Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Global Warming

Rate this topic


Guest Guest_guest_

Recommended Posts

Have you read Atlas Shrugged? I'm only halfway through, but everytime someone says "at least nobody will be able to blame me" the main character gets pissed off. I want to take action because I can alter my lifestyle without much difficulty, and if the observed trend continues, it will impact my and future generations' livelihoods.

Why blame anyone for something that may not exist at all, or have a natural cause? If, as you say, you can alter your lifestyle "without much difficulty," then feel free to do so. Why force me to comply?

If a car crashes into yours, do you refuse to any medical attention if you are not to blame for the accident?

I dont think that is a proper analogy. A better one would be:

You believe it is possible, maybe even probable, that at some future point, a car will crash into mine. Therefore, you want to impose restrictions on the use of all vehicles. Develope new and safer means of transportation. Ban all large vehicles from the roadways. Make all cars so much lighter and slower that should an accident occur, no one will be hurt. All of this is to be mandated by the state and enforced without consideration for the harm it will do to the lives and the liberties of the individuals involved. If you are really concerned about the well-being of future generations, you might want to concern yourself a little more with the freedoms you would like them to have.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 766
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Meh. I'm still hoping I can get you to do two things: 1. consider how ridiculous the proposition that "20% of all greenhouse emissions on Earth come from cows belching and farting" is. 2. As

Any appeal to peer-reviewed climate science papers is now immediately suspect. We all know the closed circle of AGW advocates was approving each other's papers and black-balling dissent. Here

Kabana, Firstly, you did not address my point, which was: you think scientists are easily fooled, but you think they ought to decide what our laws should be. More importantly, as pointed out

Posted Images

Let's say every expert was in agreement that global warming is caused by man and it is going to get worse unless everyone does something about it. Let's say the evidence, analysis, and conclusions were all incontrovertible.

OK, suppose, just suppose, it to be incontrovertibly proven that Al Gore is right. The average global temperature is going to increase by--let me be very generous--5°F. So it's going to be 5 degrees warmer on an average day. Why exactly should I give a damn?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, but what is your evidence that they are systematically omitting data, besides the fact that it is a possibility

The established fact that a disproportionately huge percentage of scientific funding comes from the government - and that AGW is the government's agenda. The testimony of AGW skeptics who have seen their grants dissapear. The testimony of AGW skeptics who have been "thought policed" or ridiculed by their peers and in some cases physically assaulted by environmentalists.

All of that is in the media, if you look. It just doesn't get the big headlines. For pretty much the same reason. "Disaster looms" sells a lot more newspapers than "no cataclysm expected at the moment".

I didn't say "I", I said "we".

You don't get to determine what "we" do. Only what you do.

You trust your physician

I trust my phisician. I don't have faith in him. In other words, my trust comes from the fact that I do understand enough about medicine to make my choices. If a doctor tells me "you need to do X, there is no way I can explain why - just do it" I will immediately seek another.

Clearly knowledge is obtained from YouTube, Wikipedia, and websites with agendas.

AGW is the agenda.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Let's say every expert was in agreement that global warming is caused by man and it is going to get worse unless everyone does something about it. Let's say the evidence, analysis, and conclusions were all incontrovertible. How would a free market system bring about increased fuel efficiency in cars, homes, etc? I want to believe in the abilities of the free market, but I am an extreme cynic when it comes to the mob.

The market responds when the costs imposed to individuals by global warming outweight the benefits of the behaviors that need to be modified. Let's take your assumption which is ludicrous based on any evidence you've given. The effects of global warming will occur slowly, and over a looong period of time. It is not the immense cataclysm that everyone wants to make it out to be. Such events can be adapted to without much hassle because of the lenght of time over which they occur.

What are you suggesting needs to be done NOW at what cost and to what end?

The issue isn't that the market is failing a dire imenent catastrophy, it's that any rational person who lays out the costs and benefits of whatever action you'd propose will see how costly and unsure of success the solution it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Relatively mild... compared to what? What order of magnitude of human deaths are we talking about if we reach the maximum temperature we've seen in the last 10,000 years?

Take the last 10,000 years and you see we are mild over that time period. We're in the middle of the temperature range. That's what I'm comparing it to. There is no evidence of a big warming problem.

Are you saying peer reviewed conclusions in the top climate journals have overlooked this obvious fact of yours? The entire world is freaking out about global warming but nobody bothered to look at the balloon data? Or maybe, just for now, I will not be able to accept your analysis as both you and I are clueless when it comes to climate science.

First, your graph is one of the most extreme I’ve seen. The usual graph shows a rise then a fall then a rise, then a flattening out. Wikipedia is not a reliable source for information. Anyone can edit the damned thing, and if you change it there will be a cadre of environmentalists on it like a duck on june bug. Believe me, I tried editing out some propaganda on some animal rights issue, and it was changed within minutes. I wouldn’t be surprised if some left wing organization is monitoring it continuously.

The following site is stable, doesn't change:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

Slide5.png

That's the surface level data I've seen forever. Notice how it fluctuates.

Here is the longer range trend. Notice where we are:

Slide1.png

Again, I don't care about the source of the temperature change, I only care about how bad it will get and what we can do about it.

If you want to do something about an alleged problem, it's important to know the cause.

What is their reason for "calling for the destruction of our freedoms and economy"? Is it a conspiracy? For what purpose? Couldn't they just as easily be calling it like it is?

What is the reason for promoting multiculturalism, is it a conspiracy? What was the reason for promoting communism, is it a conspiracy? What was the reason for promoting Nazism, was it a conspiracy? etc. etc.? Really bad ideologies have existed and exist to this day. Bad ideologies are being pushed by bad intellectuals. That's why these things are happening. You want examples of bad, West hating intellectuals actively teaching in modern universities?

Environmentalism is a man hating ideology. If you understand that, everything they do makes sense.

I don't care who caused it. If it's really happening, it's going to affect us regardless of who caused it. All that matters is what we do about it.

A pilots flying his Cessna and the aileron control stops working. He shouts "I don't care what the cause is, I just want it fixed!!!" How? How are you going to fix it if you don't know what is causing it? If you know that the control line is severed, then you know how to fix the problem. If you know that the wing is buckling, then you know how to fix the problem. Knowing causes is vital.

Two youtube videos? My Wikipedia graph tops that anyday! Clearly we are both clueless about the issue and are simply taking sides based on our preconceptions. :D

I’m hardly clueless. I know much more than you do about the subject.

There are many top flight scientists on those videos. Only one of those scientists has complained, and he didn't retract any of the science he related. I think that provides a supremely valuable resource, where as Wikipedia can be edited by *anyone* and when it comes to highly charged political issues I've found it to be notoriously unreliable. What is GW if not about the most controversial issue today.

But, you can ignore them if you wish. Just don’t pretend to be informed.

Edited by Thales
Link to post
Share on other sites
Have you read Atlas Shrugged? I'm only halfway through, but everytime someone says "at least nobody will be able to blame me" the main character gets pissed off.

This is a reeeeally bad application of ideas from Atlas, which is why you'd be better off to read the book and then start in on her non-fiction, rather than try to divine principles from the actions of the characters themselves.

Also, recognize that we are not agreeing with your assessment of global warming and then saying at least no one will blame us. We're disagreeing with you assessment of the emergency in the first place. I am saying you are using poor method to arrive and you conclusion and if you want to act on them, you'll have only yourself to blame for the damage you do to yourself.

I want to take action because I can alter my lifestyle without much difficulty, and if the observed trend continues, it will impact my and future generations' livelihoods.

How will it impact them?

How far in the future?

Does the action you're going to take change that senaio?

Just because you want to do something, doens't make that end rational or true or justified. Only by answering those questions posed can you determine if your desire is founded or unfounded. If it is unfounded desire, as I'm sure you'll eventually come to realize, then you need to let it go.

Edited by KendallJ
Link to post
Share on other sites
Why blame anyone for something that may not exist at all, or have a natural cause? If, as you say, you can alter your lifestyle "without much difficulty," then feel free to do so. Why force me to comply?

I am not blaming anyone. I am simply saying that it is not enough for one person to change, everyone would have to change to fix such a problem. Agreed?

I dont think that is a proper analogy. A better one would be:

You believe it is possible, maybe even probable, that at some future point, a car will crash into mine. Therefore, you want to impose restrictions on the use of all vehicles. Develope new and safer means of transportation. Ban all large vehicles from the roadways. Make all cars so much lighter and slower that should an accident occur, no one will be hurt. All of this is to be mandated by the state and enforced without consideration for the harm it will do to the lives and the liberties of the individuals involved. If you are really concerned about the well-being of future generations, you might want to concern yourself a little more with the freedoms you would like them to have.

From my point of view the car has already crashed. However I do accept that from your POV that is the more correct analogy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
OK, suppose, just suppose, it to be incontrovertibly proven that Al Gore is right. The average global temperature is going to increase by--let me be very generous--5°F. So it's going to be 5 degrees warmer on an average day. Why exactly should I give a damn?

Your hypothetical situation is different from mine. Please respond to mine.

Also, a global temperature increase of 5 degrees does not imply that on an average day in your location, it is going to be 5 degrees warmer. The global average says nothing about the extremes at a giving location.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The market responds when the costs imposed to individuals by global warming outweight the benefits of the behaviors that need to be modified. Let's take your assumption which is ludicrous based on any evidence you've given. The effects of global warming will occur slowly, and over a looong period of time. It is not the immense cataclysm that everyone wants to make it out to be. Such events can be adapted to without much hassle because of the lenght of time over which they occur.

What are you suggesting needs to be done NOW at what cost and to what end?

The issue isn't that the market is failing a dire imenent catastrophy, it's that any rational person who lays out the costs and benefits of whatever action you'd propose will see how costly and unsure of success the solution it.

Great reply!

So the market basically responds after the fact, correct? Now let's say that the oft-cited "tipping point" or "point of no return" situation is incontrovertible as well. How would a free market stop us from reaching a point of no return predicted to occur in 5 years when the weather outside is not going to get nearly bad enough for people to care for another 25 years?

This is why I think the free market system is not without failure. Such a hypothetical situation could actually occur, and the free market could not do anything about it. As we get closer to the tipping point, the experts will seem more fanatical (justifiably so) but the free market will not have any of the environmental pressures necessary to make the changes in time. Does this make any sense?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Take the last 10,000 years and you see we are mild over that time period. We're in the middle of the temperature range. That's what I'm comparing it to. There is no evidence of a big warming problem.

The problem is we have no information on how past civilizations were affected by this previous maximum temperature. What order of magnitude of human deaths would occur if we reached the highest temperature in 10,000 years?

Wikipedia is not a reliable source for information. Anyone can edit the damned thing, and if you change it there will be a cadre of environmentalists on it like a duck on june bug.

The Wikipedia graph lists its sources right on the page, so you can reconstruct the same graph yourself, from primary sources. And the graph has not been vandalized, so don't bother with the "anyone can edit" scare tactic. I do agree, however, that Wikipedia articles on controversial subjects are very unstable. Everyone and their brother has an opinion.

The following site is stable, doesn't change:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

Why should I trust the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine as a reliable source of information?

I’m hardly clueless. I know much more than you do about the subject.

What do you know beyond the lingo and the names of people you are willing to trust? I could talk to you all day about string theory but I don't know anything beyond the lingo I've encountered in my physics classes (no, they don't teach string theory in undergrad :D)

Link to post
Share on other sites
So the market basically responds after the fact, correct? Now let's say that the oft-cited "tipping point" or "point of no return" situation is incontrovertible as well. How would a free market stop us from reaching a point of no return predicted to occur in 5 years when the weather outside is not going to get nearly bad enough for people to care for another 25 years?

This is why I think the free market system is not without failure. Such a hypothetical situation could actually occur, and the free market could not do anything about it. As we get closer to the tipping point, the experts will seem more fanatical (justifiably so) but the free market will not have any of the environmental pressures necessary to make the changes in time. Does this make any sense?

Brian, if Global warming is fact, and if it is caused solely by human activity, then there is only one thing we can do and it can be summed up in one word: Adapt.

If Global Warming is fact, and if it is caused solely by natural, non-human events, then there is only only one thing we can do as well: Adapt.

The history of world temperatures is not a flat line that has suddenly and inexplicably spiked. It is a jagged line with peaks and valleys that you are expecting to stay flat. Perhaps, you can explain to me the cause of the Little Ice Age (or any 'big' ice age for that matter) that is believed to have ended around 1850. What caused it in the first place, and what caused it to end? Surely it was not human activity. So the cause must lie elsewhere. I would be curious as to what you think that cause is, and to why it would not apply to the warming we are supposedly seeing today.

What global warming doesnt answer is the question of where the Earth's temperature should be. Can you say for certain that the current temperatures we are experiencing, while warmer than the recent past, are not still cooler than the average of the distant past? How do you know that mankind will not benefit from this warming? Frankly, if I had to choose between global warming and global cooling, I am in 100% with global warming. From my perspective on this cold February day, I say bring it on!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Your hypothetical situation is different from mine. Please respond to mine.

What's yours? 10 degrees? 100 degrees? 1000? Or do you think the Earth's temperature is just going to keep increasing indefinitely, threatening to be warmer than the Sun within 100 years?

There's a limit to how much I am willing to suppose, and 5°F stretches that limit so far that it's only my utmost generosity that keeps it from snapping.

But you know what, I'll just suppose instead that scientists have incontrovertibly proven that men will simply die if the concentration of CO2 rises to a certain level slightly above what it is today. (In reality, CO2 starts becoming toxic at 6,000 ppmv, with the current concentration being 380 ppmv). If that were so, there would be a problem, so we would need to look around for solutions. Here's one that comes to mind: Since trees are net consumers of CO2, having more of them could reduce the concentration and solve our problem. There is a natural incentive for the planting of trees: namely, that they can be used for things like furniture and paper. However, a considerable portion of that incentive has recently been removed by the activities of certain individuals: namely, those who recycle paper. Whenever somebody puts a piece of paper into a recycle bin, he reduces the demand for trees, and thus causes land that was previously used for commercial forestry to be converted to other purposes, thus increasing the concentration of CO2 and threatening the lives of millions of people with his irresponsibility! So my solution would be to ban recycling and prosecute any violators for attempted murder. There, another problem taken care of!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thales,

your graphs aren't convincing. The first graph shows US surface temperature, USA is about 2% of the total earth area, thus it is hardly represenatative for the global temperature change. Here is a much better graph, using all the three major global temperature estimates, NASA GISS, NCDC and HadCRU. The trend lines are 1975-2000 regression fits, and they clearly show that "global warming stopped 1998" is a claim unsupported by facts (the graph is from here):

trend2.jpg

Your second graph is even less convincing, showing a proxy for the sea temperature in the Saragasso Sea.

Edited by Freddy
Link to post
Share on other sites
Thales,

your graphs aren't convincing. The first graph shows US surface temperature, USA is about 2% of the total earth area,

The U.S. record is the best maintained record, and has the best corrections for the urban heat effect. The satellite and balloon record are more accurate, and they match the U.S. surface record best, so the U.S. surface record is probably a very good indication of the global temp.

thus it is hardly represenatative for the global temperature change. Here is a much better graph, using all the three major global temperature estimates, NASA GISS, NCDC and HadCRU. The trend lines are 1975-2000 regression fits, and they clearly show that "global warming stopped 1998" is a claim unsupported by facts (the graph is from here):

trend2.jpg

I'll need to look more closely at that data, but it looks dubious to me, and given the fact that Hansen is a true believer, has taken money from George Soros, and there is evidence of tampering with evidence, the integrity of NASA has to be strongly questioned now. Also, the rhetoric on that site is laughable. It’s one thing to knock someone for not believing there is a rise in temp, but to buy into the catastrophic man caused GW bandwagon is pure insanity. There is no rational man that would do it, and anyone with any honor and honesty would acknowledge the propaganda.

Also, linear regressions can look quite different depending on your starting and ending point.

Here is the satellite record taken from http://www.john-daly.com/ :

post-815-1201981858_thumb.gif

Also, here is a site that looks at the surface data and satellite data. I also note that Douglas Hoyt is one of the responders. I happen to know that Hoyt is a seasoned atmospheric scientist, so his comments are well worth reading:

http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=28

Your second graph is even less convincing, showing a proxy for the sea temperature in the Saragasso Sea.

Proxies are all we have for the distant past. It should be noted that ice core samples show a similar trend, as do tree ring proxies from around the world. So, it looks to be a solid indication of what the temperatures were over thousands of years.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem is we have no information on how past civilizations were affected by this previous maximum temperature.

What order of magnitude of human deaths would occur if we reached the highest temperature in 10,000 years?

You keep saying this, and I don't know why. Certainly in the middle ages men took records.

What the record shows is that these temperatures we're experiencing are normal. There is nothing unusual right now. The globe warms and cools with or without man.

When you say "What order of magnitude of human deaths would occur if we reached the highest temperatures in 10,000 years?" I wonder what you're talking about. We had the coldest temperatures of the last 10,000 years in the 1880s, and we aren't near the highest now. Furthermore, what makes you think death would ensue? Seems to me it might be the reverse effect. Life is easier when things are warmer.

The Wikipedia graph lists its sources right on the page, so you can reconstruct the same graph yourself, from primary sources. And the graph has not been vandalized, so don't bother with the "anyone can edit" scare tactic. I do agree, however, that Wikipedia articles on controversial subjects are very unstable. Everyone and their brother has an opinion.

I refuse to use Wikipedia a source for this sort of issue. Believe me, the propagandists are out in force.

Why should I trust the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine as a reliable source of information?

They are top flight scientists, but you don't have to trust them at all. I consider them trustworthy, however.

What do you know beyond the lingo and the names of people you are willing to trust?

I'm providing you with some of it in my postings.

I'll just reel off some facts:

1> CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas in comparison to water vapor.

2> Water overlaps CO2 in the absorption spectrum, and once light energy is absorbed, that's it.

3> The affect of CO2 diminishes logarithmically as it doubles, so that its effect tails off rapidly. This is, again, because there is only so much energy it can absorb in its spectrum.

4> Solar activity strongly correlates with temperature levels.

5> Even if there is some CO2 caused warming, there are also other bigger causes, and man kind is not the biggest creator of CO2.

6> A scientist recently found a causal link between cosmic activity and cloud creation, which gives a causal explanation for global temperatures.

Those are a few things. Did you check out the documentaries?

What I’ve noticed about the GW pushers is that they continuously change the underlying data. It’s very hard to get a hold on things when the foundation changes, which I suspect is part of their method.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It might be helpful to define what objective and reliable sources are. Perhaps Brian and Thales can give the criteria for determining what each considers a reputable source, independent of the information supplied. For instance:

1) what is the source's reputation/credentials?

2) what are the source's conflicts of interests?

3) are all conflicts of interest disclosed?

4) how current is the source's information?

5) is there other independent information to support the claims of the source, and does the source provide links to aid in verification of claims?

6) echo chamber effect: do the same few sources seem to cite each other to give the appearance of consensus?

Link to post
Share on other sites

More on Freddy's linear regression curve above. The following 4 part video is by Professor Bob Carter, a Geologist. The first video discusses the temperature record, and he looks at it from multiple different angles and uses different linear regressions. Is it warming or is it cooling? It depends on where you start and where you end your regression analysis. This will give you perspective, so lacking from the GW fear mongers.

Prof Carter discusses GW generally, and he is definitive that the GW movement is non-scientific non-sense.

Title: Climate Change - is CO2 the cause?

http://www.theglobalwarmingdebate.net/

Link to post
Share on other sites

Additionally, I've heard the term "peer review" thrown around here, but what meaning does that have when the so-called scientific journals Science and Nature have gone on the record saying that they absolutely will not publish any article that is contrary to the AGW theory, regardless of its scientific content?

(if you want the source on that, check the big thread on this board that RB tried to direct the OP to)

The term "conspiracy" tends to indicate that something is hidden - which isn't the case. The greenies are more than willing to make public what they are doing, including their disregard of science. It's more like that few people are actually looking for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Additionally, I've heard the term "peer review" thrown around here, but what meaning does that have when the so-called scientific journals Science and Nature have gone on the record saying that they absolutely will not publish any article that is contrary to the AGW theory, regardless of its scientific content?
If you could let us know where exactly these policy statements were published, that would be useful. I can't find it. I'm shocked and therefore skeptical that they would have any such policy.

I'll tell you what peer review means. It means that the editor of the journal determines the subject matter, and requests an evaluation from a number of highly qualified specialists in the area. A responsible editor will seek reviews from scholars supporting the thesis and those opposing the thesis, and then integrates the judgments, reaching a final conclusion as to whether the paper should be rejected, send back for revision, or accepted.

Before we inquire into the socio-politics of science publishing, we should first determine if there is some important fact to be explained. I haven't seen the evidence that there is anything needing to be explained.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The U.S. record is the best maintained record, and has the best corrections for the urban heat effect.

This is where IPCC comes in quite handy. An a priori concern for an urban heat island effect on the global trend seems perfectly sensible. The IPCC concludes the following:

However, the key issue from a climate change standpoint is whether urban-affected temperature records have significantly biased large scale temporal trends.Studies that have looked at hemispheric and global scales conclude that any urban-related trend is an order of magnitude smaller than decadal and longer time-scale trends evident in the series (e.g., Jones et al., 1990; Peterson et al., 1999). This result could partly be attributed to the omission from the gridded data set of a small number of sites (<1%) with clear urban-related warming trends. In a worldwide set of about 270 stations, Parker (2004, 2006) noted that warming trends in night minimum temperatures over the period 1950 to 2000 were not enhanced on calm nights, which would be the time most likely to be affected by urban warming. Thus, the global land warming trend discussed is very unlikely to be influenced significantly by increasing urbanisation (Parker, 2006). Over the conterminous USA, after adjustment for time-of-observation bias and other changes, rural station trends were almost indistinguishable from series including urban sites (Peterson, 2003; Figure 3.3, and similar considerations apply to China from 1951 to 2001 (Li et al., 2004).

Thus, efforts to discern a substantial urban heat island signal on the global trend has failed. The surface record seem quite solid.

The satellite and balloon record are more accurate, and they match the U.S. surface record best, so the U.S. surface record is probably a very good indication of the global temp.

Here is en extremely good blog post on MSU satellites describing the great difficulties to establish a reliable long term trend from the raw data.

I'll need to look more closely at that data, but it looks dubious to me, and given the fact that Hansen is a true believer, has taken money from George Soros, and there is evidence of tampering with evidence, the integrity of NASA has to be strongly questioned now.

Which is why I provided a graph with three independent temperature estimates. Also, if you wanto check whether NASA is faking the science, feel free to do it, the data and source code for the estimations can be found here.

Proxies are all we have for the distant past. It should be noted that ice core samples show a similar trend, as do tree ring proxies from around the world. So, it looks to be a solid indication of what the temperatures were over thousands of years.

You show one proxy for one site. Can you provide something more global?

Link to post
Share on other sites
If you could let us know where exactly these policy statements were published, that would be useful. I can't find it. I'm shocked and therefore skeptical that they would have any such policy.

I linked to Gus Van Horn's discovery of that little tidbit in the other giganto Global Warming thread on this board. I mention it quite frequently whenever this topic comes up, but for some reason not too many people notice or react to it.

On the subject of people deliberately faking the data, read this. They've been caught red-handed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair to those journals, you link to someone outside the journals saying they won't publish anything like that. That's quite different from both journals publishing new editorial guidelines, or issuing a statement that says the same. As it is, that's hardly evidence that there is such a policy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This is where IPCC comes in quite handy. An a priori concern for an urban heat island effect on the global trend seems perfectly sensible. The IPCC concludes the following:

The IPCC is not a credible source. Do you realize it's a *political* document? Do you realize it's an illusion that numerous scientists signed onto it? In the other large GW thread there is a reference to an article on this matter, and, in fact, the two documentaries I reference address this.

Here is the link to the thread and posting that references the article:

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...st&p=164019

Here is a direct link to the article:

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/968

An excerpt from the article:

The numbers of scientist reviewers involved in WG I is actually less than a quarter of the whole, a little over 600 in total. The other 1,900 reviewers assessed the other working group reports. They had nothing to say about the causes of climate change or its future trajectory. Still, 600 “scientific expert reviewers” sounds pretty impressive. After all, they submitted their comments to the IPCC editors who assure us that “all substantive government and expert review comments received appropriate consideration.” And since these experts reviewers are all listed in Annex III of the report, they must have endorsed it, right?

Wrong.

You show one proxy for one site. Can you provide something more global?

I have. Watch the videos I referenced. Because, it's clear you don't have a grasp of the full picture. Also, on the statistical analysis of the short range curve you provide, the Bob Carter lecture addresses that period as well, providing a linear regression that takes into account El Nino.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Here is the link to the thread and posting that references the article:

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...st&p=164019

Here is a direct link to the article:

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/968

The link to the IPCC comments is very interesting! It is regrettable that science has been politicized in this way; what would have been better would be for all these experts to be locked in a room together, and asked to come out with an opinion for us, no matter how detailed and full of exceptions and convoluted the opinion may be.

With that said, where is the flaw(s) in their reasoning for the insignificance of urban heat to influence the results?

Link to post
Share on other sites
That's quite different from both journals publishing new editorial guidelines, or issuing a statement that says the same.

Granted, but some publishers and "scientists" have made that statement (as applying to themselves personally - that the science comes second because the ecology movement is "so important" that they are allowed to fudge the facts) - Lindzen's testimony just served as a confirmation to me that they are walking the walk that they talk. Nor is his the only such story that I've heard of anti-GW studies being stonewalled.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...