True cause of global warming

[Palmpilot]

You could demonstrate that CO2 varies due to processes other than human production by identifying and characterizing those processes.

Natural causes of CO2 variation have already been identified and characterized. What you would need to do is prove that the human contribution to the CO2 increase since the industrial revolution was too small to matter in comparison to natural causes during the same period.

 

[Palmpilot]

When the AGCC loudmouths lead by example I will follow suit. Last time I checked they are flying their own planes, driving cars, using computers, etc... if its REALLY that disastrous of an issue, they would quit telling everyone what to do and just do it themselves. Until then they can STFU and quit being hypocrites.

I'm not sure what your scientific education is, but where I went to school, "The proponents are hypocrites" was not taught as a valid way to disprove a theory.

 

[EdFred]

I'm not sure what your scientific education is, but where I went to school, "The proponents are hypocrites" was not taught as a valid way to disprove a theory.

I'm not trying to disprove it, but if you want me to believe, lead by example. Why should i listen to hypocrites if they obviously don't believe in their religion enough to follow through with actions?

 

[Palmpilot]

I think the problem some people have is in distinguishing between "what will happen" and "what will happen if nothing is done". A proper warning of "what will happen" motivates action that prevents us from finding out "what will happen if nothing is done".

I was working as an engineer for a semiconductor inspection equipment company whose customers, like Intel, AMD, HP, IBM, etc., and overseas manufacrurers as well, were demanding that we make sure our equipment and software were Y2K compliant. I worked with software engineers at the time, and I never heard a single one of them claim that everything would be OK if we did nothing.

 

[EdFred]

I'm still running a pre2k server/software and never had an issue on 1/1/00.

 

[JeffDG]

I was working as an engineer for a semiconductor inspection equipment company whose customers, like Intel, AMD, HP, IBM, etc., and overseas manufacrurers as well, were demanding that we make sure our equipment and software were Y2K compliant. I worked with software engineers at the time, and I never heard a single one of them claim that everything would be OK if we did nothing.

So, wait...you had experts who stood to gain financially from telling you that the world would end if you didn't do something right now, tell you that you had to do something right now?

 

[Palmpilot]

Have you looked into the actual per review process? The one by which they selectively choose only those who support their "consensus" and ignore anything that might questions it? Dr. Timothy Ball from the Univ. of Winnipeg could share some thoughts on that hopelessly corrupt process.

Evidence, please...

As usual, all you have to do is follow the money.

I think that's a great idea! Let's start by figuring out who has the greatest financial incentive to distort the truth, oil companies, or climate scientists.

The AGW crowd is funded by endless grants but those who poke holes in it get cut off.

This guy published a paper that seemed to disprove global warming, and his research funding continued uninterrupted:

Q: Don’t you think climatologists are pushing this to get more research money?
A: The notion that global warming is a hoax set up by scientists to make more money is a ridiculous paranoid conspiracy theory. For the vast majority of climate scientists to be making up results in order to get more money would take a level of organization among thousands of professionals and their assistants which could never be kept secret. The effort would be akin to that needed to hide the fact that man never set foot on the moon – and I put these two conspiracy theories on the same level. It would also go against the very reason why scientists become scientists – to explore, experiment and discover the truth about the world around us. In academia you have tenure which allows scientists to do this without being a slave to money or job security. I don’t know if ya’ll realize this, but scientists aren’t in it for the money. They are in it for the science, and what satisfaction would there be for a scientist knowing he/she is making the whole thing up? To the contrary, science is VERY competitive and if some hot shot wants to put a contrary hypothesis out there and test it, if it is based on good science, it will get funded.
I published a paper in 2002 that apparently disproved global warming, yet my research funding continued uninterrupted, and I received two promotions since then (only one occurred after I wrote a NY Times op-ed correcting the misuse of my paper)
So when an executive from the fossil fuel industry writes me (as he did) and says “Science to me is only a search for truth. The CO2 global warmers have an agenda to create carbon taxes, no science is involved.” – he’s got the first part right. Science is a search for the truth and the goal of scientists is to carry that search out (yes, there are some isolated cases of fabricated data). So who are you going believe? The oil industry exec who has a financial interest that directly impacts his way of life, or the climate scientist who still gets the same ho-hum paycheck no matter what conclusions his research comes to?
But what about our survey? There is actually data in our survey to disprove the conspiracy theory. Presumably, people who call themselves climatologists, but do not publish, also do not receive research funds (without publishing the well runs dry pretty quick). Since these folks (the non-publishing climatologists) get no research money, they should be free to speak their mind without impacting funds coming in. Well guess what? They answer yes to our Q2 at a rate of 82%. They know a lot about climate and aren’t impacted by funding, so you would think more than 4 of the 50 surveyed would be blowing the whistle on the “scam”​

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/survey_faq.html

Here's a question you might ask yourself: The way to disprove a theory is to do experiments and data collection that prove that its predictions are wrong. So if certain oil companies are sure that anthropogenic global warming theory is wrong, why don't they fund research to prove this? If they couldn't get the established climate science journals to publish the results (which I REALLY doubt), then they could certainly afford to publish the results themselves.

 

[LDJones]

Evidence, please...

....I published a paper in 2002 that apparently disproved global warming...

It appears your source resolved the issue for us!

But on a related note...

A cross examination of global warming science conducted by the University of Pennsylvania’s Institute for Law and Economics has concluded that virtually every claim advanced by global warming proponents fails to stand up to scrutiny.

The cross-examination, carried out by Jason Scott Johnston, Professor and Director of the Program on Law, Environment and Economy at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, found that “on virtually every major issue in climate change science, the [reports of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] and other summarizing work by leading climate establishment scientists have adopted various rhetorical strategies that seem to systematically conceal or minimize what appear to be fundamental scientific uncertainties or even disagreements.”

Professor Johnson, who expressed surprise that the case for global warming was so weak, systematically examined the claims made in IPCC publications and other similar work by leading climate establishment scientists and compared them with what is found in the peer-edited climate science literature. He found that the climate establishment does not follow the scientific method. Instead, it “seems overall to comprise an effort to marshal evidence in favor of a predetermined policy preference.”

http://opinion.financialpost.com/20...al-warming-science-doesn’t-withstand-scrutiny/

 

[Palmpilot]

Climategate. I rest my case!

The emails I saw could only be interpreted as showing wrongdoing if you interpreted them in a way that was consistent with the premise that there was wrongdoing. That's circular reasoning, which is never a valid proof.

Seriously, from Mann's hockey stick (made famous by Al Gore) we've seen what can only be described as outright fraud to try and fit the science to their theory and spike anything contradictory.

Here's a more informed analysis of the hockey stock issue than I could ever hope to write:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...guide-to-the-latest-hockey-stick-controversy/

The bottom line is every year that passes confirms the inadequacies of the climate models upon which the scaremongering of the 90s was based. The predictions have not come close to being correct...

Can you provide a list of the failed predictions?

...and an increasing percentage of the public is recognizing it, hence the decline in support for Kyoto and it's successors.

Public opinion does not determine the validity of scientific theories.

 

[mantakos]

So going back 120 years or so there are maybe 12 cases...

There are 137 names on that list of prisoners on death row who were exonerated.

The list of "posthumous pardons" is smaller, but once a prisoner has been executed, there's not a strong reason to put effort into exonerating him.

These are just the cases where the innocence was discovered. I can't provide you with a list of cases where the innocence was never discovered.
-harry

 

[Palmpilot]

Yes, there's been outright fraud and Mann in particular has been called on it numerous times, as have others.

Accusations have been made, but I have yet to see proof.

We DO have such direct evidence in the AGW debate...not to mention observable, measurable refutation of their outlandish claims of the '90s.

All the attempted refutations I've seen have had more holes in them than a block of swiss cheese.

 

[Palmpilot]

Both observations, methodologies and conclusions are debated by highly regarded scientists on both sides. Every time the two square off to debate their hypothises and findings, those observing the debate usually find the realist arguments more compelling than the alarmists. Which is why it's so hard to get them to debate the science these days.

Can you point to an example of one of these debates?

 

[Palmpilot]

The AGW debate is pretty much over other than in the radical green segments of society.

I think you're engaging in wishful thinking here.

 

[mantakos]

So the fraudsters investigated themselves and found themselves innocent.

Mann was investigated by his employer, by the US Commerce Dept inspector general, and by the National Science Foundation.

The British guys at CRU were investigated by a panel put together by the British government.

Mann's less than honest approach to his climate work is legend.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/02/manns-hockey-stick-climategate-and-foi-in-a-nutshell/

Perhaps you could tell us what fraud he has committed?

BTW, am I to understand that the investigation of the British Government, the US Commerce Dept, the NSF, and PSU are all untrustworthy, but your comment attached to a posting on a blog is proof positive?
-harry

 

[mantakos]

... The cross-examination, carried out by Jason Scott Johnston, Professor and Director of the Program on Law, Environment and Economy at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, found that ...

So I guess the science of global warming was disproven by a law professor. Well, that's a relief. One less thing to worry about.
-harry

 

[mantakos]

I'm still running a pre2k server/software and never had an issue on 1/1/00.

Most of the issues were with application software written well before 2000.
-harry

 

[mantakos]

So, wait...you had experts who stood to gain financially from telling you that the world would end if you didn't do something right now, tell you that you had to do something right now?

Sounds like he had co-workers who were subject matter experts tell him that.

If we're going to do the old "you can't trust anybody who claims a problem exists when they're paid to fix it", then we've disproven the existence of broken fan belts, bald tires, tooth decay, appendicitis, and whatever it is each of us does for a living.
-harry

 

[Palmpilot]

So the fraudsters investigated themselves and found themselves innocent.

So you just ASSUME that the investigators were in on the alleged fraud?

Circular reasoning!

Mann's less than honest approach to his climate work is legend.

That's a myth.

This reminds me a lot of the guy over on the Red Board who was arguing that the Bush Administration instigated controlled demolition of the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. It didn't matter what facts were presented, he always found an excuse for disregarding them. (How convenient.)

There have been isolated cases of faked data in science, but the solution is for others to repeat the data collection and get different results. Until that's done, the claims of the accusers are not science, and cannot be regarded as disproving any theory.

 

[Palmpilot]

Which is what we rely upon with no control set.

What do you mean by "control"? Are you suggesting that we find an identical Earth somewhere, and compare the results with and without burning of coal and oil?

If so, are you saying that's the only valid way to test climate models?

 

[Palmpilot]

I'm not trying to disprove it, but if you want me to believe, lead by example.

I'm not here to make you believe. I'm here to write the truth to the best of my ability.

Why should i listen to hypocrites if they obviously don't believe in their religion enough to follow through with actions?

My recommendation is to base your opinions about science on things that are scientifically relevant.

 

[Palmpilot]

I'm still running a pre2k server/software and never had an issue on 1/1/00.

Sounds like its software was well designed. Our customers didn't want to take it for granted that our software was, however, because downtime on a semiconductor fabrication line is VERY expensive.

 

[Palmpilot]

So, wait...you had experts who stood to gain financially from telling you that the world would end if you didn't do something right now, tell you that you had to do something right now?

They didn't stand to gain financially from it. They were on salary, and had PLENTY of work to do before our customers started demanding Y2K compliance. If anything, it just meant more unpaid overtime for them.

 

[Palmpilot]

Sounds like he had co-workers who were subject matter experts tell him that.

Actually, we had CUSTOMERS who were telling us we had to do something!

In addition, I had enough knowledge of the subject matter myself to know that we had to at least check our software. Software glitches in our equipment could cost our customers LOTS of money!

Let me tell you, you do NOT want to be the guy whose product shuts down Intel's production line!

If we're going to do the old "you can't trust anybody who claims a problem exists when they're paid to fix it", then we've disproven the existence of broken fan belts, bald tires, tooth decay, appendicitis, and whatever it is each of us does for a living.

You have this unique ability to see right through to the heart of a fallacious argument!

 

[Palmpilot]

A cross examination of global warming science conducted by the University of Pennsylvania’s Institute for Law and Economics has concluded that virtually every claim advanced by global warming proponents fails to stand up to scrutiny.

The cross-examination, carried out by Jason Scott Johnston, Professor and Director of the Program on Law, Environment and Economy at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, found that “on virtually every major issue in climate change science, the [reports of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] and other summarizing work by leading climate establishment scientists have adopted various rhetorical strategies that seem to systematically conceal or minimize what appear to be fundamental scientific uncertainties or even disagreements.”

Professor Johnson, who expressed surprise that the case for global warming was so weak, systematically examined the claims made in IPCC publications and other similar work by leading climate establishment scientists and compared them with what is found in the peer-edited climate science literature. He found that the climate establishment does not follow the scientific method. Instead, it “seems overall to comprise an effort to marshal evidence in favor of a predetermined policy preference.”

http://opinion.financialpost.com/20...al-warming-science-doesn’t-withstand-scrutiny/

Well, "seems" to him, I guess. If this is a scientific assessment, why is that word in there? It's in there pretty often too. Search the PDF file for the word "seem" and you'll see what I mean.

If it had been a real cross examination, the persons being cross examined would have had the opportunity to answer!

I should also point out that speculating on people's motives is not scientifically relevant.

 

[EdFred]

I'm not here to make you believe. I'm here to write the truth to the best of my ability.



My recommendation is to base your opinions about science on things that are scientifically relevant.

Science is the search for fact, not truth. If it was truth I was looking for I'd sign up for Dr. Tyree's philosophy class down the hall.

With no control set to measure against it is a religion. All credible science is based up on a control set. Anything else is just nothing more than taking someone's word for it.

 

[Everskyward]

In any case, it's nice to see an organization which is as liberal as the US Navy preparing for climate change.

Navy Releases Roadmap for Global Climate Change

"We must ensure our Navy is fully mission-capable and ready to meet national requirements in the future. That responsibility includes anticipating the impact of changing climatic conditions on mission requirements, force structure and infrastructure," explained Rear Adm. Dave Titley, director of Task Force Climate Change and Oceanographer of the Navy.

 

[EdFred]

In any case, it's nice to see an organization which is as liberal as the US Navy preparing for climate change.

Navy Releases Roadmap for Global Climate Change

That quote says to me, they are being forced to do something

"to meet national requirements"

sort of like the FAA preparing for terrorists by establishing TFRs over college football games. Unless you really think the FAA is scared of terrorists over Camp Randall stadium.

 

[mantakos]

Science is the search for fact, not truth. If it was truth I was looking for I'd sign up for Dr. Tyree's philosophy class down the hall.

You changed the meaning of the word truth in order to invalidate somebody else's statement. Facts are true; if they weren't true, they wouldn't be facts, they would be lies, errors, etc.

With no control set to measure against it is a religion. All credible science is based up on a control set. Anything else is just nothing more than taking someone's word for it.

There are numerous branches of science that deal with large natural systems that cannot be experimented on, e.g. meteorology, astronomy, geology, oceanography, zoology. You can learn from observation. There are often experiments you can perform to verify the science underlying processes. Sometimes you create computational models and compare them to your observations.

BTW, if it's your view that "we couldn't possibly know", then your answer to these questions should be "I don't know" and not "it isn't".
-harry

 

[Everskyward]

That quote says to me, they are being forced to do something

"to meet national requirements"

sort of like the FAA preparing for terrorists by establishing TFRs over college football games. Unless you really think the FAA is scared of terrorists over Camp Randall stadium.

To me it says that even though they acknowledge the controversy over the causes they are preparing to deal with the results as opposed to waiting until scientific evidence is set in stone, which it probably never will be. Good for them.

A preponderance of global observational evidence shows the Arctic Ocean is losing sea ice, global temperatures are warming, sea level is rising, large landfast ice sheets (Greenland and Antarctic) are losing ice mass, and precipitation patterns are changing.1,2 While there has been criticism on the details of the methods and results found in reports published by the IPCC and other entities, the Navy acknowledges that climate change is a national security challenge with strategic implications for the Navy.3 Climate change may influence the type, scope, and location of future Navy missions through its effects on the distribution and availability of natural resources (e.g., water, agriculture, fisheries, coastal areas, etc.). Economically unstable regions will be more vulnerable to the effects of climate change, and climate change will be one of several factors that may increase instability.

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/documents/CCR.pdf

 

[EdFred]

You changed the meaning of the word truth in order to invalidate somebody else's statement. Facts are true; if they weren't true, they wouldn't be facts, they would be lies, errors, etc.

There are numerous branches of science that deal with large natural systems that cannot be experimented on, e.g. meteorology, astronomy, geology, oceanography, zoology. You can learn from observation. There are often experiments you can perform to verify the science underlying processes. Sometimes you create computational models and compare them to your observations.

BTW, if it's your view that "we couldn't possibly know", then your answer to these questions should be "I don't know" and not "it isn't".
-harry

Say, what you want, there is a difference between truth and fact - and that's the truth, er a fact!

We aren't interfering with astronomy, nor did we contribute to geological processes we study from x,000,000 years ago. You can also observe without affecting the situation in zoology. When you are in the system, and affect the system you are studying, you can not have tainted results. Computational models are only as good as the data and integrity of the person designing the system.

Remember the record number of hurricanes the models said we were going to have in 2006. Oh, you mean there wasn't a record number of storms? Oh yeah, where was that data and models from? Exactly.

 

[dmccormack]

To me it says that even though they acknowledge the controversy over the causes they are preparing to deal with the results as opposed to waiting until scientific evidence is set in stone, which it probably never will be. Good for them.

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/documents/CCR.pdf

It's called "Jumping on the appropriations bandwagon."

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Science is the search for fact, not truth. If it was truth I was looking for I'd sign up for Dr. Tyree's philosophy class down the hall.

With no control set to measure against it is a religion. All credible science is based up on a control set. Anything else is just nothing more than taking someone's word for it.

Wasn't there a line in Indiana Jones along these lines?

No time for love, Dr. Jones!

 

[Everskyward]

It's called "Jumping on the appropriations bandwagon."

No, it's called "being prepared" which is what the military is supposed to do.

 

[EdFred]

Wasn't there a line in Indiana Jones along these lines?

No time for love, Dr. Jones!

The original line was...

Pretty close to the original line. I was hoping someone would pick up on that.

 

[dmccormack]

No, it's called "being prepared" which is what the military is supposed to do.

Trust me - there's plenty more the Navy should be concerned about preparing for.

 

[Everskyward]

Trust me - there's plenty more the Navy should be concerned about preparing for.

How do you know that they are not? Probably a lot of that is classified.

 

[dmccormack]

How do you know that they are not? Probably a lot of that is classified.

Follow the money trial: http://www.finance.hq.navy.mil/FMB/12pres/SCN_BOOK.pdf

 

[Everskyward]

Follow the money trial: http://www.finance.hq.navy.mil/FMB/12pres/SCN_BOOK.pdf

I don't know what you are trying to prove with that document.

 

[mantakos]

Say, what you want, there is a difference between truth and fact - and that's the truth, er a fact!

"Truth" is an attribute that qualifies a claim as a fact.

There are other meanings of the word "truth", and you're choosing one of these meanings, when it's clear that this wasn't how it was being used.

We aren't interfering with astronomy...

The question is whether it's possible to come to understand something by observing it. How you're going to apply that knowledge isn't relevant to whether you can gain it or not.

Computational models are only as good as the data and integrity of the person designing the system.

Absolutely. And what can you tell us about that?

Remember the record number of hurricanes the models said we were going to have in 2006. Oh, you mean there wasn't a record number of storms? Oh yeah, where was that data and models from? Exactly.

You're confusing short-term predictions with long-term trends, a common mistake on this topic. People like to say "the weatherman said it was going to be partly sunny today, but it was actually partly cloudy and it rained a little bit, therefore greenhouse gases don't encourage warming".

The fallacies here are confusing short-term and long-term forecasting (I can't accurately predict what my heart-rate will be 4 hours from now, but I can very accurately predict what it will be 100 years from now) and "we don't know everything, therefore we know nothing", i.e. that an inability to accurately forecast X means that we cannot forecast an unrelated Y.

And, again, your claims all encourage an answer of "I don't know", but they're used to rationalize an answer of "it isn't".
-harry

 

[dmccormack]

I don't know what you are trying to prove with that document.

Do you see a large expenditure in the Navy's FY12 budget entitled "Combat Global Warming?"

Nope.

While they may say spiffy things in their annual mission statement, follow the money to see what's truly important.