread you wouldn't have to ask, and I think you did read them.

Maybe english is too hard for you to comprehend? What's your native language?

I simply think their audit deserves futher investigation and so does Mann's hockeystick graph. After all, Mann did do away with the medieval warming period that was generally accepted by researchers in many fields.

Are you even curious?

Let us see them get their paper published in a real scientific journal, for a start. The review process doesn't mean that the reviewers agree with what they claim, but it will put their methods open to scrutiny.

As I have said before, the scientific process is all we have, and it has proven to be amazingly robust. Why does it suddenly fail in the area of GW?

 

[Brian the Snail]

Rather nit-picky saying that Kyoto will only go until 2012. It's intended to be an ongoing process after that. Changing the name later doesn't change the proposed process.

Well, I feel that it is important to make that clear. Someone reading that Kyoto will cost up to $18 quadrillion dollars might be misled into thinking that it will cost that much until 2012, with more costs on top for the rest of the process. It is also important to point out that even countries that have ratified the Kyoto treaty are not obliged to continue the process after this date. So if the costs are too large or if the science starts to say something different then countries can pull out later.

I'll grant you that the $18quad figure is the IPCC estimate of the upper bound of costs. Their lower bound is said to be in the 100's of trillions of dollars. Have you ever known any large government program to come in under the estimates?

That's the cost to the world economy over 100 years. I don't think you can compare it directly to the cost of a large government program, especially if you take inflation into account. And as the article points out, if you look at the percentage change in GDP growth (which is probably a more instructive measure) , there isn't actually very much impact.

 

[rockoon]

As I have said before, the scientific process is all we have, and it has proven to be amazingly robust. Why does it suddenly fail in the area of GW?

You ignored the request. Is it so much to ask that you answer BobK concerning your accusation that he is appealing to authority?

You made the claim. Please back it up. I can't find a single place in this thread where he appealed to authority.

YOU on the other hand have done so frequently.

 

[a_unique_person]

The post that you quoted was a challenge to you to point out where I was using them as "an appeal to authority".

That was what you asserted in your last post before you left the thread.

I can only assume you left the thread before, because you found out you were incorrect in your assertion and didn't want to admit to the error. Or you intentionally misrepresented my position because that is your nature. Which was it? Error or nature. Or show me where I used them as an "appeal to authority".

You seem to be on the same wavelength as yeti when it comes to misrepresenting other people's posts.

I take no one source as being infallible.

If you read my posts in this thread you wouldn't have to ask, and I think you did read them.

Maybe english is too hard for you to comprehend? What's your native language?

I simply think their audit deserves futher investigation and so does Mann's hockeystick graph. After all, Mann did do away with the medieval warming period that was generally accepted by researchers in many fields.

Are you even curious?

Drooper is an economist. The polite exchanges between GW 'skeptics' means nothing more than schoolchildren debating supermans powers.

For some real information from real scientists, this is an excellent link.

http://www.dar.csiro.au/information/climatechange.html

complete with FAQ http://www.dar.csiro.au/publications/gh_faq.htm

 

[rockoon]

Drooper is an economist. The polite exchanges between GW 'skeptics' means nothing more than schoolchildren debating supermans powers.

Thats twice now that you have replied to the same message by BobK where he asks that you back up your accusation that he was making an apeal to authority.

Thats twice now that you did not back up that accusation.

"Appeal to Authority" is a lofty concept comming from a person who commits Ad Hominems.

 

[Drooper]

Drooper is an economist. The polite exchanges between GW 'skeptics' means nothing more than schoolchildren debating supermans powers.

For some real information from real scientists, this is an excellent link.

http://www.dar.csiro.au/information/climatechange.html

complete with FAQ http://www.dar.csiro.au/publications/gh_faq.htm

Taking my name in vain.

I am also an econometrician with considerable experience working with large scale macreconometric models. These are not disimilar to the GEMs used to make many of the predictions about future climatic conditions. So I know how ropey they are.

 

[a_unique_person]

Thats twice now that you have replied to the same message by BobK where he asks that you back up your accusation that he was making an apeal to authority.

Thats twice now that you did not back up that accusation.

"Appeal to Authority" is a lofty concept comming from a person who commits Ad Hominems.

I don't recall doing any to anyone who hasn't done them to me first.

The title of the thread says it all, Kyoto debunked, based on the research of two unpublished amateurs.

 

[Drooper]

I don't recall doing any to anyone who hasn't done them to me first.

The title of the thread says it all, Kyoto debunked, based on the research of two unpublished amateurs.

Really?

And the issue here is possible poor statistical manipulation leading flawed conclusions. And Mann's qualification in this area is what exactly? An unpublished amateur?

 

[a_unique_person]

Taking my name in vain.

I am also an econometrician with considerable experience working with large scale macreconometric models. These are not disimilar to the GEMs used to make many of the predictions about future climatic conditions. So I know how ropey they are.

With respect, you don't. The models have been tested against past climatic conditions, including ice-ages, and come up correct.

 

[a_unique_person]

Really?

And the issue here is possible poor statistical manipulation leading flawed conclusions. And Mann's qualification in this area is what exactly? An unpublished amateur?

Amateurs in this area. If they are so sure of their work, they should put it up for publishing in a relevant journal, not some hokey little rag.

 

[a_unique_person]

Taking my name in vain.

I am also an econometrician with considerable experience working with large scale macreconometric models. These are not disimilar to the GEMs used to make many of the predictions about future climatic conditions. So I know how ropey they are.

What they are modelling are two completely different things. One is a self aware, living organism with capability to change it's environment, the other is a system that is subject only to the laws of physics.

 

[BobK]

I'll handle your quotes of my post in reverse order.

Why you quoted my post in this post of your's is beyond me. You address nothing you've quoted.

Give a little consideration to those of us that have limited bandwidth.

Drooper is an economist. The polite exchanges between GW 'skeptics' means nothing more than schoolchildren debating supermans powers.
LOL
I don't understand why you even mention Drooper here, his name hadn't even come up when you posted. Maybe you're alluding to his super-human powers?
I really don't think you'll get much support from him. He seems to be the type that looks rationally at both sides.

For some real information from real scientists, this is an excellent link.

http://www.dar.csiro.au/information/climatechange.html

complete with FAQ http://www.dar.csiro.au/publications/gh_faq.htm

I frankly don't see why anyone would give much credence to your opinion when you exhibit indecision in answering the simple question I asked. Are you even curious?

If you know so little about yourself, how could anyone rely on anything you post?

Hmm. Here's a link for you.
Let's see what Dr. Brian Tucker for 20 years Chief of the CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research has to say about the global warming debate.Text of Ockham's Razor interview

 

[BobK]

Let us see them get their paper published in a real scientific journal, for a start. The review process doesn't mean that the reviewers agree with what they claim, but it will put their methods open to scrutiny.

They have posted their methodology on their website. To date no one to my knowledge other than Mann and associates(prejudice?) has refuted it, and Mann's simply made assertions and presented little or no facts. Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas also did a study that calls Mann's data analysis into question.

As I have said before, the scientific process is all we have, and it has proven to be amazingly robust. Why does it suddenly fail in the area of GW?

The scientific process still works but GW has been taken over by the political process and many scientists disagree with the political assertions and assumptions.

 

[BobK]

Even though it was a reply to rockoon, I'll chime in here since it seems to be yet another attack on me personally.

I don't recall doing any to anyone who hasn't done them to me first.
You failed to show where I was appealing to authority. You admit no error in your assertion on that point. When called to task by me, you give no reasonable defense. One can only assume that it is the nature of your character to do such things.

The title of the thread says it all, Kyoto debunked, based on the research of two unpublished amateurs.

As pointed out near the top of page two, the title of the referenced article was "Kyoto Debunked"

My thanks to rockoon for defending me.

 

[BobK]

With respect, you don't. The models have been tested against past climatic conditions, including ice-ages, and come up correct.

Mighty big assertion here. Maybe you could provide a link to what was correct?

edit...
add words "to what was correct"

 

[a_unique_person]

I'll handle your quotes of my post in reverse order.

Why you quoted my post in this post of your's is beyond me. You address nothing you've quoted.

Give a little consideration to those of us that have limited bandwidth.



I frankly don't see why anyone would give much credence to your opinion when you exhibit indecision in answering the simple question I asked. Are you even curious?

If you know so little about yourself, how could anyone rely on anything you post?

Hmm. Here's a link for you.
Let's see what Dr. Brian Tucker for 20 years Chief of the CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research has to say about the global warming debate.Text of Ockham's Razor interview

The staff of that division were glad to see the end of that dinosaur. They all agree with the current scientific consensus. The models confirm the current trends and have been shown to be robust and reliable.

 

[a_unique_person]

Mighty big assertion here. Maybe you could provide a link to what was correct?

http://www.dar.csiro.au/information/climatechange.html

complete with FAQ http://www.dar.csiro.au/publications/gh_faq.htm

 

[a_unique_person]

The scientific process still works but GW has been taken over by the political process and many scientists disagree with the political assertions and assumptions.

Some oddball scientists who can't get their claims published, because their methodology won't stand up. Note, that even if the reviewers did not agree with their claims, they could still be published, if the claims were based on sound science. This has not been the case. The article you quote here being a prime example.

Could you provide some evidence to your claim that the GW area has been taken over by the political process? What is it about GW scientists that makes them different to others? Where exactly is the scientific process breaking down in the work they are doing?

 

[BobK]

The staff of that division were glad to see the end of that dinosaur. They all agree with the current scientific consensus. The models confirm the current trends and have been shown to be robust and reliable.

My, my, my.

This time a personal attack on a person evidently eminent in the field.

Followed by your intimate knowledge of the views of others.

Are you a mind reader?

This is becoming rather sad.

 

[BobK]

http://www.dar.csiro.au/information/climatechange.html

complete with FAQ http://www.dar.csiro.au/publications/gh_faq.htm

I see nothing there that says the climate models are correct. If you can't provide a direct quote, with link, I can only assume it's your viewpoint.

The viewpoint of someone that can't even take a position on whether they're curious about the MM vs Mann dispute, doesn't deserve consideration from me.

I did find this in your linked FAQ.

Bold is mine.

Is greenhouse just a theory?
Yes and no! The way in which greenhouse gases affect climate is based on observations and scientific interpretations, as is the evidence that human activities have increased concentrations of greenhouse gases. The way in which these increases will affect our future climate is, and can only be, the result of theoretical calculations. However, there is unequivocal evidence that greenhouse gases are increasing in the atmosphere. Since the industrial revolution the level of carbon dioxide alone has risen from approximately 280 ppm (parts per million) to approximately 360 ppm. This will have an effect on the world's climate. What is not clear is the exact magnitude of that effect.

Not much certitude there.

Where did you get your's?