The Great Green Con #1 GW Forecasts Wrong Again

[waldo]

Agreed, and well said.

of course you would agree with that... now, since we do have representative reference points of yours to compare your contributions/arguments, one can also ascertain a similar conclusion for you... the same one offered in the drive-by from MLW member, 'Peeves'.

[TimG]

I invite Waldo and IimG to point out if I have misstated anything here as it has been awhile since I read through the minutae of that paper.

Is there any point? You may understand statistics but you don't seem to have the understanding of physics and natural systems required to understand how nature limits what one can do with statistics. Without that understanding you won't understand the problem with the paper. Edited March 29, 2013 by TimG

[waldo]

Is there any point? You may understand statistics but you don't seem to have the understanding of physics and natural systems required to understand how nature limits what one can do with statistics. Without that understanding you won't understand the problem with the paper.

says the guy who makes his whole argument based on eyeballing a 2D graphic image from the proxy paper... while at the same time dismissing the proxy calibration reference from the paper's author. That's some sound physics there!

[TimG]

No, obviously, the one paper is of minor significance in itself. I don't know why it has been discussed here with such fervor so many times.

One of the problems with this debate is the issues are so technical that most people can only repeat an analysis made by someone else. I picked this issue to discuss because the problems are simple enough that anyone with a undergrad science degree should be able to understand it for themselves and form an opinion based on their own knowledge instead of having to rely on an authority. I keep going back to it because arguing more complicated issues seems pointless if the is no agreement on the simple issues.

That said, my assumption presumes that people have a open mind and are not simply looking for a 'blue pill' that will allow them completely dismiss anything skeptics have to say.

Edited March 29, 2013 by TimG

[waldo]

This is really an issue of trust. Climate scientists are making many claims that cannot be proven. They are asking us to trust them. Can you give me any reason why I should trust them given the fact that they have repeatedly allowed junk science produced by Mann to go uncorrected?

whoa baby! Now we're getting somewhere. You claim climate scientists are allowing something to stand... they're refusing to correct it. Well then, what's stopping skeptical scientists... even fake skeptic scientists... even your favoured blog world guys, in particular your main blog guy, the never-ending auditor McIntyre, from formally correcting the "junk science" you proclaim? What are they waiting for... what is he waiting for... why don't they formally publish - how many years now? When you get beyond a decade... people start to talk, ya know. Tick tock, tick tock!

[bush_cheney2004]

....That said, my assumption presumes that people have a open mind and are not simply looking for a 'blue pill' that will allow them completely dismiss anything skeptics have to say.

It is already established in alarmist circles that, since the "science is settled", all skeptics and critics must be challenged, tarred, and feathered. Time and time again, we have seen such a strategy employed by certain members here. Fortunately, it has never worked, and has not translated into any meaningful (and destructive) carbon emissions mitigation schemes or policies.

[waldo]

No...not fair enough, just more of the same dodge we get whenever methods and/or biases are challenged to present and critique the underlying data sets and methodology, as if that is an assault on an already established conclusion (i.e. 'the science is settled').

is that what you were doing? Challenging? I thought you were simply blindly parroting your anonymous denier guy's blog... you're going to get to your described "underlying data sets and methodology"... at some point, right! Nice to see you trot out the 'science is settled' meme.

It is already established in alarmist circles that, since the "science is settled", all skeptics and critics must be challenged, tarred, and feathered. Time and time again, we have seen such a strategy employed by certain members here. Fortunately, it has never worked, and has not translated into any meaningful (and destructive) carbon emissions mitigation schemes or policies.

does you repeating a meme, repeatedly... reinforce it in your mind, repeatedly?

[bush_cheney2004]

I invited you to provide an example - and the invitation is still open.

So you want me to provide examples that you will simply choose to dismiss as mistakes or inconsequential errors, because the alarmist's hearts were in the right place ? Believe as you wish, but it doesn't mean we all have to drink the Flavor-Aid and "hide the decline".

[waldo]

"hide the decline".

another meme - well done!

[bush_cheney2004]

another meme - well done!

Thank you.....the sheer volume and quality of anti-alarmist content now available is very impressive. No wonder the alarmists feel so threatened and have to crank up their rabid meter to '11'. "Damn the flat-lining and cooling...we never expected that...where's Al Gore when we need him ? "

[waldo]

Thank you.....the sheer volume and quality of anti-alarmist content now available is very impressive."

the sheer volumes of denier meme's and its perpetuators is very impressive - go with your personal strengths!

[bush_cheney2004]

One of my favorite anti-alarmist blog sites is IUSB.....they went after the "hockey stick" snow job with great zeal and satisfaction, just like we did several years ago....fun times !

[iUSB Vision Editor's Note - Notice how
this graph eliminates the "Medieval Warming Period" from the proxy
hockey stick method used to generate the pre-1850 temperature record?
See why this manipulation was important to them HERE and HERE;
as they show how the proxy data averages can be manipulated and how the
proxy data methods when used passed 1850 show gaps where it does not
match the temperature record. It was because of this variation in the
proxy method of measuring temperature post 1850, which shows global
temps falling, that the ClimateGate scientists had to "hide the
decline".

As has been argued and demonstrated by many data sets that
skeptics have pointed out there is evidence that pre-1850 temp
measurements have been steered down and more recent instrument data ,
such as the NOAA ground station data and the filling in the gaps data
mentioned above have been used to steer modern measurements up. There
are indeed several data sets that show that global temps have been
flat-lining within the margin of error and/or show a slight cooling
trend as you will see below, but global warming alarmists do not wish to
discuss those... and they accuse us of cherry picking data. Pot meet
kettle!]

http://iusbvision.wordpress.com/2010/12/10/nasas-global-warming-evidence-page-filled-with-lies-half-truths-and-highly-suspect-data/

Edited March 30, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[Michael Hardner]

Is there any point? You may understand statistics but you don't seem to have the understanding of physics and natural systems required to understand how nature limits what one can do with statistics. Without that understanding you won't understand the problem with the paper.

Well, I can't deny that I don't understand the natural systems, which I presume to mean that you do. This is somewhat of a change from before when you accused me of not knowing the statistics.

As for the physical science, the disagreement on what the silt deposit data has to do with temperature has been discussed elsewhere.

[Shady]

I have a question, but it's not entirely related to this thread.

So, let's for argument sake say that warming is happening, and it's all man-made, and that the earth will warm by a degree or two over the next 50 years as predicted. So what? Does anyone believe that technology won't have changed at all between now and the next 5 decades? Does anyone think that we'll still be using the combustion engine 3, 4, or 5 decades from now? The rate at which technology advances makes the whole point of the discussion moot in my opinion. So C02 will climb for the next while, and then technology will lead to a dramatic decline. Problem solved. Regardless of whether warming is actually happening, happening because of man and nature, or happening just because of man.

[TimG]

Well, I can't deny that I don't understand the natural systems, which I presume to mean that you do. This is somewhat of a change from before when you accused me of not knowing the statistics.

I was conflating the two in the past. What I meant is you don't understand that statistics cannot be separated from the natural systems being analyzed and treating this as a purely mathematical exercise leads to erroneous conclusions.

.

In this case, anyone who understands natural systems would look at the data and immediately conclude that it cannot possibly be used in Mann's algorithms because of contamination in the calibration period. The only people who think that statistical "magic" can be used to deal with the contamination are people who do not understand the underlying natural system.

.

As for the physical science, the disagreement on what the silt deposit data has to do with temperature has been discussed elsewhere.

There is no disagreement in the paper. The paper makes it extremely clear what the relationship (a.k.a the sign) is supposed be but it makes no statement about the magnitude. Arguments that dispute the paper's claim are dishonest post-hoc attempts to support an unsupportable position. The arguments are also largely irrelevant because the real issue is the contamination in the calibration period that makes the data unusable even if the paper was wrong about the sign.

Lastly, if you are now agreeing that the paper says one thing and others are arguing after the fact that the paper is wrong then you should acknowledge that McIntrye was right to claim that Mann used the data upside down from what the paper claimed.

Edited March 29, 2013 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

.You apparently have not learned the lesson very well because you have absolutely refused to acknowledge my arguments about why Mann's numbers are nonsense if you look at the physics of the proxies. To this day you have not once provided any counter argument to that line of argument. You simply wave your hands and say 'physics doesn't matter' and claim that Mann's numbers are as good as any other number.

I didn't say physics doesn't matter - you're strawmanning again.

The arguments around how the data can predict temperature has been made elsewhere. I'm not making that argument - others have already.

BTW - this discussion is on topic for a thread labelled "The Great Green Con #1". It keeps coming up because it is symbolic of the entire climate debate. waldo does not like it because I suspect he knows he wrong and he wants to change the topic.

I don't think that's it.

[Michael Hardner]

I have a question, but it's not entirely related to this thread.

So, let's for argument sake say that warming is happening, and it's all man-made, and that the earth will warm by a degree or two over the next 50 years as predicted. So what?

That's actually a far more important and difficult debate IMO.

As I have said many times, this debate is a procrastination of that debate, which we don't have on here enough IMO.

[TimG]

As I have said many times, this debate is a procrastination of that debate, which we don't have on here enough IMO.

Well, I have always said that the science is largely irrelevant because there is not much we can do about CO2 even if we wanted to. The only reason the science comes up is because various political activists think they can push people to support various nonsensical anti-CO2 policies by claiming 'the science demands it'. This leads us into arguments about the science.

If people don't want to talk about the science they should stop using science as a political tool.

Edited March 29, 2013 by TimG

[Argus]

Having read most of these opinions before, I have come to the conclusion that debating or arguing with a 'Greener", is akin to debating an alternative with a Creationist,. When blinders go on,walls get built and beliefs are fixed in stone, it's a waste of time.

A dogmatic position with sacrosanct stance, has no opening to any but their own reasoning.

True enough. I don't pretend to understand the science surrounding global warming or climate change. I am aware there have been numerous warming and cooling periods in our past however, and am unconvinced the current one is not natural, although it might well be influenced to some degree by men. But really, the major reason I haven't put a lot of effort into reading the back and forth arguments is that no one has yet postulated a workable solution to a warming climate. So it really doesn't matter who is right or wrong.

I am always in favor of reducing air and water pollution, but I think those largely European nations who have spent hundreds of billions of dollars on absurd air trading schemes are accomplishing little or nothing of substance, and would oppose our following suit. I think we should simply accept the climate is warming, consider the likely consequences, and move to ameliorate those consequences as best we can.

[Michael Hardner]

Having read most of these opinions before, I have come to the conclusion that debating or arguing with a 'Greener", is akin to debating an alternative with a Creationist,. When blinders go on,walls get built and beliefs are fixed in stone, it's a waste of time.

A dogmatic position with sacrosanct stance, has no opening to any but their own reasoning.

Very unspecific. Arguing about what ? Warming ? The necessity for economic action ? Every question is different, and even those who are arguing against "Greeners" here support the idea that warming is happening.

[waldo]

One of my favorite anti-alarmist blog sites is IUSB.....they went after the "hockey stick" snow job with great zeal and satisfaction, just like we did several years ago....fun times !

yes, we dealt with the meme quite well indeed in the past - it's an easy MLW search away. Putting trumped up nonsense... and its purveyors... in its and their place does, as you say, make for "fun times"!

http://iusbvision.wordpress.com/2010/12/10/nasas-global-warming-evidence-page-filled-with-lies-half-truths-and-highly-suspect-data/

this ones got a bit of a wrinkle... why don't you step up beyond your blind link dropping - how about you actually throw some words together for a change. Why not step-up and state explicitly and categorically what you believe is the "great concern/issue" being presented in your linked reference... in your own words. Sure you can.

[bush_cheney2004]

yes, we dealt with the meme quite well indeed in the past - it's an easy MLW search away. Putting trumped up nonsense... and its purveyors... in its and their place does, as you say, make for "fun times"!

I agree...fun times to play rope-a-dope with AGW alarmists all while the hydrocarbon economy hums along with more CO₂ emissions, like the "hockey stick" never happened...because it didn't, and it wouldn't matter anyway.

this ones got a bit of a wrinkle... why don't you step up beyond your blind link dropping - how about you actually throw some words together for a change. Why not step-up and state explicitly and categorically what you believe is the "great concern/issue" being presented in your linked reference... in your own words. Sure you can.

See, even a devout alarmist can recognize good effort. My words are short and concise, no need for the rambling verbosity to nowhere that some here crave. Remember, NASA and Goddard are mine...not yours.

[bush_cheney2004]

This is good for a CO₂ emitting chuckle....how often has this workflow been employed here ?

The Global Warming Alarmist Defender Flowchart

http://iusbvision.wordpress.com/2010/12/09/global-warming-alarmist-defender-flowchart/

Edited March 30, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[waldo]

True enough. I don't pretend to understand the science surrounding global warming or climate change. I am aware there have been numerous warming and cooling periods in our past however, and am unconvinced the current one is not natural, although it might well be influenced to some degree by men.

you say you don't pretend to understand the science... that's an easy statement for most of us to make, to varying degrees. Yes, there have been numerous warming/cooling periods in the past. The relatively current accelerated warming is unprecedented in the last ~12000 years. There are no natural influences that can replace fossil-fuel burning sourced CO2 as the principal causal tie to GW/CC. The influences of natural factors are included in the collective grouping of all forcings that contribute to GW. There is significant consensus between all knowledgeable scientists, including skeptics, that CO2 is the principal causal linkage. The outstanding question that remains is simply one of just how sensitive is the climate... just how much will/might it warm... and, of course, the related consequences of that warming with/without mitigating efforts.

you state you're unconvinced - how so/why so... on the most broadest of levels what would convince you?

.

But really, the major reason I haven't put a lot of effort into reading the back and forth arguments is that no one has yet postulated a workable solution to a warming climate. So it really doesn't matter who is right or wrong.

I'm not clear what you mean by 'workable solution'... if you expect absolutes before you would consider action on any level be considered/pursued... or what? Clearly, the principal focus is to gain a movement towards stabilizing temperature rise... that's mitigation. If one takes a position of "doing nothing", of just accepting whatever happens, happens, then you slide entirely into a focus to gain a movement towards simply adapting to temperature rise and all its implications. And, of course, there's an element of prevention that works its way into the mix.

.

I am always in favor of reducing air and water pollution, but I think those largely European nations who have spent hundreds of billions of dollars on absurd air trading schemes are accomplishing little or nothing of substance, and would oppose our following suit. I think we should simply accept the climate is warming, consider the likely consequences, and move to ameliorate those consequences as best we can.

clearly, it's called global warming for a reason. At it's most base level, there is no absolute isolationism that can be taken... obviously, there is no isolated Canadian atmosphere, no isolated Canadian oceans... global economic ties dictate a need for cooperative undertakings.

.

[waldo]

...all while the hydrocarbon economy hums along with more CO₂ emissions, like the "hockey stick" never happened...because it didn't, and it wouldn't matter anyway.

hockey stick never happened??? So... why your false-front claiming to be an "adapter", taking extreme exception to the denier label? Just accept your denial - be loud & proud! Don't fake it by trying to hide behind your "adapter" label?

.

http://iusbvision.wordpress.com/2010/12/10/nasas-global-warming-evidence-page-filled-with-lies-half-truths-and-highly-suspect-data/

this ones got a bit of a wrinkle... why don't you step up beyond your blind link dropping - how about you actually throw some words together for a change. Why not step-up and state explicitly and categorically what you believe is the "great concern/issue" being presented in your linked reference... in your own words. Sure you can.

See, even a devout alarmist can recognize good effort. My words are short and concise, no need for the rambling verbosity to nowhere that some here crave. Remember, NASA and Goddard are mine...not yours.

nice dodge - you've given no words. I've asked you for your words - your own words to describe the presumed issue/concern within the link you blindly dropped without comment. Is there a reason you can't string a few thoughts together... is there a problem for you?

.