[Closed] It's global cooling, not warming!

It is based on science though

We really couldn't see the science behind your arguments.. perhaps you didn't articulate it well enough? As for ripping stuff apart, shouldn't we be unable to rip sound arguments apart? 🙂

As for ripping stuff apart, shouldn't we be unable to rip sound arguments apart?

When i say ripped apart, i really meant dismissed without any real reason.

But anyway, people have chosen not to debate the historical CO2 and temperature levels, the complex interaction of CO2, Water Vapour and Methane, our over-reliance on beef and what should be done about that so if people won't engage then fair enough.

I'm sure everyone is bored so lets just agree to disagree and hope that Scientists are clever than we think and can stop the next ice age.

Just to move the debate on a bit, do you have any ideas as to how "they" might do this?

Absolutly no idea - I for one think its impossible.

people have chosen not to debate the historical CO2 and temperature levels, the complex interaction of CO2, Water Vapour and Methane

I think you'll find climate scientists have been addressing those issues for decades.

And I trust their opinions on the matter far more than yours. (Sorry, but there you go).

molgrips

"I think some on this thread have taken offence to someone holding an opinion that doesn't seem to them to be based on science. Plus you were telling them they were wrong a bit."

That's called freedom! Freedom to question, freedom to be wrong, to be right, freedom to say what you believe. Would you change that?

I note that you put a smiley face at the end there but remember that the thought police will smile the first time they tell you to change your view.

But anyway, people have chosen not to debate the historical CO2 and temperature levels, the complex interaction of CO2, Water Vapour and Methane

That's what climate scientists do all day! I've read loads on those things. We've debated it lots on this thread for starters.

our over-reliance on beef and what should be done about that

Again, widely discussed. I've read many times that to feed a person on beef requires something like 7 times more grain than to feed a person on grain.. Some politician was telling us just a few weeks back that we should be vegetarian, and I think someone has a guideline out that suggests we give meat a miss one day a week. The effect of cow farts on climate is major issue as is the deforestation that comes with large scale beef farming in the developing world.. lots and lots of stuff.

It is based on science though, but some choose to ignore that or essentially try to rip apart anything that anyone posts which contradicts there belief.

Actually Hainey - I think the biggest problem is that AGW theory is based on faith, with science used to back up the argument.

The "faith" is that we, as a race, are damaging the planet, the "green lobby" have been banging the drum calling for changes for years, and have discovered that AGW is a very effective rallying cry - I don't really think that as a race we've come that far from the days of thinking that we have angered the gods who are punishing us with a storm.

I haven't actually seen anyone here take issue with the facts that data [b]has[/b] been manipulated, that there are proven differences in sets of data that can only be explained through recording/processing bias, that there is contradictory data that is being ignored - quite simply, thats not good science - QA the data, and see whether the data still fits the theory, if it does, great, if it doesn't, then you have to revisit the theory - thats simply not happening.

I'm not saying that there isn't a very fair argument for cutting back on consumption, pollution and damage - however the science being performed in the name of AGW is really pretty poor, its a classic case of making the evidence match the theory rather than the other way round.

I think the biggest problem is that AGW theory is based on faith

That's just silly. Why on earth would green types care about something that wasn't a problem enough to try and make it one?

There could be SOME poor science in the name of AGW, not sure I know where though, but does that discredit it all?

I understand what you are trying to say Z-11 but I don't like the word faith.

I'm not saying that there isn't a very fair argument for cutting back on consumption, pollution and damage - however the science being performed in the name of AGW is really pretty poor, its a classic case of making the evidence match the theory rather than the other way round.

Agreed.

If there was some kind of super effective green lobby that was able to persuade governments what to do (HAHAHAHAHA!!!) then surely they would think of a more effective tool of persuasion than some nebulous future concept that really won't affect much the people who are most able to affect it at some unspecified point in the near or far future.

Something like save the rainforest, tigers, elephants, bears etc would have been far more effective don't you think?

I personally think that the likes of Michael Moore and to a lesser extent Al Gore have done a major disservice to the cause by trying to sensationalise AGW.

Can someone post or re-post a cication for poor science, I haven't time to read the whole thread.

That's just silly. Why on earth would green types care about something that wasn't a problem enough to try and make it one?

I don't like the word faith

I think its a psychological issue thats built deep in human society!

It's been demonstrated in a huge variety of differing cultures since time immemorial, that where there is chaos we seek order and control, and where there is an event which we cannot explain we seek a reason why - human sacrifices to appease the angry volcano gods, kings seeking to control the tides, and the very source of a whole variety of religions from paganism to christianity!

Is it really so different, have we really come on so far as a race that we now think that we can control our destiny?

[img] [/img]

Hainey said:

But anyway, people have chosen not to debate the historical CO2 and temperature levels

Hainey, that is so not true that I'd have to call it a bare-faced lie.

Sorry to bore everyone else again but here is a very good explanation for the cyclical nature of historical CO2 and temperature levels:

The coolings appear to be caused primarily and initially by increase in the Earth-Sun distance during northern hemisphere summer, due to changes in the Earth’s orbit. As the orbit is not round, but elliptical, sunshine is weaker during some parts of the year than others. This is the so-called Milankovitch hypothesis [this really should say "theory" -- eric], which you may have heard about. Just as in the warmings, CO2 lags the coolings by a thousand years or so, in some cases as much as three thousand years.

But do not make the mistake of assuming that these warmings and coolings must have a single cause. It is well known that multiple factors are involved, including the change in planetary albedo, change in nitrous oxide concentration, change in methane concentration, and change in CO2 concentration. I know it is intellectually satisfying to identify a single cause for some observed phenomenon, but that unfortunately is not the way Nature works much of the time.

Nor is there any requirement that a single cause operate throughout the entire 5000 – year long warming trends, and the 70,000 year cooling trends.

Thus it is not logical to argue that, because CO2 does not cause the first thousand years or so of warming, nor the first thousand years of cooling, it cannot have caused part of the many thousands of years of warming in between.

Think of heart disease – one might be tempted to argue that a given heart patient’s condition was caused solely by the fact that he ate french fries for lunch every day for 30 years. But in fact his 10-year period of no exercise because of a desk job, in the middle of this interval, may have been a decisive influence. Just because a sedentary lifestyle did not cause the beginning of the plaque buildup, nor the end of the buildup, would you rule out a contributing causal role for sedentary lifestyle?

There is a rich literature on this topic. If you are truly interested, I urge you to read up.

The contribution of CO2 to the glacial-interglacial coolings and warmings amounts to about one-third of the full amplitude, about one-half if you include methane and nitrous oxide.

So one should not claim that greenhouse gases are the major cause of the ice ages. No credible scientist has argued that position (even though Al Gore implied as much in his movie). The fundamental driver has long been thought, and continues to be thought, to be the distribution of sunshine over the Earth’s surface as it is modified by orbital variations. This hypothesis was proposed by James Croll in the 19th century, mathematically refined by Milankovitch in the 1940s, and continues to pass numerous critical tests even today.

The greenhouse gases are best regarded as a biogeochemical feedback, initiated by the orbital variations, but then feeding back to amplify the warming once it is already underway. By the way, the lag of CO2 of about 1000 years corresponds rather closely to the expected time it takes to flush excess respiration-derived CO2 out of the deep ocean via natural ocean currents. So the lag is quite close to what would be expected, if CO2 were acting as a feedback.

The response time of methane and nitrous oxide to climate variations is measured in decades. So these feedbacks operate much faster.

The quantitative contribution of CO2 to the ice age cooling and warming is fully consistent with current understanding of CO2’s warming properties, as manifested in the IPCC’s projections of future warming of 3±1.5 C for a doubling of CO2 concentration. So there is no inconsistency between Milankovitch and current global warming.

It's an extract form an earlier posting. Have you read it?

RPRT - rather than just cutting and pasting from realclimate, can YOU debate it?

edited to add: I mean, this is half the problem - rather than looking at the data and facts and actually thinking about it themselves with a critical mind, most of the people on here are simply parroting someone else's opinion and telling us that the "consensus" must be right, simply because its the consensus!

It's been demonstrated in a huge variety of differing cultures since time immemorial

Er, directly likening modern science to supersitions of mediaeval times is a barefaced insult to the last 300 years of scientific development mate. That's an absolutely ridiculous allegation, you must surely appreciate this. As you sit there typing on a computer connected to the internet...

Sometimes, people's lack of understanding of science and consequent antipathy makes me really angry.

Z11,

Not as well. The author is after all a Professor of Geosciences.

I can follow it though, and it seems to make sense.

z-11

I haven't actually seen anyone here take issue with the facts that data has been manipulated,

How much more data do you want have you seen how much is in the IPCC report? Why is it bad to reference to other people - have you ever read a science paper it is an essential part of any research.

Hainey said

I don't like the word faith.

Hainey said

Its a very religious / chuch of scientology viewpoint to go round rubbishing people.

Will the real hainey please stand up.

You see junkyard - this is another part of the problem, you don't understand that I didn't do ANYTHING to alter the data, just express it in a less sympathetic way than your own graph - was your own graph right, or was that manipulated by someone to prove a point on skepticalscience where you cut and pasted it from?

Have you actually looked at the data yourself?

most of the people on here are simply parroting someone else's opinion and telling us that the "consensus" must be right, simply because its the consensus!

That's a rather patronising attitude. I don't hold my view because its the consensus, I hold it because I'm persuaded by the argument. Its reassuring to find myself in the company of so many eminent scientists though.

read my edit - z-11
No you dod not manipulate the data you used a rathe odd choice of scale. The data was unaltered the presentation was - you call it less sympathetic everyone else asked why you use the same scale for C02 and ppm you did not answer iirc - care to explain now?
reread they consensus on that.
Did anyone on here actually defend that graph other than you?
Did everyone who commented it criticise it for the same reason [scale]?
Did you repeatedly mistake it for a correlation?

Everyone was scathing of that graph are we all wrong and you are the lone voice of reason?

Ok data - specifcally what are you saying other than it is all wrong?

Yeah, you're persuaded by the argument, but not by actually questioning it critically and looking behind the argument.

It was fairly clear that the argument that Saddam had WMD persuaded a huge proportion of our politicians that it was true, and that action was necessary, the arguments were really strong with lots of facts to back them up, there was a consensus among the intelligence community who were all experts in the field...

look where that got us!

Edited to add - I'm afraid you might want to look at what I [b]actually[/b]said Junkyard.

http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/search.php?q=correlation&x=0&y=0

Was your graph from Skepticalscience any more reliable or a better use of the same data - was it any more accurate, seeing as they had to factor the data to form the curve - it was a simple exercise in how you can present data to prove or disprove your point!

Could you stick to the subject some politicians lied really
So graphs and correlations and your understanding of them.
Can you give an example with the entire worlds scientists, governments and the UN lying about science? Can you even think of an entire scientific community lying? I dont mean switching paridgm I mean actually lying?
Hell even the oil companies accept global warming and they have their own scientists to fight the "IPCC lies".

"It was fairly clear that the argument that Saddam had WMD persuaded a huge proportion of our politicians that it was true, and that action was necessary, the arguments were really strong with lots of facts to back them up, there was a consensus among the intelligence community who were all experts in the field..."
That's a really bad annalogy the consensus in the inteligence community appears to have been there was no significant evidence of current WMD that's why the particular politicians who wanted to go to war needed a dodgy dosier based on a google search. The argument that pursuaded the MP's appears to have been an assurance from the sitting PM that he had seen the secret evidence and they should take his word for it .

Could you stick to the subject some politicians lied really

Did they, or did they just present data in a misleading fashion to prove their point?

Can you even think of an entire scientific community lying

I've never suggested anyones lying - I've said that they've mislead themselves, and there's plenty of examples of the scientific community doing just that - Phrenology, Eugenics, the raisin theory (ie. what preceded the theory of plate tectonics)

Being wrong is not the same as misleading is it?

[i]try to rip apart anything that anyone posts which contradicts there belief.[/i]

Exactly what you've been doing for 21 pages hainey.

The historical time periods being evoked over the last few pages are far to short if we are looking for the conditions we can expect as we rise beyond atmospheric carbon levels of 380ppm. 500ppm is a realistic estimate of what we will reach in the not too distant future so shouldn't we be looking at conditions that correspond to those levels?

Z11

Well a couple of points there, so firstly,

You said:

Yeah, you're persuaded by the argument, but not by actually questioning it critically and looking behind the argument.

You mean I disagree with you?

Then you said:

It was fairly clear that the argument that Saddam had WMD persuaded a huge proportion of our politicians that it was true, and that action was necessary, the arguments were really strong with lots of facts to back them up, there was a consensus among the intelligence community who were all experts in the field...

Firstly, what the hell do you think this proves? You're the one telling us to look at the data for ourselves, don't accept anything that isn't utterly objective and verifiable, and yet you think that comparing the controversy over Iraq with the controversy over climate change somehow strengthens your case?

But secondly (as you mentioned it) what an incredibly poor choice of metaphor.

Actually before the Iraq invasion the UN weapons inspectors - in your analogy, lets think of them like the climate scientists - said that there were no weapons.

But the armchair experts, (neocons hardliners G W Bush etc, Dick Cheney etc), in your analogy - lets think of them as the climate deniers (oh hang on, THEY ACTUALLY ARE THE SAME PEOPLE!) - said that there were obviously weapons.

In other words, the "analysts" back home were wrong and the "scientists" on the ground were right.

So how is that a good metaphor for the climate change argument again?

Didn't anyone hear Hans Blix when he said he had visited all the sites he had requested access to and found nothing. Just the information Blair need to go in knowing he had nothing to worry about. That his troops wouldn't be poisoned and Israel wouldn't be nuked.

(Apologies for sidelining the discussion)

You see RPRT - you do it again, jump to conclusions and misquote people - I didn't say anything about the UN weapons inspectors, I said there was "consensus among the intelligence community who were all experts in the field"

Actually, Hans Blix said nothing of the sort at the time - He said more research needed to be done, he quite categorically did not say there were not any weapons

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/SC7asdelivered.htm

In fact, if anything, its more accurate to put Hans Blix in the "skeptic" position - his position was that the evidence was inconclusive, that a lot of the evidence being used was unreliable, and he went away to encourage actually inspecting, rather than relying on "consensus" arguments and probabilities based on historical data!

Hans Blix said what I quoted in an interview that was shown on both French and German TV but not on British channels.

When did he say in Edukator? before or after?

I've linked to what he said in March 2003, before the invasion!

That report predates the invasion by 8 days, the final Blix interview in the desert made it clear he had visited al the sites as requested. Even a month earlier he had expresssed his doubts WMDs would be found to Blair.

[url= http://www.****/news/article-1245243/Iraq-inquiry-Hans-Blix-told-Blair-month-invasion-Saddam-WMDs.html ]From your favourite paper[/url]

The difference in News content between the BBC, Eins Extra and TF1 made it clear to me the BBC was exaggerating the threat and withholding information such as Blix' interviews when he visited sites and found nothing.

ACtually Edukator, you'll be surprised to hear I don't read the mail - still, not to let stereotyping and jumping to conclusions get in the way of facts eh?

He expressed doubts?

I note that my point stands, Blix "quite categorically did not say there were not any weapons"

edukator use his own link it said this
All my bold
he did say this though

As I noted on 14 February, [b]intelligence authorities have claimed [/b]that weapons of mass destruction are moved around Iraq by trucks and, in particular, that there are mobile production units for biological weapons. The Iraqi side states that such activities do not exist. Several inspections have taken place at declared and undeclared sites in relation to mobile production facilities. Food testing mobile laboratories and mobile workshops have been seen, as well as large containers with seed processing equipment. [b]No evidence of proscribed activities have so far been found[/b]......

I should note that the working document contains much information and discussion about the issues which existed at the end of 1998 – including information which has come to light after 1998. It contains much less information and discussion about the period after 1998, primarily because of paucity of information. Nevertheless, [b]intelligence agencies have expressed the view that proscribed programmes have continued or restarted in this period
[/b]

Of course he did not say there were no weapons you cannot prove a negative can you he could only ever say he had not found any ...not this point again on a different subject. Again no eviodence was found ...seems clear to me he say he has found nothing but the intelligence agencies are making claims.
Vaguely back OT
you said re correlation that i should look at what you said so I did

Edited to add - I'm afraid you might want to look at what I actuallysaid Junkyard.

http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/search.php?q=correlation&x=0&y=0
all I see is that you said that my graph was a correlation as well and then repeated this error /mistake when you posted yours - do you have another interpretation of the data? You do accepot they are not correlations now?

I said that he said he had visited all the sites he had requested access to and found nothing.

Blix did categorically say he had found nothing more than a few old shells from the Iran/Irak war despite having had access to all the suspect sites. Blix as an intelligent, honest and rigous man could say no more. You cannot state "categorically" that any nation doesn't have WMDs. You are asking the impossible of Blix, as did Blair, who then manipulated that lack of certainty there weren't any into absolute certainty there were for the consumption of the British public.

Why do you think the french and Germans were so outraged by Blair's claim but the British public were not? Because we were better informed.

all I see is that you said that my graph was a correlation as well

No, I said that the graph did not [i]show[/i] a correlation, not that it [i]was[/i] one - below the graph I said "look at the correlation" referring to the data [i]shown[/i] in the graph.

Are you denying that it is accepted practice to visually express the correlation between two sets of variables by drawing a diagram in which each result is plotted on a standard X-Y graph?

Well Z11, I'm glad you've moved back to the topic of the thread. If you want to start a WMD thread go ahead, but for the sake of all our sanity lets just stick to the one contentious topic at once here eh?

Anyway, I note also that you said this a while back:

Actually Hainey - I think the biggest problem is that AGW theory is based on faith, with science used to back up the argument.

Just as a matter of interest, who do you think started advancing an AGW theory before there was ANY science to back it up?

This is a serious question BTW - one of the main objections of skeptics seems to be that there is some sort of conspiracy going on, so it would be interesting to get to the root of that.

I dont think its a deliberate conspiracy - I think its mass delusion/hysteria - a bunch of people truly and honestly being convinced that what they're doing is the right thing and finding patterns and proof where there is only chaos.

I dont think its helped by Greenpeace et al using it as a to push their agenda, which of course had its origins in the anti nuclear movement of the 1960's

Another parallel would be that of satanic/ritual abuse

http://www.private-eye.co.uk/sections.php?section_link=in_the_back&article=99&issue=1244

You're doing it again.

How do you think that bringing yet another highly emotive topic into the discussion will help foster rational debate?

You are priceless. You say 'only the facts' then you try to draw a parallel between climate science and ritual child abuse.

Don't you see the irony?

Best example of recent mass hysteria by a group of supposedly experienced professionals I could think of RPRT!

I said that the graph did not show a correlation, not that it was one

the correlation only applies if the NASA GISS global anomaly data is correct

Are you denying that it is accepted practice to visually express the correlation between two sets of variables by drawing a diagram in which each result is plotted on a standard X-Y graph?

Of course I am not denying that a correlation can be represented graphically. However it has some obvious differences that would enable any observer with a rudimentary grasp of statistics to notice
1.If it was a correlation between temperature and C02 there would be only one line on the graph
2. X-Y would be labelled as per the variable correlated - temp on one C02 on the other.
[url= http://www.schoolworkout.co.uk/documents/s1/PMCC.doc ]gcse stats[/url]

Now you apparently want a debate about poor data sets whilst claiming the reason for global warming is mass hysteria. Am I really expected to conclude the scenario with the most evidence is that we are all, unintentionally, experiencing mass hysteria rather than global warming?

Junkyard - further up the page, [b]before[/b] you posted the graph from skepticalscience - I had already used the "C" word.

http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/its-global-cooling-not-warming/page/17#post-1040918

Quite clearly talking about the data, before a graph was used - but you jumped on your little high horse thinking I'd said something I hadn't!

Mass Hysteria and psychology: Junkyard, I suggest you go and learn about clustering illusions and the Representativeness heuristic

-zulu - your arguments make about as much sense as flat earthers or creationists.

so I think you are right - there is a illusion - but its the sceptics not the people who actually understand the science that are under the illusion.

You are so obviously selecting facts and twisting them to fit your ideas.

quite honestly you never had much credibility and now you have non.

I do hope you have your tin foil hat on.

Nicely said TJ.

Thanks for that link it is an even better reference. I like the bit where you are arguing about a correlation as cause and effect - that is not even a schoolboy error - thanks for highlighting it.

But the whole point is that the rate of loss is supposed to correlate with, and has been used as evidence of an unprecedented rate of temperature increase, which is itself correlated with an unprecedented rate of rise in CO2 - cause and effect.

Now you are confusing me again what have I got then mass hysteria or your latest notion of the clustering illusions MY BOLD

The clustering illusion refers to the tendency to erroneously perceive small samples from random distributions as having significant "streaks" or "clusters", [b]caused by a human tendency to underpredict the amount of variability likely to appear in a small sample of random or semi-random data due to chance.[/b][

correlation does not mean causality

Halle ****ing Lulleah!

[b]Now[/b] we're getting somewhere Junkyard!

So, why did you post a graph of CO2 matching Temperature rise?

What evidence do you have that CO2 drives temperature change, given the fact that you yourself concede that correlation does [b]not[/b] mean causality!

I am fairly confident that the vast array of equations - data analysis we perform on the raw data - data manipulation you call it iirc

data analysis is not manipulation, manipulation is the process of adjusting [b]raw[/b] data:

[img] [/img]