Global Climate Change

[ITOS]

As chance would have it, I just watched a documentary on why people doesn't trust established experts and rather goes with alternatives that has doubtful scientific value. The documentary summed it up to being due to scientist not being used to having to defend their work in the new media that has emerged with the internet. Personally, I think that psychological defence mechanisms may play an important part as well and is much harder to counter than media. I believe many would feel like being accused of being stupid if you explained to them how irrational humans really are. Edited October 28, 2011 by ITOS

[ginnyfizz]

Despite what marharth says, it IS worth reading, as it presents alternative statistics to the ones usually quoted.

"It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming... it is a

SCAM.

Some misguided scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long-term scientific data back

in the late 1990's to create an illusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmentalextremism

type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally

slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to

keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus."

SOUNDS LEGIT.

 

If anyone takes that man serious when that is the first paragraph of his article, I don't know what anyone could do to convince you. If anyone still wants to take a conspiracy theorists opinions seriously, I will post a link that debunks what he says.

 

He is a fairly well known weatherman. Not a scientist. He has no creditability.

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/john-coleman

 

Also his "Alternative Statistics" do not mean a thing when they are simply charts without any valid sources.

 

Wow, was there really any need for a personal attack like that? I didn't say that I either did or did not take him seriously, so please do not continue to misrepresent me, marharth.

I actually do not think the climate change proponents help their case when by their own admission they got their models wrong;-

 

Main argument against climate models proved wrong

 

The title of that article being something of a misnomer since, if you read it, all it proves is that EVERYONE - sceptics or climate changers, got their stats/models/facts wrong.

 

I don't think either side has established proof beyond reasonable doubt. I feel we would be foolish not to study and consider the impact of fossil fuels on the environment, but am unconvinced that the alternatives would have less impact and, since the Asian tiger economies of China and India will ignore anything we spout about environmental issues and carry on using fossil fuels regardless, concerned that we might be sending ourselves to economic ruin by going hell for leather down the OMG climate change! route.

[marharth]

"The Climate Change Science Program study, which was commissioned by the Bush Administration"

 

The same administration that appointed a group to say that Iraq had WMDs?

 

Most of his article is using evidence presented by politicians, that is no better then me trying to use Al Gore to try to prove my point.

 

If you look back at the other posts it explain why a large amount of CO2 released at once is a issue.

 

Having the earths climate change due to CO2 emissions have happened before, mainly in the past during large bursts of new life. If you have a lot of things alive at once, it will emit more CO2 then before.

 

Currently alternative fuels would not be any better. There is simply not enough wind or hydroelectric power to replace oil. Even still they have some degree of environmental impact. If there is a good alternative fuel found, it would be foolish to not change to it however. Types of bio-fuel look promising. The issue is we need to be recognizing it as a problem, even if it is not for the environment. If we reach peak oil our civilization would collapse faster and harder then a nuclear war.

 

Also I was kind of an ass in the last post, sorry about that.

Edited October 28, 2011 by marharth

[ITOS]

Currently alternative fuels would not be any better. There is simply not enough wind or hydroelectric power to replace oil. Even still they have some degree of environmental impact. If there is a good alternative fuel found, it would be foolish to not change to it however. Types of bio-fuel look promising.

Not quite true. Our ability to extract the energy from these alternative sources is lacking but the amount of solar energy that COULD be collected is way way more than we need.

 

Personally, though, I have more hope in nuclear energy. Not the unsafe bombs we use today, mind you, but ones that work on other principles. A LFTR for example:

Edited October 28, 2011 by ITOS

[Ghogiel]

I actually do not think the climate change proponents help their case when by their own admission they got their models wrong;-

 

Main argument against climate models proved wrong

 

The title of that article being something of a misnomer since, if you read it, all it proves is that EVERYONE - sceptics or climate changers, got their stats/models/facts wrong.

 

If you read that, it 'says' the guy, Dr. John Christy, that was saying that the predicted temperature increases weren't actually following what was being recorded in the atmosphere, might have been inaccurate. It's a hit at climate change sceptics as they use his data to strengthen the argument the troposphere isn't heating up along side surface temperatures(which definitely are), thus putting doubt that global warming is happening because the models predict that both troposphere and the surface should both be heating up.

 

That press release is based on a few articles in science mag, in which all the scientists agreed that is not the models that were incorrect, if anything the data calibration that likely accounts for any discrepancy. A study has since been done to address this particular claim. http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/11/15/us-climate-troposphere-idUSTRE6AE4E820101115

 

the current conclusion is the troposphere is heating up and Christy was doing it wrong.

[BlackRampage]

Ozone has to do with keeping out UV light......... As a greenhouse gas it has only a poor effect with its 0,1 PPM of the atmosphere.

Correct. And yet the "great minds" of the IPCC claim otherwise.

 

As chance would have it, I just watched a documentary on why people doesn't trust established experts and rather goes with alternatives that has doubtful scientific value. The documentary summed it up to being due to scientist not being used to having to defend their work in the new media that has emerged with the internet. Personally, I think that psychological defence mechanisms may play an important part as well and is much harder to counter than media. I believe many would feel like being accused of being stupid if you explained to them how irrational humans really are.

Your point?

How's this for a psychological mechanism: Tell a lie often enough, give it a load of media attention, bring in some self-appointed experts, bring in an ex-politician as spokesman and people might just start believing you.

 

One of the biggest misconceptions the public has about science is that research is a straightforward process of making measurements, and then seeing whether the data support hypothesis A or B. The truth is that the interpretation of data is seldom that simple.

There are all kinds of subjective decisions that must be made along the way, and the scientist must remain vigilant that he or she is not making those decisions based upon preconceived notions. Data are almost always dirty, with errors of various kinds. Which data will be ignored? Which data will be emphasized? How will the data be processed to tease out the signal we think we see?

Hopefully, the scientist is more interested in discovering how nature really works, rather than twisting the data to support some other agenda. Unfortunately the latter appears to be the case with the "research" that was conducted in order to support the IPCC's claims.

Still remember the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) email controversy?

 

Some highlights:

 

1. The scientists colluded in efforts to thwart Freedom of Information Act requests (across continents no less). They reference deleting data, hiding source code from requests, manipulating data to make it more annoying to use, and attempting to deny requests from people recognized as contributors to specific internet sites. Big brother really is watching you. He’s just not very good at securing his web site.

 

2. These scientists publicly diminished opposing arguments for lack of being published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. In the background they discussed black-balling journals that did publish opposing views, and preventing opposing views from being published in journals they controlled. They even mention changing the rules midstream in arenas they control to ensure opposing views would not see the light of day. They discuss amongst themselves which scientists can be trusted and who should be excluded from having data because they may not be "predictable".

 

3. The scientists expressed concern privately over a lack of increase in global temperatures in the last decade, and the fact that they could not explain this. Publicly they discounted it as simple natural variations. In one instance, data was [apparently] manipulated to hide a decline in temperatures when graphed. Other discussions included ways to discount historic warming trends that inconveniently did not occur during increases in atmospheric CO2.

 

4. The emails show examples of top scientists working to create public relations messaging with favorable news outlets. It shows them identifying and cataloging, by name and association, people with opposing views. These people are then disparaged in a coordinated fashion via favorable on-line communities.

 

And then people wonder why some "established experts" are losing their credibility. Maybe it's because they aren't so trustworthy after all?

[Marxist ßastard]

Climatic Research Unit... email controversy

Yeah! Teach the controversy!

[ITOS]

As chance would have it, I just watched a documentary on why people doesn't trust established experts and rather goes with alternatives that has doubtful scientific value. The documentary summed it up to being due to scientist not being used to having to defend their work in the new media that has emerged with the internet. Personally, I think that psychological defence mechanisms may play an important part as well and is much harder to counter than media. I believe many would feel like being accused of being stupid if you explained to them how irrational humans really are.

Your point?

How's this for a psychological mechanism: Tell a lie often enough, give it a load of media attention, bring in some self-appointed experts, bring in an ex-politician as spokesman and people might just start believing you.

 

One of the biggest misconceptions the public has about science is that research is a straightforward process of making measurements, and then seeing whether the data support hypothesis A or B. The truth is that the interpretation of data is seldom that simple.

There are all kinds of subjective decisions that must be made along the way, and the scientist must remain vigilant that he or she is not making those decisions based upon preconceived notions. Data are almost always dirty, with errors of various kinds. Which data will be ignored? Which data will be emphasized? How will the data be processed to tease out the signal we think we see?

 

My post wasn't so much an argument for or against either case but rather a notation of a disturbing phenomenon that plays into this debate as well as others. In a way it ties very well in with the rest of your post, in a way you may not realize.

 

Your description of how to convince the public and convey your own brand of truth is interesting. It's pretty much the same strategy the tobacco industry used decades ago. It's also a double edged sword in this discussion since it is equally applicable to both sides. People who denies human effects on the climate has been show to cherry pick data, make shady interpretation and develop strategies for handling media.

 

Given two corrupt systems and an inability to interpret the base data, how is the public (and politicians) supposed to determine who is trustworthy? In such cases, I prefer to go by majority. Given the extreme consequences in this particular case, even a slim majority would be enough to encourage me to play it safe. I do not gamble with millions of lives for the sake of burning fossil fuel for another 100 years.

Edited October 28, 2011 by ITOS

[ginnyfizz]

I actually do not think the climate change proponents help their case when by their own admission they got their models wrong;-

 

Main argument against climate models proved wrong

 

The title of that article being something of a misnomer since, if you read it, all it proves is that EVERYONE - sceptics or climate changers, got their stats/models/facts wrong.

 

If you read that, it 'says' the guy, Dr. John Christy, that was saying that the predicted temperature increases weren't actually following what was being recorded in the atmosphere, might have been inaccurate. It's a hit at climate change sceptics as they use his data to strengthen the argument the troposphere isn't heating up along side surface temperatures(which definitely are), thus putting doubt that global warming is happening because the models predict that both troposphere and the surface should both be heating up.

 

That press release is based on a few articles in science mag, in which all the scientists agreed that is not the models that were incorrect, if anything the data calibration that likely accounts for any discrepancy. A study has since been done to address this particular claim. http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/11/15/us-climate-troposphere-idUSTRE6AE4E820101115

 

the current conclusion is the troposphere is heating up and Christy was doing it wrong.

 

What I said is that EVERYONE is getting their data wrong one way or another "EVERYONE - sceptics or climate changers, got their stats/models/facts wrong." I HAVE read the article as a matter of fact, and would not have posted the link had I not, so I am not sure what your point is, apart from trying to score a cheap one of your own. I was merely pointing out that Christy, as well as "Old Uncle Tom Cobleigh and all" on the climate change side, have all postulated theories/used models that have been shown to be flawed.

 

I wasn't coming down on one side or the other so again, I am not sure why you seem to have gone on the attack.

 

And yes, Black Rampage and ITOS both have a valid point, that either side can and has cherry picked data to support their cause, and also that scientific data, like any form of statistics, is apt to subjective interpretation and manipulation, as well as to error. Scientists are not immune from the fifteen minutes of fame game and grandstanding-itis. That being the case, it really would make it hard for the average person in the street to make an informed decision.

[Ghogiel]

I actually do not think the climate change proponents help their case when by their own admission they got their models wrong;-

 

Main argument against climate models proved wrong

 

The title of that article being something of a misnomer since, if you read it, all it proves is that EVERYONE - sceptics or climate changers, got their stats/models/facts wrong.

 

If you read that, it 'says' the guy, Dr. John Christy, that was saying that the predicted temperature increases weren't actually following what was being recorded in the atmosphere, might have been inaccurate. It's a hit at climate change sceptics as they use his data to strengthen the argument the troposphere isn't heating up along side surface temperatures(which definitely are), thus putting doubt that global warming is happening because the models predict that both troposphere and the surface should both be heating up.

 

That press release is based on a few articles in science mag, in which all the scientists agreed that is not the models that were incorrect, if anything the data calibration that likely accounts for any discrepancy. A study has since been done to address this particular claim. http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/11/15/us-climate-troposphere-idUSTRE6AE4E820101115

 

the current conclusion is the troposphere is heating up and Christy was doing it wrong.

 

What I said is that EVERYONE is getting their data wrong one way or another "EVERYONE - sceptics or climate changers, got their stats/models/facts wrong." I HAVE read the article as a matter of fact, and would not have posted the link had I not, so I am not sure what your point is, apart from trying to score a cheap one of your own. I was merely pointing out that Christy, as well as "Old Uncle Tom Cobleigh and all" on the climate change side, have all postulated theories/used models that have been shown to be flawed.

 

It says Chirsty's calibrations of the recorded data might be inaccurate. And since then research into the claims that the temperature in troposphere have not been rising have been found incorrect, and concludes the data is actually accurate to an acceptable margin of error. So..