[commanderkai]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

The entire strategy of the AGW so-called "skeptics" is that people won't bother to figure out the facts for themselves, and that they'll listen instead to loud mouth demagogues. So far it's working.

Wait what? So Al Gore's movie, and basically being preached by every left wing politician, environmental group, and celebrity about our lifestyles and the environment aren't acting the same way you are accusing skeptics of?

There's a credibility gap within the scientific community, brought forth by Climategate. Even if you tell people to look at the evidence, the evidence has already been skewed towards the personal opinions and beliefs of one side, and thus the "evidence" is nothing more than big, scary numbers to intimidate people into believing there's a problem.

sandorski sandorski:

Agreed. This isn't a Popularity contest, as much as Deniers want to make it out to be.

Um, actually the proponents of global warming started the popularity contest when they kept saying there was a consensus. Remember that word? All of the important scientists agrees, and you're dumber than them, so you better believe everything they say. That didn't last forever, and now you guys are complaining that it's now a popularity contest. It always has been one, and now you just don't like losing.

[PluggyRug]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

[
How would that change the radiative properties of a carbon dioxide molecule?

It wouldn't. Neither would it change the ability of a CO2 molecule to radiate up as well as down. Neither would it change the fact that upper atmosphere CO2 is colder than lower atmosphere CO2 and cannot break the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Water vapour has more effect than CO2 ever will.

But...it may shed some light on the politics of AGW and the glaring failure of Copenhagen to address real forms of pollution.

[Proculation]

Talking of Hugo Chavez: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/penny-wong-jeered-hugo-chavez-cheered/story-e6frgczf-1225811179614

$1:

Then President Chavez brought the house down.

When he said the process in Copenhagen was “not democratic, it is not inclusive, but isn’t that the reality of our world, the world is really and imperial dictatorship…down with imperial dictatorships” he got a rousing round of applause.

When he said there was a “silent and terrible ghost in the room” and that ghost was called capitalism, the applause was deafening.

But then he wound up to his grand conclusion – 20 minutes after his 5 minute speaking time was supposed to have ended and after quoting everyone from Karl Marx to Jesus Christ - “our revolution seeks to help all people…socialism, the other ghost that is probably wandering around this room, that’s the way to save the planet, capitalism is the road to hell....let’s fight against capitalism and make it obey us.” He won a standing ovation.

Another proof for me that those environmentalists are just neo-marxists using the environment to promote their socialist ideal and bring down capitalism. Harper said it: Kyoto was a big socialist scheme and Copenhagen is also one. They applaude someone using the same and polluting oil sands than us, much less efficiently. But it's OK: he promotes socialism and want the death of capitalism worldwide. He's in !

[Zipperfish]

commanderkai commanderkai:

Wait what? So Al Gore's movie, and basically being preached by every left wing politician, environmental group, and celebrity about our lifestyles and the environment aren't acting the same way you are accusing skeptics of?

Certainly there's ideological drivel on both sides. But I said "entire" strategy. It's almost always the skeptics that want to debate the issue using loud mouths that specialize in turning pencil-necked geeks into hamburger. It's primarily the AGW proponents that say why not look into the science.

The hilarious part is that even most of the skeptic scientists trotted out by the loud-mouth right are actually AGW proponents to one degree or another. Again, the demagogues are so convinced of the scientific illiteracy of their audience, that they know they won't actually examine what Richard Lindzen or Roger Pelke have to say.

And as for "being preached" by every "left-wing" politician--perhaps you weren't aware that even that demigod of the right George Bush was eventually forced to realize the evidence in global warming. Even those pinkos down at the Pentagon were so convinced that they have spent millions analyzing the global geopolitics of global warming. It's not just left-wing politicians, it's virtually every politician.

So what about Stephen Harper, probably among the farthest right of all world leaders right now. Surely he must be out there preaching the gospel of Limbaugh and Beck, right? Well, it turns out no. Apparently, given the official policy of Canada on global warming, he's drunk the Kool-Aid too. Either that or he doesn't have the guts to say what he really thinks about it. Choose your poison.

$1:

There's a credibility gap within the scientific community, brought forth by Climategate. Even if you tell people to look at the evidence, the evidence has already been skewed towards the personal opinions and beliefs of one side, and thus the "evidence" is nothing more than big, scary numbers to intimidate people into believing there's a problem.

I condemn what these scientists did without equivocation, and I fully support releasing all data immediately--but let's be clear, there is nothing in those emails that is any worse than what AGW skeptics have been up to for years, as far as trying to "spin" a message. And the full repository of climate science did not rest with a handful of scientists in England.

As for the "big scary numbers" --well science does occasionally involve numbers. And again, the demagogues on the right rely on the fact their audience think numbers are "scary." They want their audience to believe that anyone using numbers is an elitist trying to pull a fast one over on them. I guess they figure if they get enough people to simply believe that AGW isn't real, then it won't happen. I call it the "Inverse Tinkerbell" approach. It's intellectual relativism. Where no objective truth exists, and every opinion is just as valid as any other.

But I'm interested in where it falls apart for you. Do you believe there is such a thing as the greenhouse effect? Do you believe that CO2 has been increasing over the last century or so? Do you believe that humankind has emitted about 150 pg carbon into the atmosphere? Do you believe that global temperatures rose about 0.8 deg over the last century? I mean, where do the wheels fall off for you?

[Proculation]

$1:

But I'm interested in where it falls apart for you. Do you believe there is such a thing as the greenhouse effect? Do you believe that CO2 has been increasing over the last century or so? Do you believe that humankind has emitted about 150 pg carbon into the atmosphere? Do you believe that global temperatures rose about 0.8 deg over the last century? I mean, where do the wheels fall off for you?

Well, i'm in what you call the "deniers" category and I say yes to all those questions. What I don't fall into is the big catastrophic propaganda we hear from the elites. I think this is just another way to promote a well defined agenda. A way to divert from the real problems.

[Zipperfish]

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

[
How would that change the radiative properties of a carbon dioxide molecule?

It wouldn't. Neither would it change the ability of a CO2 molecule to radiate up as well as down. Neither would it change the fact that upper atmosphere CO2 is colder than lower atmosphere CO2 and cannot break the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Water vapour has more effect than CO2 ever will.

But...it may shed some light on the politics of AGW and the glaring failure of Copenhagen to address real forms of pollution.

Yes a CO2 molecule will radiation in a random direction, but seeing as virtually all of the infrared radiation is reflected from the earth (and therefore headed up) and since half of that, once absorbed and re-radiated as infrared by a CO2 molecule, you get a net increase of heat radiated back to the earth when you increase the concentration of CO2.

And there is no violation of the 2nd Law unless you assume that the earth is a thermodynamically closed system. In fact, since the Earth receives energy from the sun, it is not a closed system, and therefore there is no violation.

Indeed, in that paper you previously published, they made the rather outrageous supposition that heat energy radiating from a cold body to a hot body was a violation of the 2nd Law. This is silly. In fact, all materials that are not at absolute zero radiate infrared energy--so both a warm and coo, body will irradiate each other. The second law says that in a closed system, the NET energy flow will be from the hot to the cold; it doesn't say there will be NO energy flow from the cold to the hot.

[Proculation]

Just looking at the Climategate, we have a real proof that they played with the numbers to make it look worse. The big scandal is not in the emails but in the mathematic model also leaked and the code. They used some codes to make it worse. The famous "hockey stick" model is false and was made to promote the idea of a clear correlation between the augmentation of CO2 in the last century and the "higher" temperature. If you take the non-altered data, no such catastrophic correlation exists. But, they need to recreate all the model without the CRU data since they do not want to disclose them or they just "lost" them...

[Zipperfish]

Proculation Proculation:

Well, i'm in what you call the "deniers" category and I say yes to all those questions. What I don't fall into is the big catastrophic propaganda we hear from the elites. I think this is just another way to promote a well defined agenda. A way to divert from the real problems.

I happen to agree with you. To paraphrase Bjorn Lomberg: Global warming is a problem, not a crisis. However, I don't understand why people who are opposed to the various policy instruments proposed to deal with global warming decide to focus their efforts on attacking the science, instead of the policy.

To me, the viciousness with which the political right has gone after the scientists speaks to a deeper pathology. And I don't think it's coincidence that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is more controversial now than it was when it came out.

[Proculation]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Proculation Proculation:

Well, i'm in what you call the "deniers" category and I say yes to all those questions. What I don't fall into is the big catastrophic propaganda we hear from the elites. I think this is just another way to promote a well defined agenda. A way to divert from the real problems.

I happen to agree with you. To paraphrase Bjorn Lomberg: Global warming is a problem, not a crisis. However, I don't understand why people who are opposed to the various policy instruments proposed to deal with global warming decide to focus their efforts on attacking the science, instead of the policy.

To me, the viciousness with which the political right has gone after the scientists speaks to a deeper pathology. And I don't think it's coincidence that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is more controversial now than it was when it came out.

I am all for a more "environmental" way of living. But there are so many manipulations and propaganda to promote ONE idea (AGW) that we don't believe them anymore. Plus, they manipulated the datas AND the science behind. Yes, CO2 is a GHG. But no, I don't think it's the worse thing we are facing and no I don't believe the oceans will get higher tomorrow by 10 meters. If they had come with a real case, we would not discuss it. I don't think anybody said that CFCs and sulfur didn't needed to be reduced in the 90s. It was well documented that the CFCs the human released were attacking the ozone. Also true for the acid rain and sulfur.

[Zipperfish]

Proculation Proculation:

Just looking at the Climategate, we have a real proof that they played with the numbers to make it look worse. The big scandal is not in the emails but in the mathematic model also leaked and the code. They used some codes to make it worse.

Evidence please?

$1:

The famous "hockey stick" model is false and was made to promote the idea of a clear correlation between the augmentation of CO2 in the last century and the "higher" temperature. If you take the non-altered data, no such catastrophic correlation exists. But, they need to recreate all the model without the CRU data since they do not want to disclose them or they just "lost" them...

No--not even close, sorry.

[Proculation]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Proculation Proculation:

Just looking at the Climategate, we have a real proof that they played with the numbers to make it look worse. The big scandal is not in the emails but in the mathematic model also leaked and the code. They used some codes to make it worse.

Evidence please?

What ? You didn't hear about the code that was leaked with the emails ? I know the media tried to hide it by saying that "only a few emails" were controversial but I would have think that you knew about the code, at least.

Just google it, it's everywhere. You can even look at the code. It was the program used to create the "hockey stick" model. You can clearly see that they manipulated the data to make it worse than it was because the data were not controversial enough and did not made the correlation they were looking for. So what they did is bend the results to make it look like their hypothesis. Talk about science..

[Thanos]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I happen to agree with you. To paraphrase Bjorn Lomberg: Global warming is a problem, not a crisis. However, I don't understand why people who are opposed to the various policy instruments proposed to deal with global warming decide to focus their efforts on attacking the science, instead of the policy.

Because the scientists haven't done much to convince anyone that they're not deliberately fomenting hysteria. The science has been politicized as horribly much as the "denial" aspect has been. How can the science be trusted unequivocaly by the average person when the scientists seem to be barely concerned, if not openly contemptuous, towards those worried about job losses, higher taxation, detrimental effects on economic growth and prosperity, and the empowering of UN-controlled transnational apparatuses that will be able to trump the sovereign rights of individual nations? The skeptic side is only going to grow stronger unless the pro-AGW side begins to treat such "mundane" concerns of the common person as important and deserving of some respect.

$1:

To me, the viciousness with which the political right has gone after the scientists speaks to a deeper pathology. And I don't think it's coincidence that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is more controversial now than it was when it came out.

No dispute with you here. Having the Creationists and creatures like Sarah Palin speak out on behalf of the skeptic side is about as useful as having Al Gore and Leo DiCaprio being the frontmen for the pro-AGW side when they go around constantly screaming out "we're all gonna DIE!". Maybe if we all ditched the celebrities and radicals from both camps we could meet in the middle somewhere and actually get something realistic done for a change.

[Zipperfish]

Proculation Proculation:

What ? You didn't hear about the code that was leaked with the emails ? I know the media tried to hide it by saying that "only a few emails" were controversial but I would have think that you knew about the code, at least.

Just google it, it's everywhere. You can even look at the code. It was the program used to create the "hockey stick" model. You can clearly see that they manipulated the data to make it worse than it was because the data were not controversial enough and did not made the correlation they were looking for. So what they did is bend the results to make it look like their hypothesis. Talk about science..

OK, I guess you're talking about this:

$1:

;
; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75   ; fudge factor
if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!'

yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)

It's 8 lines of code. It's presented without context (why don't these websites that critique this provide the full source code?) And I'm sorry, you don't put in words like "fudgefactor" and "apply a VERY ARTIFICIAL correction" when you're trying to cover your tracks. And there does not appear to be any use of principal component analysis, which was the big controversy with the Mann hockey stick--so I don't think there's any evidence at all to your statement that this code snippet was what created the Mann hockey stick.

It sounds to me like Ian Harris, the writer of this code was trying to reconcile tree ring data with temperatures by deliberately applying artificial modifiers. He was playing with the data, maybe to find some kind of mathematical consistency as to why the proxies and the measured temperature didn't add up.

I think it's more likely that this code snippet (dated 1998, named osborn-tree6/briffa_sep98_d.pro or osborn-tree6/briffa_sep98_e.pro, signed by Ian Harris) was a precursor to this paper:

Trees tell of past climates: but are they speaking less clearly today? Briffa, Harris et al., Phil.Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B (1998) 353, 65^73

as opposed to the 2001 Mann hockey stick. Further the above paper was specifically about how tree ring proxies and temperature data did not align over the last 50 years or so.

Here is a graph from that paper.



Doesn't look to me like they're trying to make a hockey stick.

And so, in the immortal words of sandorski...

[Zipperfish]

Thanos Thanos:

Because the scientists haven't done much to convince anyone that they're not deliberately fomenting hysteria. The science has been politicized as horribly much as the "denial" aspect has been. How can the science be trusted unequivocaly by the average person when the scientists seem to be barely concerned, if not openly contemptuous, towards those worried about job losses, higher taxation, detrimental effects on economic growth and prosperity, and the empowering of UN-controlled transnational apparatuses that will be able to trump the sovereign rights of individual nations? The skeptic side is only going to grow stronger unless the pro-AGW side begins to treat such "mundane" concerns of the common person as important and deserving of some respect.

I've got to concede that point. The AGW scientists at the forefront of the media spotlight--the guys doing all the interviews, seemed to have forgotten where research ends and advocacy begins. When you say "sea levels will rise by ten meters according to GCMs" that's research. When you follow it with "...so we should definitely do something about that"--that's advocacy. And therein lies the path to destruction. Then they become positional. Then they spend more time trying to poke holes in their "opponents" theories when the best scientists save their harshest critiques for their own work.

[sandorski]

commanderkai commanderkai:

sandorski sandorski:

Agreed. This isn't a Popularity contest, as much as Deniers want to make it out to be.

Um, actually the proponents of global warming started the popularity contest when they kept saying there was a consensus. Remember that word? All of the important scientists agrees, and you're dumber than them, so you better believe everything they say. That didn't last forever, and now you guys are complaining that it's now a popularity contest. It always has been one, and now you just don't like losing.

Complete Fail. Consensus is not a Popularity Contest.