marksman

This article is nothing but the author's opinion with nothing to back it up. I liked the part where we find out why Dion would be so bad - he's "radically left" "clueless on the economy" and "fails to acknowledge his own limitations". There's nothing to support that in the article. You'd think that an article with the word policies in its title would actually look at policies. I've also got to doubt the knowledge of the author when looking at his "new and bold actions". 2 of his 3 proposals involve high school or middle school programs. There are elements of his suggestions currently in schools in at least some provinces but the real problem is that he apparently needs to glance at a copy of the Canadian constitution. Education is a provincial area not federal. It certainly would be a "new and bold" direction for a federal party to take. One that'll land them in court with every province telling the feds to mind their own business.

His "leadership" put Canada front and center all right. We were criticised by many different nations for breaking our word. That is not "right where we should be".

Most models are based on different scenarios like what happens if we continue emitting as we've been emitting, what happens if we reduce by a certain amount etc. Even so different values doesn't prove that they're being chosen unscientifically. I don't think "most likely" is so far fetched when several models created by lots of different scientists all point in that direction. Once again you've started from the position that the models were designed to match the historical record and not designed to reflect the theory. If this is your starting point then you'll always conclude that it's circular logic. Human caused climate change isn't proven but it's more than plausible. No science is perfect but the majority of the work points to likely human caused climate change. What I find arrogant is the fact that most scientists - even many of the people saying that climate change research is more uncertain than the IPCC says it is - believe that humans are changing the climate to some degree but people still insist on a do nothing approach because we don't "know" for certain. Instead of dealing with that situation we're ignoring it and arguing about the difference between likely and most likely. Many of the proposals for dealing with climate change are valid for other reasons as you've already suggested - energy efficiency, R&D - but even this doesn't seem to stop people from saying we should do nothing. Or we could take the third option which is use models that while unvalidated by future predictions still have acceptable uncertainty. Despite criticisms most in the scientific community think the climate models have acceptable uncertainty. Other studies that used acceptable methods reached similar conclusions. You'll even notice the graph has changed slightly over the years. Your reasoning would mean that if we're both working on the same problem and come up with similar results and you use 1 method and I use a more questionable method then your results are invalid because of my more questionable method. That makes no sense. You can't say the graph is invalid because one of the scientists who came up with that result used questionable methods even though others reached the same results. I'm sure he "consistently misrepresents the work of other scientists" but those arguing against the work that concludes humans are having an effect on climate don't do that. I've read the reply. It did nothing to defend against the allegations that Spencer cherrypicked values to make his graph. It also didn't instill a lot of confidence in the robustness of his work. Why is the graph being promoted as showing no human caused climate change under these conditions? If the blogger wanted to compare a 50 year natural period with a 50 year anthropogenic period why didn't they pick 1850 to 1900 for the natural period? Probably because the curve is flat and it wouldn't have "proven" their point. Chopping a graph in 2 doesn't really prove much and this graph isn't proof either way that natural causes have been accounted for or not. On the other hand scientists have been able to show that a combination of causes reasonably explains the entire century with the result that human caused climate change is likely responsible for the upward trend at the end of the century. I was once shown two other graphs that looked remarkably similar - just like your link. One showed human birth rates increasing then decreasing. The other showed the stork population increasing then decreasing. Therefore storks bring babies. I'm more convinced by actual scientific research then someone using Windows Paint on a graph.

Layton is talking about change? He must be copying Obama! If Layton's copying Obama's message then why not say that Harper is copying Palin? It's just as accurate. Do you really think Obama is the first politician to talk about change? Every opposition party runs on some form of that message - we need to change the government. Harper's done it before himself. To this quote "Leadership doesn't mean agreeing to about almost anything just to get along" I'd have to respond that leadership also doesn't mean agreeing or disagreeing to about almost anything just to be different. It's easy to support a war that most people in your country disagree with when you aren't PM. We'll never know what would've happened if Harper had been PM at the time. And heaven forbid that we work with the international community and other countries. Harper's no different than any of the other politicians. When a vote came up on an important issue facing Canada he skipped out to watch a hockey game so he could avoid taking a stand. He likes accountability but he just doesn't like being accountable to Canadians through the media or by letting his MPs talk to anyone. Improved accountability is probably also the reason behind Conservative roadblocks in committees. He likes fixed elections dates but not when there's an advantage to just calling an election when he wants. Stronach should never have switched parties but its fine for Emerson. Etc. Harper has the same leadership skills as all the other party leaders - the ability to twist yourself into whatever you think will keep you in power longest.

How do federal judges cause more damage? Any examples of this damage?

The link you posted suggested otherwise - that while still uncertain the data used in current models is much more accurate than data used in earlier models. All I was saying was that your argument against tuning was flawed because most tuning is done with improved knowledge not randomly picking possibly justifiable values. This applies to all models - both models that find human caused climate change and models that find against human caused climate change. But you only argue against those models that show human caused climate change. That's not what they're doing. Models were created based on what we know so far. Initial conditions were input. Models based only on natural causes didn't give results that matched historical records. Models based only on human causes didn't give results that matched historical records. But models that incorporated both gave relatively accurate matches. Based on this it's concluded that human causes are a factor in driving climate change. There's nothing circular about that. Your argument only has merit if you think the models were unscientifically modified to give a specific result. But that argument can equally apply to models that show no human caused climate change. In other words you're assuming that the models are wrong in order to show that the models are wrong. Ironically this is circular logic. If you'd read my post you'd know that I'm saying it's too early to tell if they're right or wrong. But you've already stated that you're making a judgment on the models without a statistically significant period of time passing. You failed to see where I admitted that's possible. Then failed to recognize that this criticism applies to all scientific models of all types including the models that claim no human caused climate change. Policy decisions don't require 100% certain data otherwise we'd never make policy decisions. Risk assessment and cost benefit decisions can be made by multiplying the cost of something by the probability that it'll happen. The IPCC models contain uncertainty information and can be used as a valid basis for policy decisions - just like models not produced by the IPCC or models that have nothing to do with climate change. You said the graph was invalid and I pointed out that wasn't true so now you've switched back to your bad method point. But that doesn't change the fact that you can't claim the IPCC is unethical because they're using an invalid graph - since the graph hasn't been proven invalid. All scientists should be releasing all results - I'm not saying otherwise. You're just attempting to avoid the fact that Spencer manipulated variables in his more recent graphs to prove what he wanted to prove. This was something you were supposedly against and used this reason to discount the work of literally hundreds of other scientists. Mann's actions don't invalidate all of the work done by others who think humans are causing climate change. If you're against that position because of Mann then you need to rethink your position since similar actions have been taken by those who don't think humans are causing climate change.

You've dismissed hindcast modeling for a number of different reasons. First they were circular logic but I'm not sure you've explained how. You've described the method as crappy. Then tuning models was inappropriate because there are "too many tuneable parameters" but this type of reasoning means we might as well give up on trying to figure out any complex system. You've used aerosols as an example of how tuning is wrong but the link you provided concludes in the executive summary that even though more research is necessary the models currently used in the IPCC 4th report take into account a vastly improved understanding of how aerosols behave and how much is out there. In other words - new models have been tuned to take into account better information. That not only seems reasonable but seems like how science is supposed to work. Observed temperatures do fall within the range of estimates in the IPCC 3rd report. After 8 years I'm not ready to declare these estimates or the IPCC 4th report estimates right or wrong. When an estimate uses a 20 year interval as its base for a 100 year prediction then 8 years isn't enough to question the model. To question a model's predictive skill before a statistically significant period of time has passed is premature. What part of mitigation are you against? Mitigation includes R&D, improving efficiency and using power sources not based on fossil fuels - like nuclear, solar etc. These are all things you say you are for. You've fallen into at least 3 strawman arguments. We're not talking about eliminating co2 emissions - elimination and reduction are different. Your desire to build nuclear power plants shows the claim that technology doesn't exist is false. Efforts that accomplish nothing or destroying the economy aren't the only 2 options on the table - economically reasonable measures can be taken that will affect greenhouse gas emissions. I'm puzzled by a number of things in your posts. You keep saying that you can't use past data to validate these models except that I wasn't saying that. You say that my approach to validating models is deficient even though I've stated that in order to validate models you've got to have verified future predictions - which is the same as what you're saying. So if my approach is deficient then so is yours! The process of creating a model, giving it historical inputs and then seeing how the results compare to historical data is useful even if its future predictions don't pan out. It helps refine the model rather than just shooting in the dark. Checking against historical data doesn't guarantee future success but it does increase the chance that the predictions will be more accurate. It's true that in science 2+2=4 can mask the fact that you should be using 1+3=4 but this is true for everyone. Unless you're making the same criticisms against everyone then I don't see why this is a climate model problem. In fact you should be criticising one of your quoted sources for this very problem that I'll explain below. How am I misunderstanding your characterization of the hockey stick graph debate? You're using one example to say that you don't trust the IPCC. And the example isn't even as bad as it's made out to be since there is some validity to the statistical methods used and even your link pointed out that the low R2 value means that the graph might not have predictive value - which doesn't make the graph wrong. Other studies besides the A&W one agreed with the overall conclusion of the graph meaning it isn't invalid. If you're worried about the reactions of the community why is it that you aren't distrustful of the anti-human caused climate change crowd when some in that group actively promote papers which distort the conclusions of other scientists? That seems blatantly unethical compared to using questionable statistical methods. So 1st the 4 phenomenon weren't included in models and now it's that they're just not included to the degree you and their proponents think they should be. That's a valid debate of course but the fact that there is debate doesn't make the models invalid. At least 1 of your sources - Spencer - isn't convincing. It didn't take long to find an analysis of some of his anti human caused climate change work showing that it's not useful or scientific. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...e-easy-lessons/ You complain about people tuning their models but it looks like Spencer is guilty of this very thing. He's messed around with numbers quite a bit to show climate change has nothing to do with greenhouse gasses. And he didn't even require a lot of variables. He's definitely tuning his model to cover up his model's deficiencies. Not to mention the nice postlude on the site that points out how Spencer continued to promote obviously wrong data. You've added another link recently to one of his papers showing clouds can have an affect on climate. But that isn't anything new just further proof of what people already knew. Models showing human caused climate change do take these things into consideration.

As I posted models that can predict historical data are more likely to give accurate predictions for the future compared to models that can't even predict historical data. We both agree that only future predictions will validate a model but I still think you're dismissing the value of "hindcast" models too quickly. I'm not sure how the IPCC is using circular logic. The models say to the best of our knowledge human released greenhouse gasses explain warming with low uncertainty values. Using different scenarios of humans releasing more greenhouse gasses those models are used for future predictions. How is that circular logic? Sorry I wasn't aware your criticism of tuning was based on cost benefit analysis. But we don't make cost benefit decisions based on certain data. You take the cost of a possible risk and the probability that the risk will happen to determine the cost for the purpose of the analysis. If you haven't seen it then search for the Stern report for an analysis of the costs of ignoring climate change. You'll also find criticisms that Stern's discount rate was too low but even with a higher discount rate the costs of ignoring climate change are quite high. As for the tuning your post implied that scientists were hiding deficiencies in their models by picking variables. If the choice of inputs are scientifically justifiable then noone is really hiding a model's deficiency. Hiding deficiencies implies picking inputs that are unjustifiable so that you don't have to change the underlying theories. Models also include uncertainties and ranges precisely because data maybe lacking or maybe uncertain. The IPCC goes through the work of thousands of scientists from across the globe and you're going to ignore all of that work because they didn't do an indepth analysis of the statistical methods used in one source? It's the job of the community and the peer review process to do that sort of checking. Given that the US National Research Council looked into the matter and found that there were multiple other sources that confirmed the overall conclusion I don't think you can blame the IPCC for still using the overall conclusion. The four things you think should be included in models are in many cases accounted for to some degree. Studies have been done by organizations like NASA and the US National Climatic Data Center to account for urban and rural temperature reporting. One study removed all urban sources to remove bias. Another examined temperature data over 100 years in rural and urban areas to try to see how much of an effect urban areas have. So that's being looked at. More complicated models definitely take into account aerosols. It'd be foolish not to given the research done into global dimming and how aerosols played a role in that phenomenon. From what I've read the research on cosmic rays causing clouds and affecting climate is extremely weak not least because there's no clear evidence that there's been an increase in cosmic rays reaching the lower atmosphere over the past few decades in order to cause increased cloud formation. Modelers continue to refine how to model clouds in these climate models because so far there is no consensus technique agreed upon. But this area is being looked at so you can't say people are ignoring clouds. Models also look at oceans and in early climate models poor ocean modeling caused climate drift where the model would start giving unrealistic results. Oceans aren't easy but people are working on modeling oceans better. Recent models use ocean models that are more realistic including things as basic as the fact that there's a thermocline. Your list of 4 things may not be as precise as everyone would like but they're certainly included to some degree.

Your assumption wouldn't be correct. But I think I must not have been clear about the fact that future predictions are the ultimate check on these models. Obviously the model can only be validated by making future predictions. That isn't where the problem is. My problem was with you calling the entire process flawed. There is a danger that people will consciously or unconsciously skew their model based on available data but that doesn't invalidate the process of tuning the model. What point is there in making future predictions if you've got no idea how well your model reflects reality? You're basically saying that models should be created in a vacuum and their deficiencies should only be exposed after years of gathering data. But you're more likely to get better predictions if you can demonstrate your model already has some degree of accuracy. In this way "hindcasts" do give indications of how a model will perform in the future. If you can't explain the last 100 years there's no point in thinking you can explain the next 100. If you can explain the last 100 then this doesn't mean you're automatically correct about the next 100 but it's more likely that your model is closer to giving accurate predictions. You've said that "there is a significant probability that they have messed something up and the model predictions will be flat out wrong" but if you've got an unchecked model then there's an even higher probability that you've messed up and your predictions will be flat out wrong. By arguing against this method you're arguing for a lower probability of accuracy in future predictions. To use a historical example look at Newton and Einstein. Einstein developed his gravity theory knowing that Newton's theory didn't explain Mercury's orbit. He developed a theory that explained Mercury's orbit and its been subsequently proved in other ways. Planetary orbits are obviously different than a planet's climate system but to say that using historical data to improve a model somehow invalidates the entire model is unrealistic and impractical. You've also assumed that any tuning is done by using unrealistic values. There's no reason to think this is always the case. I'm sure some people do this but it is equally possible that historical data shows that some factors were overestimated or underestimated and realistic tuning is possible. I don't like the term climate science community because it doesn't reflect what we're really talking about - those who believe in human caused climate change and those who don't. You're using the hockey stick debate to say the pro side can't be trusted. If this is the case then we can't trust either side because some on the anti side are guilty of even more explicit underhanded tactics: http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/E...ng-tobacco.html The IPCC isn't some conspiracy organization out to prove human caused climate change at any cost. It's trying to sort through mountains of evidence and dealing with something on this scale it's inevitable that mistakes will be made. It's also inevitable that scientific conclusions will change and be refined. But to dismiss all of the good evidence they've looked at based on some criticism of one piece of evidence isn't scientific and certainly isn't balanced if you're willing to consider evidence from the other side when the other side has done equally questionable things.

Thanks for the links. I'll get to reading them soon enough. I don't want you to take offense because I don't mean this in a derogatory way but your argument about modeling makes no sense. Let's go through the process. Scientists create a theory about how something works and make a model about it. This model creates predictions about observable phenomenon. The predictions are then compared to the real world observations. Where discrepancies arise the theory is revisited and the model is adjusted. Now you are saying that the observations can only come from the future not the past. But what difference does it make where the observations come from? Let's say we take your approach and only deal with the future. Over the next 50 years we gather data and compare it to the model predictions. Let's say they don't match. What happens then? The scientists will revisit the theory and adjust the model. Now let's say we allow scientists to use previously recorded observations. Let's say they don't match with the model predictions. What happens then is the same as what happens in the last scenario - the scientists will revisit the theory and adjust the model. Your complaint is only valid when someone tries to adjust the model just to match observations and not based on any theory but that criticism exists whether they match it to previously recorded observations or new observations. Just because a model is complex doesn't mean that scientists are automatically trying to rig the model. I'm not sure why you think this is a crappy method. How else could you possibly create a model for Earth's climate? Actually my point about the hockey stick graph was originally what I said earlier: the debate isn't 1 sided against it. I think we both agree that standards are necessary in all scientific research. But you've basically decided to discount what you call the climate science community because of this? Should we use the same logic to not trust anyone proclaiming climate change is not caused by humans? If so then we're stuck because some in the anti community also have a lot invested in their theories and have been known to attempt to discredit good science by any means necessary. Good science is good science no matter where it comes from and no matter what's been done by others who might agree with the results.

Only hearing 1 side? The media I've been seeing certainly isn't limiting itself to 1 side. In fact I've heard from journalists that when doing global warming stories they go out of their way to find anti-global warming sources so that they can say their story is balanced. Many times the problem I see is that it appears that you've got 1 source saying yes to climate change and 1 source saying no when the reality is often that you really have multiple sources saying yes and fewer sources saying no. I'm not saying that all criticisms are wrong but I'm saying that more often than not it's not a 50/50 split in the scientific community. I also think that you can have respected scientists on both sides of a complex issue. That doesn't make anyone crazy or a fanatic. At some point we've got to make our decisions based on something and right now the majority of the evidence seems to point to human caused climate change.

Riverwind you mentioned other peer reviewed literature. I'm interested in reading what I can and if you've got a link I'd really appreciate it. I can't agree with your point about the modeling. We're dealing with climate so we can't run an easy lab experiment. In order to check predictions we need years and years of data. The best way to see if your model is good is to run it for years we already have data for - the more years the better - and see if it "predicts" the observations. So it's not a circular argument at all. It's how science works! As you improve your model and its predictions for the past then you're more confident about its future predictions. You'll still have to check the future predictions and those future predictions will be the ultimate check on your model. Your post implies that model tuning is a bad thing which isn't necessarily true. You have a point where if all you're doing is changing values without any reason to see if it matches observations then you aren't doing real science and your model isn't worth anything. But models can also be tuned by reevaluating the theory behind it and if you tune it for scientific reasons that is completely valid. I do realize that the report referenced the press release by Ammann and Wahl. I think you might be exaggerating how much the NRC relied on this information. The press info released by A&W is cited 6 times. Half those times it is cited along with 4 - 6 other sources. The other times the NRC report: i. talks about limitations in choosing certain values like those chosen by A&W in press ii. says "some reconstructions are not robust with respect to the removal of proxy records from individual regions (see, e.g., Wahl and Ammann in press)" iii. cites this and two other sources in a paragraph that concludes "To improve the skill of reconstructions, more data need to be collected and possibly new assimilation methods developed" It looks like the NRC took a good look at the limitations of the methods used to get the graph and still reached the conclusion that it wasn't complete garbage based on multiple sources not just A&W's take on it. To focus on one source disregards all of the other evidence pointing in the same direction even if that evidence doesn't look exactly the same. I agree with your last point that we've got to demand standards and rigor from scientists. But that applies to all scientists not just those in support of one side or another.

Good for the Green Party for getting represented in Parliament. Not so good for the people in the riding who voted for a Liberal MP. Although that isn't different from any other MP switching parties or becoming independent. To get a place in the leaders debate I don't think you need 12 elected MPs. Even the Progressive Conservative party was allowed to participate with only 2 or 3 seats. Maybe national polling numbers should be enough to get you into the debate. But people are blowing this story out of proportion. Just because someone switched does not mean their new party gets in the debate. It would've helped if they'd actually elected at least 1 MP even though it's a chicken and egg situation where being in the debate help gets someone elected. If the Greens are allowed in it should be because their national numbers support their inclusion not because 1 guy already in Parliament decided to sign up to the party.

There's so much misinformation out there some on both sides of the debate. Someone here said that if it could be shown something other than co2 was responsible for global warming then the IPCC predictions must fail. But the IPCC predictions did include factors other than co2. Observed temperatures over the last 150 years were compared with natural effects. They didn't match. The same observed temperatures were compared with human caused effects. They didn't match. But when both natural and human caused effects were added together the resulting model matched fairly closely with observed temperatures. Not exactly of course but pretty close. So the IPCC has taken into account these factors in their analysis. And over the last 50 years natural effects would've lowered temperatures but the observed temperatures went up because of human caused effects. Others here have tried to compare the "data" used to justify the theory that Earth was the centre of the universe with climate change data today. That's a bit ridiculous. Our standards have improved. The argument is a strawman. You could say with equal certainty that no scientific theory should be relied on because the theory that Earth was the centre of the universe was wrong. And where does that leave us? Nowhere helpful. The hockey stick graph is an interesting debate. But it's not as one sided as the link posted suggested. A 2006 US National Research council committee looked into the graph and found it was generally accurate. McIntyre himself noted that the report didn't reject any of his criticisms of the graph. This didn't change the overall trend found in the graph. The methods maybe imperfect but that didn't make the graph invalid according to the report.