The Global Warming Myth hopefully near end!

[GreenSpartan]

Originally Posted by Polynikes

One can only hope that the recent "outing" of the global warming fanatics, will lead to an honest and open discussion of the issue.

Which has been going on in the primary lit for the past 40+ years. Pay attention. Don't you also claim the "global cooling in the 70s" idea? Well how did scientific opinion shift? Oh maybe through open honest debate.

Speaking of honest where does oil money go? Not research, just PR. Ever wonder why?

Originally Posted by Polynikes

The global warming high priesthood is either going to have to learn how to persuade others, or they will be just another footnote to history.

Fail pt II. "If the 'rhetoric' [insert scientists here] don't convince me, their data is worthless." Luckily you're not the gateway of science. And please, argue for the priesthood of thousands of scientists from around the globe that share the same impenetrable conspiracy that the most profitable companies in the world can't penetrate. I'm waiting. This should be good. Are there black helicopters?

Yeah they'll be a footnote. Doesn't matter if they're right of not.

Originally Posted by Polynikes

Step two would be to stop pushing for an immediate and overwhelming U.S. GOVERNMENT response.

Those of us who don't rely on our cerebellum for rational thought, realize that the GOVERNMENT is rarely the best cure.

Fail pt 3: The validity of science does not rely on the gov having a cure.

You know, as with any theory from gravitation to evolution, climate change can be disproved. It can't be disproved by "there was no debate", "I'm not convinced", or "the gov can't fix it". You fail.

[lars]

Originally Posted by GreenSpartan

Which has been going on in the primary lit for the past 40+ years. Pay attention. Don't you also claim the "global cooling in the 70s" idea? Well how did scientific opinion shift? Oh maybe through open honest debate.

Speaking of honest where does oil money go? Not research, just PR. Ever wonder why?

Fail pt II. "If the 'rhetoric' [insert scientists here] don't convince me, their data is worthless." Luckily you're not the gateway of science. And please, argue for the priesthood of thousands of scientists from around the globe that share the same impenetrable conspiracy that the most profitable companies in the world can't penetrate. I'm waiting. This should be good. Are there black helicopters?

Yeah they'll be a footnote. Doesn't matter if they're right of not.

Fail pt 3: The validity of science does not rely on the gov having a cure.

You know, as with any theory from gravitation to evolution, climate change can be disproved. It can't be disproved by "there was no debate", "I'm not convinced", or "the gov can't fix it". You fail.

Green finally checks in. You seems rather angry this time. Is this starting to get you?

The proponents of man-made global warming have become so rattled by how the forecasts of their computer models are being contradicted by the data that some are rushing to modify the thesis.

Tracking satellite data for the tropical troposphere, it showed March temperatures plunging to one of their lowest points in 30 years.

On the other hand, a growing number of scientists are producing ever more evidence to show how those computer models are based on wholly inadequate data and assumptions - as is being confirmed by the behaviour of nature itself (not least the continuing non-arrival of sunspot cycle 24).

[GreenSpartan]

Originally Posted by lars

Green finally checks in. You seems rather angry this time. Is this starting to get you?

(BTW, the delay was because I was busy this week) More like sadness that people from my alma matter don't think rationally. You didn't address a single one of my points about Poly's irrelevant post. Your "report" is an opinion piece in a newspaper.

"rattled" in the opinion of a journalist - I show graphs of model predictions matched with data and you show...an opinion piece. Why don't you show the data how the models don't match?

"March temps" - weather is not climate

"growing number of scientists" - the young earth creationists have been making this claim for years. That doesn't give it any validity. If you have the data of those growing numbers you could easily cite the journal articles.

[lars]

Originally Posted by GreenSpartan

(BTW, the delay was because I was busy this week) More like sadness that people from my alma matter don't think rationally. You didn't address a single one of my points about Poly's irrelevant post. Your "report" is an opinion piece in a newspaper.

"rattled" in the opinion of a journalist - I show graphs of model predictions matched with data and you show...an opinion piece. Why don't you show the data how the models don't match?

"March temps" - weather is not climate

"growing number of scientists" - the young earth creationists have been making this claim for years. That doesn't give it any validity. If you have the data of those growing numbers you could easily cite the journal articles.

Kinda like when I have posted scientific data that says exactly that 'data is not matching predictions' You don't address it. There is nothing inaccurate in this article. You're right it isn't scientific..but then again he is just 'reporting' current data from others. That doesn't make it irrelevant just a report on the current science.

[Enrico Palazzo]

90's in Seattle and Portland today, nearly 30 degrees above normal. Using Con logic that means Global Warming is real.

[GreenSpartan]

Originally Posted by lars

Kinda like when I have posted scientific data that says exactly that 'data is not matching predictions' You don't address it. There is nothing inaccurate in this article. You're right it isn't scientific..but then again he is just 'reporting' current data from others. That doesn't make it irrelevant just a report on the current science.

OK, fine lars. I'll debunk your op-ed. As I've said before, it's too bad you never show the same skepticism toward random people that you do the actual scientists.

Point 1.

So a German study, published by Nature last week, claimed that, while the world is definitely warming, it may cool down until 2015

There's debate over whether this one article out weighs numerous studies (yes it is possible, but usually the data show why), and note "until". It still says we're warming the globe and it will continue to warm because of us. Linky. So much for point one of "we don't warm the earth".

Point 2.

A little vignette of the media's one-sided view was given by recent events on Snowdon, the highest mountain in southern Britain.

I won't bother arguing the evidence from one snow cap. If you think you have a point, carry on. You don't. So much for point two.

Point 3.

Two weeks ago, as North America emerged from its coldest and snowiest winter for decades...March temperatures plunging to one of their lowest points in 30 years.

{gasp} You mean there's year to year variations (not sure how precipitation matters anyway)?? Yeah, again, not relevant. In fact we know why the northern hemisphere (hey not global) winter was cold and snowy. ENSO. Yep weather. Strike 3.

Point 4.

Mr McIntyre is the computer expert who exposed the infamous "hockey stick" graph

The hockey stick exists. McIntyre is wrong. Sorry. Strike 4.

Point 5.

What the WWF omitted to mention was that by March the ice had recovered to 14 million sq km (see the website Cryosphere Today), and that ice-cover around the Bering Strait and Alaska that month was at its highest level ever recorded..

So we're now comparing arctic ice trends over years with ice from one region for one year that we already know was colder for weather reasons not climate. Strike 5.

Point 6.

(At the same time Antarctic sea ice-cover was also at its highest-ever level, 30 per cent above normal).

Yeah, well score one for those models that don't work. They predict Antarctica will be colder during this time.

Pointg 7.

The most dramatic evidence, however, emerged last week with an announcement by Nasa's Jet Propulsion Laboratory that an immense slow-cycling movement of water in the Pacific, known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), had unexpectedly shifted into its cool phase, something which only happens every 30 years or so, ultimately affecting climate all over the globe.

See point one. Still don't know what to do with that extra energy re-radiated back to the earth. We've known the oceans were heat sinks for some time.

Point 8.

debate is almost entirely overlooked by the media, and is instead conducted largely on the internet, through expert websites such as those run by Mr McIntyre and Mr Watts.

50 years ago Martin Gardner pointed out cranks operate outside the scientific discussion. Congrats. Welcome to the club that include diviners, mysitics, etc. And see my previous post. The discussion occurred and continues to occur.

Point 9.

On the other hand, a growing number of scientists are producing ever more evidence to show how those computer models are based on wholly inadequate data and assumptions - as is being confirmed by the behaviour of nature itself (not least the continuing non-arrival of sunspot cycle 24).

As I said before, if this is true you should easily show the graphs showing the diverging curves.

Point 10.

The fact is that what has been happening to the world's climate in recent years, since global temperatures ceased to rise after 1998,

As I've pointed out before, this is misleading to the point of inaccuracy. 1998 was an unusually warm year, just like some others in recorded time. We are continuing to warm. Stop confusing weather with climate.

Point 11.

In view of what is now at stake, such quasi-religious incantations masquerading as science are something we can no longer afford. We should get back to proper science before it is too late.

See above.


Now gee lars, why don't I go through every link of you deniers point by point? Maybe because I waste my time rehashing the same BS and it wouldn't sink in. You'll once again claim warming stopped in 98. You'll again claim it's solar cycles. What's the point? As is evidenced from Poly's post, you guys are no longer rational about this.

And for the record I did respond to Spencer's Aqua data. I said he's a legit scientist. Lets see what the other scientists have to say. That's different from your response which was to quote a biologist who works for a conservative think tank.

[lars]

OK, fine lars. I'll debunk your op-ed. As I've said before, it's too bad you never show the same skepticism toward random people that you do the actual scientists.

Point 1.
Quote:

So a German study, published by Nature last week, claimed that, while the world is definitely warming, it may cool down until 2015

There's debate over whether this one article out weighs numerous studies (yes it is possible, but usually the data show why), and note "until". It still says we're warming the globe and it will continue to warm because of us. Linky. So much for point one of "we don't warm the earth".

Ok..lets debunk..your debunking.

Translation. The jury is still out. The data is conflicting. So much for the consensus. BTW..I have not been the camp that human have ZERO impact..just not as much as the model show. This has been shown through the data..ie..you need to reread Spencer, NASA and water vapor.

Because the models are not showing what they where supposed to predict. Hence, if the data continues as is warming is likely to be mild and capped. Because C02 only has limited warming power ..the rest is dependant on water vapor feedback ..which is NOT happening. Whiff 1

Point 2.
Quote:

A little vignette of the media's one-sided view was given by recent events on Snowdon, the highest mountain in southern Britain.

I won't bother arguing the evidence from one snow cap. If you think you have a point, carry on. You don't. So much for point two.

Not basing my arguement on snow cap. Merely pointing out what he said is true. . Stike 2

Point 3.
Quote:

Two weeks ago, as North America emerged from its coldest and snowiest winter for decades...March temperatures plunging to one of their lowest points in 30 years.

{gasp} You mean there's year to year variations (not sure how precipitation matters anyway)?? Yeah, again, not relevant. In fact we know why the northern hemisphere (hey not global) winter was cold and snowy. ENSO. Yep weather. Strike 3.

Again, Not basing my conclusions on this..But the author does have the FACTS correct. Whiffed again.

Point 4.
Quote:

Mr McIntyre is the computer expert who exposed the infamous "hockey stick" graph

The hockey stick exists. McIntyre is wrong. Sorry. Strike 4.

The hockey stick was flawed. Proved out..author is getting the fact correct ...again you whiff.

Point 5.
Quote:

What the WWF omitted to mention was that by March the ice had recovered to 14 million sq km (see the website Cryosphere Today), and that ice-cover around the Bering Strait and Alaska that month was at its highest level ever recorded..

So we're now comparing arctic ice trends over years with ice from one region for one year that we already know was colder for weather reasons not climate. Strike 5.

Key data was left out to give the impression that ice pack was less than it was. In fact the ice recovered beyond what was orginally there. Author points out misleading info. Correct. Strike

Point 6.
Quote:

(At the same time Antarctic sea ice-cover was also at its highest-ever level, 30 per cent above normal).

Yeah, well score one for those models that don't work. They predict Antarctica will be colder during this time.

The model have gotten many things wrong. The biggest to data is the non-existance of a positive water vapor feedback loop. Without warming is mild at a worst going forward and barely noticible at best.

Pointg 7.
Quote:

The most dramatic evidence, however, emerged last week with an announcement by Nasa's Jet Propulsion Laboratory that an immense slow-cycling movement of water in the Pacific, known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), had unexpectedly shifted into its cool phase, something which only happens every 30 years or so, ultimately affecting climate all over the globe.

See point one. Still don't know what to do with that extra energy re-radiated back to the earth. We've known the oceans were heat sinks for some time.

The author points out accurate data..what you know.. he got right again and you got wrong.

Point 8.
Quote:

debate is almost entirely overlooked by the media, and is instead conducted largely on the internet, through expert websites such as those run by Mr McIntyre and Mr Watts.

50 years ago Martin Gardner pointed out cranks operate outside the scientific discussion. Congrats. Welcome to the club that include diviners, mysitics, etc. And see my previous post. The discussion occurred and continues to occur.
I would say that much of the debate is happening on the net. Which is not a good thing but true. However, some of the media is waking up. As evidenced by this aritcle.

Point 9.
Quote:

On the other hand, a growing number of scientists are producing ever more evidence to show how those computer models are based on wholly inadequate data and assumptions - as is being confirmed by the behaviour of nature itself (not least the continuing non-arrival of sunspot cycle 24).

As I said before, if this is true you should easily show the graphs showing the diverging curves.
Sorry no graphs to make it simple for you. Just that more and more is coming out in the form of reports, studies and articles. That is true.

Point 10.
Quote:

The fact is that what has been happening to the world's climate in recent years, since global temperatures ceased to rise after 1998,

As I've pointed out before, this is misleading to the point of inaccuracy. 1998 was an unusually warm year, just like some others in recorded time. We are continuing to warm. Stop confusing weather with climate.

Well, here you could have a point. But the data does seem to be flat in tempature. The jury is still out on this one. The author may or may not have it correct.
Point 11.
Quote:

In view of what is now at stake, such quasi-religious incantations masquerading as science are something we can no longer afford. We should get back to proper science before it is too late.

See above.

True..we need less bias


Now gee lars, why don't I go through every link of you deniers point by point? Maybe because I waste my time rehashing the same BS and it wouldn't sink in. You'll once again claim warming stopped in 98. You'll again claim it's solar cycles. What's the point? As is evidenced from Poly's post, you guys are no longer rational about this.

And for the record I did respond to Spencer's Aqua data. I said he's a legit scientist. Lets see what the other scientists have to say. That's different from your response which was to quote a biologist who works for a conservative think tank.


Once again you bias comes through. But that is expected. The data is conflicting at best and the models are clearly not up to par. Significant research is still being done. The key to the whole warming thing is water vapor and possibily natural varitation and solar output. Those are all factors not accounted for as of yet.

[GreenSpartan]

Originally Posted by lars

Point 2.
Quote:

I won't bother arguing the evidence from one snow cap. If you think you have a point, carry on. You don't. So much for point two.

Not basing my arguement on snow cap. Merely pointing out what he said is true. . Stike 2

Point 3.
Quote:

{gasp} You mean there's year to year variations (not sure how precipitation matters anyway)?? Yeah, again, not relevant. In fact we know why the northern hemisphere (hey not global) winter was cold and snowy. ENSO. Yep weather. Strike 3.

Again, Not basing my conclusions on this..But the author does have the FACTS correct. Whiffed again.

"Not basing your conclusions"? Why mention this "facts" if they don't matter? Hey it rained yesterday in Seattle, that's a fact, climate change is wrong. Face it lars. These facts are presented in an op-ed to be misleading. They're true, but irrelevant to the point at hand.

Originally Posted by lars

Point 4.
Quote:

The hockey stick exists. McIntyre is wrong. Sorry. Strike 4.

The hockey stick was flawed. Proved out..author is getting the fact correct ...again you whiff.

At best you can dismiss Mann's work (although most scientists think Mann was right). You're wrong. The hockey stick exists.

Numerous myths regarding the so-called "hockey stick" reconstruction of past temperatures, can be found on various non-peer reviewed websites, internet newsgroups and other non-scientific venues. The most widespread of these myths are debunked below:

MYTH #0: Evidence for modern human influence on climate rests entirely upon the "Hockey Stick" Reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere mean temperatures indicating anomalous late 20th century warmth.

This peculiar suggestion is sometimes found in op-ed pieces and other dubious propaganda, despite its transparant absurdity. Paleoclimate evidence is simply one in a number of independent lines of evidence indicating the strong likelihood that human influences on climate play a dominant role in the observed 20th century warming of the earth's surface. Perhaps the strongest piece of evidence in support of this conclusion is the evidence from so-called "Detection and Attribution Studies". Such studies demonstrate that the pattern of 20th century climate change closely matches that predicted by state-of-the-art models of the climate system in response to 20th century anthropogenic forcing (due to the combined influence of anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations and industrial aerosol increases).
MYTH #1: The "Hockey Stick" Reconstruction is based solely on two publications by climate scientist Michael Mann and colleagues (Mann et al, 1998;1999).

This is patently false. Nearly a dozen model-based and proxy-based reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere mean temperature by different groups all suggest that late 20th century warmth is anomalous in a long-term (multi-century to millennial) context (see Figures 1 and 2 in "Temperature Variations in Past Centuries and The So-Called 'Hockey Stick'").
Some proxy-based reconstructions suggest greater variability than others. This greater variability may be attributable to different emphases in seasonal and spatial emphasis (see Jones and Mann, 2004; Rutherford et al, 2004; Cook et al, 2004). However, even for those reconstructions which suggest a colder "Little Ice Age" and greater variability in general in past centuries, such as that of Esper et al (2002), late 20th century hemispheric warmth is still found to be anomalous in the context of the reconstruction (see Cook et al, 2004).
...
MYTH #4: Errors in the "Hockey Stick" undermine the conclusion that late 20th century hemispheric warmth is anomalous.

This statement embraces at least two distinct falsehoods. The first falsehood holds that the "Hockey Stick" is the result of one analysis or the analysis of one group of researchers (i.e., that of Mann et al, 1998 and Mann et al, 1999). However, as discussed in the response to Myth #1 above, the basic conclusions of Mann et al (1998,1999) are affirmed in multiple independent studies. Thus, even if there were errors in the Mann et al (1998) reconstruction, numerous other studies independently support the conclusion of anomalous late 20th century hemispheric-scale warmth.
The second falsehood holds that there are errors in the Mann et al (1998, 1999) analyses, and that these putative errors compromise the "hockey stick" shape of hemispheric surface temperature reconstructions. Such claims seem to be based in part on the misunderstanding or misrepresentation by some individuals of a corrigendum that was published by Mann and colleagues in Nature. This corrigendum simply corrected the descriptions of supplementary information that accompanied the Mann et al article detailing precisely what data were used. As clearly stated in the corrigendum, these corrections have no influence at all on the actual analysis or any of the results shown in Mann et al (1998). Claims that the corrigendum reflects any errors at all in the Mann et al (1998) reconstruction are entirely false.
False claims of the existence of errors in the Mann et al (1998) reconstruction can also be traced to spurious allegations made by two individuals, McIntyre and McKitrick (McIntyre works in the mining industry, while McKitrick is an economist). The false claims were first made in an article (McIntyre and McKitrick, 2003) published in a non-scientific (social science) journal "Energy and Environment" and later, in a separate "Communications Arising" comment that was rejected by Nature based on negative appraisals by reviewers and editor [as a side note, we find it peculiar that the authors have argued elsewhere that their submission was rejected due to 'lack of space'. Nature makes their policy on such submissions quite clear: "The Brief Communications editor will decide how to proceed on the basis of whether the central conclusion of the earlier paper is brought into question; of the length of time since the original publication; and of whether a comment or exchange of views is likely to seem of interest to nonspecialist readers. Because Nature receives so many comments, those that do not meet these criteria are referred to the specialist literature." Since Nature chose to send the comment out for review in the first place, the "time since the original publication" was clearly not deemed a problematic factor. One is logically left to conclude that the grounds for rejection were the deficiencies in the authors' arguments explicitly noted by the reviewers]. The rejected criticism has nonetheless been posted on the internet by the authors, and promoted in certain other non-peer-reviewed venues (see this nice discussion by science journalist David Appell of a scurrilous parroting of their claims by Richard Muller in an on-line opinion piece).
The claims of McIntyre and McKitrick, which hold that the "Hockey-Stick" shape of the MBH98 reconstruction is an artifact of the use of series with infilled data and the convention by which certain networks of proxy data were represented in a Principal Components Analysis ("PCA"), are readily seen to be false , as detailed in a response by Mann and colleagues to their rejected Nature criticism demonstrating that (1) the Mann et al (1998) reconstruction is robust with respect to the elimination of any data that were infilled in the original analysis, (2) the main features of the Mann et al (1998) reconstruction are entirely insensitive to whether or not proxy data networks are represented by PCA, (3) the putative ‘correction’ by McIntyre and McKitrick, which argues for anomalous 15th century warmth (in contradiction to all other known reconstructions), is an artifact of the censoring by the authors of key proxy data in the original Mann et al (1998) dataset, and finally, (4) Unlike the original Mann et al (1998) reconstruction, the so-called ‘correction’ by McIntyre and McKitrick fails statistical verification exercises, rendering it statistically meaningless and unworthy of discussion in the legitimate scientific literature.
The claims of McIntyre and McKitrick have now been further discredited in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, in a paper to appear in the American Meteorological Society journal, "Journal of Climate" by Rutherford and colleagues (2004) [and by yet another paper by an independent set of authors that is currently "under review" and thus cannot yet be cited–more on this soon!]. Rutherford et al (2004) demonstrate nearly identical results to those of MBH98, using the same proxy dataset as Mann et al (1998) but addressing the issues of infilled/missing data raised by Mcintyre and McKitrick, and using an alternative climate field reconstruction (CFR) methodology that does not represent any proxy data networks by PCA at all.
References:
Cook, E.R., J. Esper, and R.D. D'Arrigo, Extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere land temperature variability over the past 1000 years, Quat. Sci. Rev., 23, 2063-2074, 2004.
Crowley, T.J., and T. Lowery, How Warm Was the Medieval Warm Period?, Ambio, 29, 51-54, 2000.
Esper, J., E.R. Cook and F.H. Schweingruber, Low-frequency signals in long tree-line chronologies for reconstructing past temperature variability, Science, 295, 2250-2253, 2002.
Jones, P.D., K.R. Briffa, T.P. Barnett and S.F.B. Tett, High-resolution palaeoclimatic records for the last millennium: Integration, interpretation and comparison with General Circulation Model control run temperatures, Holocene, 8, 455-471, 1998.
Jones, P.D., Mann, M.E., Climate Over Past Millennia, Reviews of Geophysics, 42, RG2002, doi: 10.1029/2003RG000143, 2004.
Mann, M.E., R.S. Bradley, and M.K. Hughes, Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries, Nature, 392, 779-787, 1998.
Mann, M.E., R.S. Bradley, and M.K. Hughes, Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations, Geophysical Research Letters, 26, 759-762,
1999.
Mann, M.E., Ammann, C.M., Bradley, R.S., Briffa, K.R., Crowley, T.J., Hughes, M.K., Jones, P.D., Oppenheimer, M., Osborn, T.J., Overpeck, J.T., Rutherford, S., Trenberth, K.E., Wigley, T.M.L., On Past Temperatures and Anomalous Late 20th Century Warmth, Eos, 84, 256-258, 2003.
Rutherford, S., Mann, M.E., Osborn, T.J., Bradley, R.S., Briffa, K.R., Hughes, M.K., Jones, P.D., Proxy-based Northern Hemisphere Surface Temperature Reconstructions: Sensitivity to Methodology, Predictor Network, Target Season and Target Domain, Journal of Climate, in press, 2004.
Soon, W., and S. Baliunas, Proxy climatic and environmental changes over the past 1000 years, Climate Research, 23, 89-110, 2003.
Soon, W., S. Baliunas, C, Idso, S. Idso and D.R. Legates, Reconstructing climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 years, Energy and Environment, 14, 233-296

(from realclimate)


If you're right you should be able to produce "corrected" reconstruction graphs that show no temp increase.

I'll hang up and listen.

Originally Posted by lars

Point 5.
Quote:

So we're now comparing arctic ice trends over years with ice from one region for one year that we already know was colder for weather reasons not climate. Strike 5.

Key data was left out to give the impression that ice pack was less than it was. In fact the ice recovered beyond what was orginally there. Author points out misleading info. Correct. Strike

Wow. Do you really not see the difference here?

Originally Posted by lars

Point 6.
Quote:

Yeah, well score one for those models that don't work. They predict Antarctica will be colder during this time.

The model have gotten many things wrong. The biggest to data is the non-existance of a positive water vapor feedback loop. Without warming is mild at a worst going forward and barely noticible at best.

lars, this is an example of where the models are getting it right. Your op-ed portrays it as a mystery. It's not. And your response when confronted with yet more evidence the models work? "uh, the models are wrong....Spencer's new data"

Have you read Spencer's papers?

Originally Posted by lars

Pointg 7.
Quote:

See point one. Still don't know what to do with that extra energy re-radiated back to the earth. We've known the oceans were heat sinks for some time.

The author points out accurate data..what you know.. he got right again and you got wrong.

You missed my point entirely.

So the currents in the Pacific shift and the ocean in that area cools. Where did that heat energy go? Hint: the currents moved it someplace else. The earth is still warming.

Originally Posted by lars

Point 8.
Quote:

50 years ago Martin Gardner pointed out cranks operate outside the scientific discussion. Congrats. Welcome to the club that include diviners, mysitics, etc. And see my previous post. The discussion occurred and continues to occur.
I would say that much of the debate is happening on the net. Which is not a good thing but true. However, some of the media is waking up. As evidenced by this aritcle.

The debate happens in the journals, at conferences, and in the hallways of research centers. Scientific debate does not happen in the popular press as evidenced by the stupid mistakes this op-ed makes with things as simple as explainable regional weather compared to global climate.

Originally Posted by lars

Point 9.
Quote:

As I said before, if this is true you should easily show the graphs showing the diverging curves.
Sorry no graphs to make it simple for you. Just that more and more is coming out in the form of reports, studies and articles. That is true.

Don't you claim advanced degrees in science? And you dismiss graphs as "make it simple"? OK, you don't have graphs, cite some journals (yes, I know there's the Spencer data, you're claiming "more and more").

Originally Posted by lars

Once again you bias comes through. But that is expected.

When the data aren't on your side claim "bias".

[lars]

Originally Posted by GreenSpartan

"Not basing your conclusions"? Why mention this "facts" if they don't matter? Hey it rained yesterday in Seattle, that's a fact, climate change is wrong. Face it lars. These facts are presented in an op-ed to be misleading. They're true, but irrelevant to the point at hand.
At best you can dismiss Mann's work (although most scientists think Mann was right). You're wrong. The hockey stick exists.

(from realclimate)


If you're right you should be able to produce "corrected" reconstruction graphs that show no temp increase.

I'll hang up and listen.

Wow. Do you really not see the difference here?
lars, this is an example of where the models are getting it right. Your op-ed portrays it as a mystery. It's not. And your response when confronted with yet more evidence the models work? "uh, the models are wrong....Spencer's new data"

Have you read Spencer's papers?
You missed my point entirely.

So the currents in the Pacific shift and the ocean in that area cools. Where did that heat energy go? Hint: the currents moved it someplace else. The earth is still warming.
The debate happens in the journals, at conferences, and in the hallways of research centers. Scientific debate does not happen in the popular press as evidenced by the stupid mistakes this op-ed makes with things as simple as explainable regional weather compared to global climate.
Don't you claim advanced degrees in science? And you dismiss graphs as "make it simple"? OK, you don't have graphs, cite some journals (yes, I know there's the Spencer data, you're claiming "more and more").

When the data aren't on your side claim "bias".

Green you can debate what conclusions you want to draw from the article. I am not saying this is a scientific piece. Only pointing out that he is presenting facts. Which opinions are based. His opinion of the same facts differs from yours. Which is why the debate is still going on in different circles including the scientific community, the media and yes even on the net.

[GreenSpartan]

Originally Posted by lars

Green you can debate what conclusions you want to draw from the article. I am not saying this is a scientific piece. Only pointing out that he is presenting facts. Which opinions are based. His opinion of the same facts differs from yours. Which is why the debate is still going on in different circles including the scientific community, the media and yes even on the net.

Do you think it is possible to present facts that are irrelevant?

[lars]

Originally Posted by GreenSpartan

Do you think it is possible to present facts that are irrelevant?

Yes some of the facts on both sides of the debate are irrelevant. And some will say something relevant is irrelevant because they 'think' they understand the cause. But there really no proof that their understanding is the correct one. And, scientists have produced plenty of uncertainies that make argument that the 'debate is over' a completely foolish statement.

Bottomline is that we are far from having certainities in what is happening in the climate.