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

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

You're doing it again. Muddying the waters. Correlation does not mean causality, but neither does it NOT mean causality. That statement by itself means nothing.

As you well know, lots of us do think there is causality, and have been bombarding you with evidence. At the moment the experiment is still running and so we have to make a judgement as to the outcome, but in my opinion the trouble with your argument is that you give too much weight to (inevitable) idiosyncrasies in the data over the mass of coherent data.

too much weight to (inevitable) idiosyncrasies in the data over the mass of coherent data.

But thats my exact point about clustering Illusions and representativeness - that you're giving huge weight to the inevitable coherences that occur in a huge mass of otherwise incoherent data, and attaching no weight to the flaws in the data that cannot be explained by the theory. You choose to ignore the data thats been adjusted, you choose to ignore the cloud cover correlation data and all the evidence in respect of internal forcing to justify the CO2 causation

As you well know, lots of us do think there is causality, and have been bombarding you with evidence

Seriously, other than the fact that there is a (limited) correlation between temperature rise data and CO2 data in the past few decades, what evidence has anyone offered that CO2 levels drive temperature in a real world environment with all its complex feedback systems and external inputs - your own petard is the phrase that "correlation does not mean causality"

attaching no weight to the flaws in the data that cannot be explained by the theory

What flaws in the data have been adjusted [b]with no good reason[/b]?

But on your other point:

Seriously, other than the fact that there is a (limited) correlation between temperature rise data and CO2 data in the past few decades, what evidence has anyone offered that CO2 levels drive temperature in a real world environment

Seriously, it's a measurable effect. More CO2 = more longwave radiation at the surface, less infrared radiation out into space. (We did this about 2 months ago). There you go - no historical data required.

your own petard is the phrase that "correlation does not mean causality"

what evidence has anyone offered that CO2 levels drive temperature in a real world

1.Make no difference
2.Increase the amount of energy stored
3.Decrease the amount of energy stored

I am going for b and 2 - is anyone atually disputing this anywhere? ANy credible scientist claiming C02 is NOT a grenhouse gas or arguing with this acount?

Now the only way this simple account can be wrong is if you have a begating factor from

all its complex feedback systems and external inputs

i await the great negating system we have all forgotten about

Can I wager that you ignore the question and argue about the data or hysteria again?

it is the big fiery ball in the sky that we orbit that is the primary driver of temperature iirc.

Well, thats a fairly significant variable that you've just thrown into your simple common sense equation Junkyard

Can I wager that you ignore the question and argue about the data or hysteria again?

Could you answer the question ?
The real question we need to ask is what does C02 do to the energy when it arrives
a. Nothing
b. Trap some of it
c.Trap it all
If we have more C02 does it

1.Make no difference
2.Increase the amount of energy stored
3.Decrease the amount of energy stored
your answers are?

But thats really not the point is it? the earth is not a test tube - its the real world effects that we're discussing.

If it [i]were[/i] that simple, then we would have seen an increase in temperature over the past decade, since at the same time there has been a significant increase in CO2 levels - that has demonstrably not happened, ergo [i]something[/i] must be happening that is not factored into your nice simple equation.

It may have been posted already, i can't be arsed to read what i only assume is pub science, but this is a fascinating analysis of the 'climategate' emails:

I'd suggest nobody post again until they've read it.

fascinating you really have learnt well from Hainey ......ignore questions debate something different. Answer the question please I am happy to reciprocate and have answered yours.

The real question we need to ask is what does C02 do to the energy when it arrives
a. Nothing
b. Trap some of it
c.Trap it all
If we have more C02 does it

1.Make no difference
2.Increase the amount of energy stored
3.Decrease the amount of energy stored
your answers are?
Once you answer that I look fwd to you elaborating on your scientifically defined and evidenced "something" - it should be fascinating

ergo something must be happening that is not factored into your nice simple equation.

[i]I'd suggest nobody post again until they've read it.[/i]

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Science_and_Public_Policy_Institute

I'd suggest nobody post again until they've read it.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Science_and_Public_Policy_Institute

??

Junkyard - ok, answers to yours

in a test tube environment with a constant input and no other variables - B and 2

So why, [b]please explain to me[/b], have we not seen the same outcome in the real world over the past few years?

[img] http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah/scale:10/from:2004/trend/plot/esrl-co2/offset:-370/from:2004/trend [/img]

If it were that simple, then we would have seen an increase in temperature over the past decade

You're letting yourself down Z11.

At one point in this discussion I thought you were actually making reasonable points, but now you're getting silly.

I think everyone on my side of the argument agrees that there are many factors forcing climate change and that there are natural cycles at work. Maybe temperatures might fall for 10 years (although I don't believe they have) but still do that within a longer term upward trend. Would you admit that that is a possibility?

CaptJon said

It may have been posted already, i can't be arsed to read what i only assume is pub science, but this is a fascinating analysis of the 'climategate' emails:

You couldn't be arsed to read all of our witty repartee, but you could be bothered to read that?

Sorry, I didn't do more than skim it. Once I got to the words

most disciplines of science are, to a greater or lesser extent, controlled by fashions, biases, and dogma.

I could see which way the wind was blowing and stopped reading.

"fascinating analysis" - are you related to the author?

rightplacerighttime - Member
CaptJon said

It may have been posted already, i can't be arsed to read what i only assume is pub science, but this is a fascinating analysis of the 'climategate' emails:
You couldn't be arsed to read all of our witty repartee, but you could be bothered to read that?

Sorry, I didn't do more than skim it. Once I got to the words

most disciplines of science are, to a greater or lesser extent, controlled by fashions, biases, and dogma.
I could see which way the wind was blowing and stopped reading.

"fascinating analysis" - are you related to the author?

Touche - i've had a brief skim and there does appear to be some proper science. I'm sure you can forgive my shortsightedness given the forum and the topic.

Do you believe science isn't, if not controlled, but influenced by fashions? Monies from funding councils/agencies is heavily politicised.

I'd hazard a guess that as you're on this thread you're interested in and/or involved in science. If you are you might like to return to the above document and read the stuff about peer review on pages 28-80. It is quite scary the attitude some of those involved in the emails appear to take.

Oh BTW CaptJon re' your "??" - the link from Dave is to a page about the publishers of the report you linked to.

It casts doubt on their veracity.

I think everyone on my side of the argument agrees that there are many factors forcing climate change and that there are...

Wait for it!

[b]

...natural cycles at work.

[/b]

Wahey, now we're pulling it in, bang on the money Junkyard! 😈

Maybe temperatures might fall for 10 years (although I don't believe they have) but still do that within a longer term upward trend. Would you admit that that is a possibility?

That is JUST as much a valid statement as

Maybe temperatures might rise for 10 years (although I don't believe they have) but still do that within a longer term downward trend. Would you admit that that is a possibility?

or, even more prosaically

Maybe temperatures might rise for 30 years (although I don't believe they have) but still do that without forming any discernible longer term trend,

Junkyard - Would you admit that that is also a [b]possibility?[/b] 🙂

[b]Now[/b] do you understand my comments regarding the psychology of looking for patterns where there is, in actual fact, chaos? now do you understand my comments regarding the clustering illusion?

I'd hazard a guess that as you're on this thread you're interested in and/or involved in science.

Artually, I'm more interested in my future well-being.

I'm sure you're right that there are some scientists out there with less than perfect moral codes. But most of them are in it because they are genuinely interested in finding stuff out. Sorry, but I'm not reading that paper - it looks like a bad A-level project in textual analysis.

Maybe temperatures might rise for 10 years (although I don't believe they have) but still do that within a longer term downward trend. Would you admit that that is a possibility?

Yep. I would admit that that is a possibility. I just don't happen to think that that is what is happening now.

Now then, are you going to admit that temperatures might fall for 10 years but still do that within a longer term upward trend?

Of course its possible, but its a logical illusion to think that you can draw any form of conclusion [b]either[/b] way - otherwise you're like fleas on a dogs arse arguing over when the next mysterious smell might appear!

rightplacerighttime - Member
Oh BTW CaptJon re' your "??" - the link from Dave is to a page about the publishers of the report you linked to.

It casts doubt on their veracity.

Interesting, that is an approach Mann, Jones et al take, i.e. forming an opinion based on assumed bias than challenging the argument being made aka strawman. An extract (formatting isn't great, you might want to read it in its original form (p.28):

March 11, 2003: email 1047388489

A paper by astrophysicists Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas was published by Climate Research, which concluded that “the 20th century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium.” Phil Jones writes a number of emails to his colleagues. In the first:

[i]Tim Osborn has just come across this. Best to ignore probably, so don’t let it spoil your day. I’ve not looked at it yet. It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in New Zealand. He has let a few papers through by (skeptics) Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere.[/i]

His conclusions are remarkable, given that he admits that he hasn’t even looked at the paper as yet. His next email is sent after having read a small amount:

[i]I looked briefly at the paper last night and it is appalling … I’ll have time to read more at the weekend …
The phrasing of the questions at the start of the paper determine the answer they get. They have no idea what multiproxy averaging does.[/i]

In other words, because these astrophysicists don’t use the mathematically and statistically incorrect method of “averaging” the various temperature proxies to hide the variability of temperature in the past, they’re not a member of the club!

He continues:

[i]Writing this I am becoming more convinced we should do something …
I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor. A Climatic Research Unit person is on the editorial board, but papers get dealt with by the editor assigned by Hans von Storch.[/i]

Recall, this action is being taken before he has even read the whole paper even a single time.
Mike Mann replies:

[i]The Soon and Baliunas paper couldn’t have cleared a “legitimate” peer review process anywhere. That leaves only one possibility—that the peer-review process at Climate Research has been hijacked by a few skeptics on the editorial board. And it isn’t just De Freitas; unfortunately, I think this group also includes a member of my own department… The skeptics appear to have staged a “coup” at Climate Research (it was a mediocre journal to begin with, but now it’s a mediocre journal with a definite “purpose”).[/i]

In other words, the publication of a single paper critical of their work—which is how any healthy discipline of science is supposed to work—is, automatically, evidence of a “hijacking” of an entire peer-reviewed journal.

Mann urges his colleagues to start a witch-hunt:

[i]Folks might want to check out the editors and review editors:
link to a page on Climate Research’s website listing the editors
Despite the paper having barely been looked at, Mann immediately starts to plan their retribution:
I told Mike MacCracken that I believed our only choice was to ignore this paper. They’ve already achieved what they wanted—the claim of a peer-reviewed paper. There is nothing we can do about that now, but the last thing we want todo is bring attention to this paper, which will be ignored by the community on the whole…

It is pretty clear that the skeptics here have staged a bit of a coup, even in the presence of a number of reasonable folks on the editorial board (Whetton, Goodess, …). My guess is that Von Storch is actually with them (frankly, he’s an odd individual, and I’m not sure he isn’t himself somewhat of a skeptic himself), and with Von Storch on their side, they would have a very forceful personality promoting their new vision.
There have been several papers by Pat Michaels, as well as the Soon and Baliunas paper, that couldn’t get published in a reputable journal.

This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that—take over a journal![/i]

We now see what Mann and colleagues are so upset about: they believed that their cosy club was safe from intruders, as the only way to challenge them was to be published in a “peer-reviewed” journal—which they themselves controlled. But now that the fortifications were breached, the entire house of cards was in danger of falling down.

Mann immediately suggests black-balling the journal that dared to challenge their authority:

[i]So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…[/i]

So it’s OK for their gang to control the “peer review” process, but not OK for sceptics to have any say?

rightplacerighttime - Member
I'd hazard a guess that as you're on this thread you're interested in and/or involved in science.
Artually, I'm more interested in my future well-being.

I'm sure you're right that there are [b]some scientists[/b] out there with less than perfect moral codes. But most of them are in it because they are genuinely interested in finding stuff out. Sorry, but I'm not reading that paper - it looks like a bad A-level project in textual analysis.

What if those 'some scientists' are the leading proponents of global warming andhave gained positions of power which means they can reinforce their positions based, not on scientific method, but politics, pressuring people, excluding findings they don't like and fiddling their data?

There is stuff wrong with the report i posted, but in my opinion (as an academic interested, but not directly involved in the science of climate) it is worthy of note. Open your mind and give it a chance.

FFS slow down people attack his stats they are as cr@p as usual

Well if it was true you would have a point but I do not accept you assertion that it is cooling. In fact I think that you have actually picked a date on order to distort the atual data to show what you wish and it is another clear and deliberate attempt to cherry pick your dates to show what you want – yet you claim everyone else is delusional odd, very odd. Here is the exact same data as you used but for a longer time frame as it shows there is a clear upward trend [img] http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah/plot/uah/trend [/img]

Here is your data time frame with the long term trend attached
[img] http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah/from:2004/plot/uah/trend:2004 [/img]
I am not arguing with the data just your selective use of it. The first decade of this century was still the warmest on record. despite your downward trend. i was correct eh lies, damn lies, statistics and Z-11 statistics. Very, very poor. You have no credibility left with me.

natural cycles at work.
Wahey, now we're pulling it in, bang on the money Junkyard!

I have repeated ad nauseum tha clrearly there are natural cycles at work but no natural cycle includesman made C02 release stherefore they would not be a valid explantion of the current situation due to the NEW variable - radical science eh new variable changes things. My other clearly radicl aview is that climate has changed naturally - without the influence of man - we did all this sh1t with Hainey new variable changes natuaral account etc.

Junkyard - what makes 1978, 1978, 2002, 2003 or 2004 into a "more valid" date to start your own analysis from?

You can draw any pattern you like in the data - this is my exact point! this is the ridiculousness of the entire concept - you're choosing the data that suits your own ends, just the same as I was - this is the very essence of the clustering illusion!

I could choose the year 1934, 35BC or one million years BC as my start point, it would be just as valid!

Junkyard - Would you admit that that is also a possibility?

Now do you understand my comments regarding the psychology of looking for patterns where there is, in actual fact, chaos? now do you understand my comments regarding the clustering illusion?

No I just look at the data - the clustering illusion clearly says that it is humans seeing patterns in random data for this to be true then C02would not actually be increasing it is random and we are all misinterpreting and the same with temperature? Clearly that is a load of b0ll0ks as a hypothesis. Barrel scrapping in the extreme.
As for patterns science is data led not agenda led – nothing else can change it’s paradigms like science it s why it is so powerful – not go forth and gather the daat – not pop psychology- to persuade me.

You're the one who introduced the word possibility!

natural cycles at work but no natural cycle includes man made C02 release

And no natural cycle prior to 230 million years ago included dinosaurs impact on the planet did it - of course, therefore the dinosaurs must have caused their own extinction, as they were the only new variable!

And wooly mammoths probably caused the last ice age, as prior to then, there were no mammoth made climate inputs!

You can draw any pattern you like in the data

yes that is exatky what science doed how incredibly perceptive off you - FFS if that is your view - which is ridicolous beyond words - there is NO point in debating it with you as whatever evidence I produce you will just repeat that line.

Culd you explain how if C02 is not actually increasing I could produce an upward trend in the data?

Could you explain how if C02 is not actually increasing I could produce an upward trend in the data?

Can you explain how I was able to produce a downward trend from the same data?

its a circular argument - either of us can cherry pick the start and end point to prove our point!

No I meant just C02 as I assume even you are not prepared to argue that it is not increasing or are you also suffering from the same affliction as us all when we look at C02 ppm readings?
So if we look at C02 data and

You can draw any pattern you like in the data

And no natural cycle prior to 230 million years ago included dinosaurs impact on the planet did it - of course, therefore the dinosaurs must have caused their own extinction, as they were the only new variable!

[img] [/img]

Whats that Junkyard, you don't like people reducing your thinking to the point reductio ad absurdum? 😈

C02 as I assume even you are not prepared to argue that it is not increasing

Look, I can even give you a nice [s]correlation[/s] graph of historical CO2 levels that proves that CO2 levels can rise whilst still being part of an overall downward trend:

[img] [/img]

Wheres your [s]correlation[/s]link between temperature and CO2 now?

I am pleased that at least I have finally taught you the difference between a graph and a correlation. I suepect that is the best I can do with the limited materials I am working with 😉

C'mon junkyard!

What do you see before you? Upward or downward trend in CO2?

Of course, if you want to cherry pick the last century worth of data...

😆

CaptJon said:

Interesting, that is an approach Mann, Jones et al take, i.e. forming an opinion based on assumed bias

No it's not. I know quite a lot about them (the SPPI) and they are a [b]completely biased [/b]bunch of f'in nutters.

I was just being polite in my first post.

Unlike Mann, Jones et al, eh RPRT?

Z11 said:

but its a logical illusion to think that you can draw any form of conclusion either way

Duh!

You seem to have gone a bit gung-ho. I think you've let the fact that we found a point of agreement go to your head and you just made another stupid statement.

As junkyard points out, we are talking probabilities not possibilities. Just because 2 things are possible, doesn't mean that they are equally probable (though it's nice to hear that you are open minded enough to at least acknowledge that there is a possibility that you are completely wrong).

I still think man made CO2 causing climate change is a near certainty BTW.

Unlike Mann, Jones et al, eh RPRT?

We already discussed that some time ago.

Then you should see the problem with trying to play ad hominem with the analysis of climategate on the basis that it was from SPPI shouldn't you?

I still think man made CO2 causing climate change is a near certainty BTW.

Of course you do, you made it clear that you were happy to accept that the "consensus" must be right, simply because its the consensus!

Not me anymore experts and their consensus vieas you have converted me thanks.
Smoking is linked to cancer Pah what do you know expert we had cancer before people smoked well deny eh see you cant , can you ,natural cycle innit ...cherry picking their data ****ing Doctors with their consensus views .... mass hysteria about the clustering illusion... I tell thee.... just boils my pi55.

zulu-eleven:

I just had a look for the Bemer RA (2001) paper on Web Of Knowledge (a global database of peer reviewed research, in case you didn't know) reportedly the source of the CO2 curve you posted and couldn't find it anywhere.

Do you have it?

Of course you do, you made it clear that you were happy to accept that the "consensus" must be right, simply because its the consensus!

You know what, that's the first thing you've said that slightly winds me up. You already put that point to me and I already explicitly told you that I didn't follow the consensus, [b]because[/b] it was the consensus.

Repeating it is rather disrespectful. Its like calling someone a liar to their face.

But on the point of the ad hominem criticism of the report, I don't see any problem at all. I don't know exactly what points it makes because I haven't read it. I'm afraid I have to say that I rank Lord Monckton somewhere in the vicinity of David Icke on my list of people worth listening to. I do read skeptic stuff, but not theirs.

.......do you honestly think of yourself as a modern day Darwin?

You already put that point to me and I already explicitly told you that I didn't follow the consensus, because it was the consensus.

Repeating it is rather disrespectful. Its like calling someone a liar to their face.

You've discovered one of ratty's most treasured tacit. Many a time he's told me what I think, and why I think, what I think.

why do you call him ratty ernie? Sounds interesting