Starship Asterisk*

gpobserver wrote:If given a choice between a model that says solar activity has nothing to do with terrestrial climate and datasets that do show a correlation, I'd go with the actual observations. A simulation is not a substitute for actual data and observations.

http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html

http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/IASTP/43/

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Solar_C ... limate.pdf

So scientifically you are saying that there is a near to 100% correlation between sunspot activity and global climate (by this graph that doesn't span 200 years) and can also discern from this evidence that elevated CO2, H2O vapor, ect ... are of no consequence?

Dr. Skeptic wrote:So scientifically you are saying that there is a near to 100% correlation between sunspot activity and global climate (by this graph that doesn't span 200 years) and can also discern from this evidence that elevated CO2, H2O vapor, ect ... are of no consequence?

That goes far beyond what I said. I've posted on this before and I have other things to do today so please excuse me for not preparing an elaborate response. Instead, please permit me to direct your attention to a very good reference on the subject released today: http://www.nipccreport.org/

The full pdf file may be downloaded from http://www.heartland.org/publications/N ... 0Final.pdf

I'm sure this document can answer your questions far better and with more authority than I can.

Best regards,
- Roy Tucker

I glanced over the PDF you recommended - sorry, a fair amount of it is not real science. Testing attributes of systems of of context of the whole system as a proof of failure, questionable interpretations of data. The change from mercury thermometers to digital thermometers to explain away discrepancies ... ?

That is not the way real science is done, I also noticed that not one author of this article listed any credentials. I get the feel that it's a group of ego-centric laymen posing to the untrained that they're smarter than the trained science community.

Pretty much the reaction I expected.

Dr. Skeptic wrote:I also noticed that not one author of this article listed any credentials. I get the feel that it's a group of ego-centric laymen posing to the untrained that they're smarter than the trained science community.

Bios for the authors: http://www.nipccreport.org/aboutAuthors.html

The information wasn't hard to find.

Why is it, They Can dig a 25 mile tunnel through the alps, to make an easy way for cars and trucks around a mountain. But they can't dig a 15 mile tunnel for free electricity?

Mark

mark swain wrote:Why is it, They Can dig a 25 mile tunnel through the alps, to make an easy way for cars and trucks around a mountain. But they can't dig a 15 mile tunnel for free electricity?

Mark

Because it is not cost effective. As long as there are cheap fossil fuels and it's not killing the "desirable" people, smart projects aren't going to happen on a large scale.

gpobserver wrote:Pretty much the reaction I expected.

Don't get me wrong, it's not that the publication isn't without merit, it has issues to take note of (and some that should have been omitted). But it doesn't have a stand-alone scientific coherency or foundation to establish predictability, it's a (speculative) rebuttal to other peoples work.

Dr. Skeptic wrote:Don't get me wrong, it's not that the publication isn't without merit, it has issues to take note of (and some that should have been omitted). But it doesn't have a stand-alone scientific coherency or foundation to establish predictability, it's a (speculative) rebuttal to other peoples work.

It's a matter of perspective, of course. Besides some editorializing about the IPCC (which is understandable considering how politicized the topic has become), the document appears to me to be authoritative and scholarly, densely laced with references to articles in peer-reviewed journals. I'm glad to have such a voluminous summary of such a large amount of knowledge, it'll be a wonderful resource to draw from in future discussions.

Best regards,
- Roy

gpobserver wrote:... Instead, please permit me to direct your attention to a very good reference on the subject released today: http://www.nipccreport.org/

The full pdf file may be downloaded from http://www.heartland.org/publications/N ... 0Final.pdf

Before taking seriously anything published by The Heartland Institute, one should find out more about them, including their role in denying the harmfulness of tobacco use. By their works ye shall know them.

Rob

rstevenson wrote: Before taking seriously anything published by The Heartland Institute, one should find out more about them, including their role in denying the harmfulness of tobacco use. By their works ye shall know them.

Rob

"Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues."--H. Michael Sweeney (http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html)

gpobserver wrote:

rstevenson wrote: Before taking seriously anything published by The Heartland Institute, one should find out more about them, including their role in denying the harmfulness of tobacco use. By their works ye shall know them.

Rob

"Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues."--H. Michael Sweeney (http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html)

It's not a derogatory statement, slander or an "attack the messenger" ploy if the accusations are true.

Dr. Skeptic wrote:

gpobserver wrote:

rstevenson wrote: Before taking seriously anything published by The Heartland Institute, one should find out more about them, including their role in denying the harmfulness of tobacco use. By their works ye shall know them.

Rob

"Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues."--H. Michael Sweeney (http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html)

It's not a derogatory statement, slander or an "attack the messenger" ploy if the accusations are true.

True or not, it's an attempt to distract from discussion of the message, the scientific debate about climate change. What has tobacco got to do with climate change? Let's stick to the discussion of the scientific evidence rather than trying to divert to some irrelevant thing.

Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!

gpobserver wrote:True or not, it's an attempt to distract from discussion of the message, the scientific debate about climate change. What has tobacco got to do with climate change?

In court, it would be called "the credibility of the witness".

If somebody tells me that the Moon landing was a hoax, I don't take their other claims seriously. When a key reference to support an argument has an obviously political agenda, and makes obviously incorrect claims about some matters- related or not- I tend not to take their claims seriously. Their claims may or may not be poor ones, but they have placed themselves in a position of low credibility.

Since the Heartland Institute has made demonstrably false claims in the past:

There is no global warming;
Man is not influencing his climate;
Second hand smoke is not dangerous;
Global warming would be beneficial;
Most scientists do not believe human activities can disrupt the climate;

it is perfectly reasonable to view any claims with great skepticism, or to simply reject the validity of this source and ask for better references.

mark swain wrote:Why is it, They Can dig a 25 mile tunnel through the alps, to make an easy way for cars and trucks around a mountain. But they can't dig a 15 mile tunnel for free electricity?

Mark

Babylon.

gpobserver wrote:True or not, it's an attempt to distract from discussion of the message, the scientific debate about climate change. What has tobacco got to do with climate change? Let's stick to the discussion of the scientific evidence rather than trying to divert to some irrelevant thing.

I have a tendency to speak too briefly. Let me explain my reasoning for issuing the perhaps un-needed warning.

I find it hard to believe that the many fine minds attached to that report were all blissfully unaware of the reputation of their publisher, The Heartland Institute. Since many of them must have known they were going to be associated with (tarred by the same brush as) such a publisher, then I must suspect their motives for persuing the publication through The Heartland Institute.

I sincerely hope that their work is not important and vital to our understanding of global warning, because their association with such a publisher ensures the work will not be taken seriously, and that would be a shame if it turns out to be good work. Perhaps those with a great deal more knowledge (and a lot more time on their hands) than I will eventually pronounce judgement on the report's value. I must ignore it until then.

Rob

Chris Peterson wrote:

gpobserver wrote:True or not, it's an attempt to distract from discussion of the message, the scientific debate about climate change. What has tobacco got to do with climate change?

In court, it would be called "the credibility of the witness".

If somebody tells me that the Moon landing was a hoax, I don't take their other claims seriously. When a key reference to support an argument has an obviously political agenda, and makes obviously incorrect claims about some matters- related or not- I tend not to take their claims seriously. Their claims may or may not be poor ones, but they have placed themselves in a position of low credibility.

Well, I suppose there might be something to what you say. How about Al Gore? I'm afraid he doesn't have a very good record of accuracy.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/TenWays/story? ... 791&page=1

The publication was not produced by the Heartland Institute, they acted as the publisher. The lead authors, Drs. S. Fred Singer and Craig Idso, are responsible for the contents. They seem to have appropriate academic credentials. I quote from the report's webpages:

"Dr. S. Fred Singer is one of the most distinguished scientists in the U.S. In the 1960s, he established and served as the first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, now part of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and earned a U.S. Department of Commerce Gold Medal Award for his technical leadership. In the 1980s, Singer served for five years as vice chairman of the National Advisory Committee for Oceans and Atmosphere (NACOA) and became more directly involved in global environmental issues. Since retiring from the University of Virginia and from his last federal position as chief scientist of the Department of Transportation, Singer founded and directed the nonprofit Science and Environmental Policy Project.

Dr. Craig D. Idso is founder and former president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. He received his Ph.D. in geography from Arizona State University, where he studied as one of a small group of University Graduate Scholars. He was a faculty researcher in the Office of Climatology at Arizona State University and has lectured in Meteorology at Arizona State University. Dr. Idso has published scientific articles on issues related to data quality, the growing season, the seasonal cycle of atmospheric CO2, world food supplies, coral reefs, and urban CO2 concentrations."

There are numerous and notable reviewers and contributors:

Warren Anderson (USA), J. Scott Armstrong (USA), Dennis Avery (USA),
Franco Battaglia (Italy), Robert Carter (Australia), Piers Corbyn (UK),
Richard Courtney (UK), Joseph d’Aleo (USA), Don Easterbrook (USA),
Fred Goldberg (Sweden), Vincent Gray (New Zealand), William Gray (USA),
Kesten Green (Australia), Kenneth Haapala (USA), David Hagen (USA),
Klaus Heiss (Austria), Zbigniew Jaworowski (Poland), Olavi Karner (Estonia),
Richard Alan Keen (USA), Madhav Khandekar (Canada), William Kininmonth (Australia),
Hans Labohm (Netherlands), Anthony Lupo (USA), Howard Maccabee (USA),
H. Michael Mogil (USA), Christopher Monckton (UK), Lubos Motl (Czech Republic),
Stephen Murgatroyd (Canada), Nicola Scafetta (USA), Harrison Schmitt (USA),
Tom Segalstad (Norway), George Taylor (USA), Dick Thoenes (Netherlands),
Anton Uriarte (Spain), Gerd Weber (Germany)

Chris Peterson wrote:Since the Heartland Institute has made demonstrably false claims in the past:

There is no global warming;
Man is not influencing his climate;
Second hand smoke is not dangerous;
Global warming would be beneficial;
Most scientists do not believe human activities can disrupt the climate;

it is perfectly reasonable to view any claims with great skepticism, or to simply reject the validity of this source and ask for better references.

Well, let's have a look at these claims.

"There is no global warming"

Did they really say that? I do wish you would provide references or citations. You really do make things unnecessarily difficult.

The climate warms, the climate cools. Did they say the climate was not warming at all or not warming due to human activities. There really is a big difference in meaning there, you know. If they were asserting that the climate was not warming due to human activities, perhaps that's correct if solar activity is the primary driver to climate variation. Or maybe they were saying the climate wasn't warming very much. The IPCC asserts that by 2100 the earth will warm 1.1 to 6.4 degrees Centigrade, that's 0.11 to 0.64 degrees per decade. What does the data say? Let's look at the UAH record:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/05/u ... #more-8204
That indicates a temperature anomaly of only 0.043 degrees.
How about the RSS record?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/05/r ... #more-8211
Oh, dear. That's only 0.09 degrees. I'm very puzzled, I was expecting from what I've been told that things are supposed to be warming up but that nasty ol' climate just doesn't seem to want to cooperate. Maybe you can explain to me where I'm going wrong?

"Man is not influencing his climate"

You really do need to be more precise. Did they say humans weren't affecting climate at all or just not significantly? There is a big difference in meaning there again. I will assume that it was meant that we weren't causing significant changes. Perhaps that's true if indeed solar activity is the primary driver as discussed before.

"Second hand smoke is not dangerous"

Oh, yuck! Cigarette smoke! How disgusting! I have certainly suffered as a result of thoughtless smokers but I didn't know what sorts of pronouncements the Heartland Institute has issued on this topic. Again, references and citations to their articles and publications would be helpful. I went to their webpage (what a nice website. So much useful information!) and found what they said about second-hand smoke: http://www.heartland.org/suites/tobacco/

The 'money quote' seemed to be:

The latest word on second-smoke appeared in the May 12, 2003 issue of the British Medical Journal. Two epidemiologists, James Enstrom at UCLA and Geoffrey Kabat at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, analyzed data collected by the American Cancer Society from more than 100,000 Californians from 1959 through 1997.

“The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality,” the researchers wrote, although they do not rule out a small effect. “The association between tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.”

“It is generally considered that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke is roughly equivalent to smoking one cigarette per day,” according to Enstrom and Kabat. “If so, a small increase in lung cancer is possible, but the commonly reported 30 percent increase in heart disease risk--the purported cause of almost all the deaths attributed to secondhand smoke--is highly implausible.”

It would appear that you exaggerated and misrepresented what they said, Mr. Peterson. They didn't say "not dangerous", they indicated a small amount of risk.

"Global warming would be beneficial"

Maybe it would be. If you look at the historical record, you can see that civilizations have flourished during periods of warm climate and suffered during cold periods. It would be nice if humans actually did have some control over the climate and we could just set a thermostat but if indeed solar activity is the primary determinant of climate then we're just along for the ride and we'll have to make do the best we can.

"Most scientists do not believe human activities can disrupt the climate"

Once again, it would be helpful if you could provide a reference that would show what they said and within what context. Besides, truth is not determined by a consensus. The sun does not rise in the morning just because most scientists think it will. Mr. Peterson! Surely you, of all people, should remember that a couple of hundred years ago most scientists didn't think that rocks could fall from the sky.

I did go to their web page about the environment and the section on global warming (http://www.heartland.org/suites/environment/index.html). What I read seemed very reasonable and in agreement with my own assessment of the literature that I had examined.

So, let's see... You assert that a document may be suspect based upon the sponsors of the group that produced it, even though the people who authored it are highly accomplished and reputable in their field and the document is heavily laden with references to articles in peer-reviewed and learned journals. Well... The document I pointed to was sponsored by the Heartland Institute which describes itself as: "Heartland's mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. Such solutions include parental choice in education, choice and personal responsibility in health care, market-based approaches to environmental protection, privatization of public services, and deregulation in areas where property rights and markets do a better job than government bureaucracies." Doesn't sound too dreadful.

Now what organization is it that sponsors the IPCC? Hmmm... Could it be... Yes! The United Nations! You mean the same United Nations that was complicit in the Iraqi "oil for food" scam?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil-for-Food_Programme

You mean the UN that was run by Kofi Annan whose son was up to his neck in the "oil for food" scandal? http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/do ... 427747.htm

The same United Nations that has stood by and done nothing about genocides?
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/05/03/opini ... he-un.html

The same United Nations that placed some of the worst human rights offenders in the world on their Human Rights Council?
http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-05-22-voa54.cfm

The same United Nations whose 'peace-keepers' molest young girls?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Nov26.html

The same United Nations that has done nothing to halt the development of nuclear weaponry by the terrorism-sponsoring states of North Korea, Syria, and Iran?

Yes, indeed, I do begin to understand what you mean by the sponsoring organization tainting the works that it supports! My goodness! A Google search for "united nations" "corrupt organization" returns over 5,000 hits. "heartland institute" and "corrupt organization" returns only 118. As was said, "By their works, ye shall know them". Thank you ever so much for opening my eyes! I could never possibly give any credence at all to anything the United Nations IPCC produces.

Best regards,
- Roy Tucker

Hello gpobserver,

TWEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEET!!!

2 minutes in the penalty box for sidetracking!

astrolabe wrote:Hello gpobserver,

TWEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEET!!!

2 minutes in the penalty box for sidetracking!

Ok. <pout> (@#$%&*!)


I'm glad somebody here has a sense of humor.

gpobserver wrote:Well, I suppose there might be something to what you say. How about Al Gore? I'm afraid he doesn't have a very good record of accuracy.

While I disagree with that assessment (I recently saw An Inconvenient Truth again, and it is remarkably good and accurate, although it probably understates the worse case scenarios), the fact is that I never would use Al Gore as a reference for a scientific argument. I prefer primary sources, or academic metastudies at the least.

There are numerous and notable reviewers and contributors:

There are certainly AGW dissenters with good credentials. Of course, for every one of them there are a hundred or so who are not dissenters, and have equally good credentials. I place a much greater burden of proof on dissenters, following the reasonable rule of skepticism that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Well, let's have a look at these claims.

"There is no global warming"

Did they really say that? I do wish you would provide references or citations. You really do make things unnecessarily difficult.

All the claims I quoted about climate change are from The Instant Expert Guide to Global Warming, a PDF brochure by Joseph Bast and published by the Heartland Institute.

It would appear that you exaggerated and misrepresented what they said, Mr. Peterson. They didn't say "not dangerous", they indicated a small amount of risk.

That's what they said. And it is largely unsupported by research. They do the same thing with tobacco that they do with climate: very selectively quote studies that support their position, while ignoring the much larger number that do not.

"Global warming would be beneficial"

Maybe it would be. If you look at the historical record, you can see that civilizations have flourished during periods of warm climate and suffered during cold periods. It would be nice if humans actually did have some control over the climate and we could just set a thermostat but if indeed solar activity is the primary determinant of climate then we're just along for the ride and we'll have to make do the best we can.

Virtually every study I've seen predicts that the current trend will produce more floods, more droughts, and massive food crises in the most vulnerable parts of the world. Any "benefit" is unlikely to be seen before a very long period of disruption occurs.

Now what organization is it that sponsors the IPCC? Hmmm... Could it be... Yes! The United Nations!

I don't generally quote the IPCC studies, either, although I think they are generally good, if a bit optimistic.

Chris Peterson wrote:... (I recently saw An Inconvenient Truth again, and it is remarkably good and accurate, although it probably understates the worse case scenarios) ...

I have not seen it, however the internet is full of critiques listing many factual errors.

StACase wrote:Chris Peterson wrote:... (I recently saw An Inconvenient Truth again, and it is remarkably good and accurate, although it probably understates the worse case scenarios) ...

I saw that also Chris, and several other TV programs.. They said we should be moving into cold era. The most worrying part to there conclusion is the locked up billions of tons of methane, which is 20 times more effective than C02 at heating the planet up. Of which they proved it had happened before. And made the planet 20 times as hot as today and killed 95% of life on Earth.

Mark

mark swain wrote:I saw that also Chris, and several other TV programs.. They said we should be moving into cold era. The most worrying part to there conclusion is the locked up billions of tons of methane, which is 20 times more effective than C02 at heating the planet up. Of which they proved it had happened before. And made the planet 20 times as hot as today and killed 95% of life on Earth.

It seems virtually certain that our climate is metastable- it sits in one state for some period of time, and then gets dislodged into another state by some trigger. The biggest danger with the current warming trend is the possibility of reaching one of those thresholds- Greenland melt water could shut down North Atlantic currents, huge quantities of methane could be freed from permafrost, a big shift in cloud patterns could substantially alter Earth's albedo. Any of these have the potential to produce a large, non-linear climate shift. It has happened before, it will happen again. Such an event is not likely to be good for us at all, and is one of the best reasons to take climate change very seriously.

StACase wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:... (I recently saw An Inconvenient Truth again, and it is remarkably good and accurate, although it probably understates the worse case scenarios) ...

I have not seen it, however the internet is full of critiques listing many factual errors.

The Internet is full of critiques of things like the Big Bang, or even the Moon missions. <g>

You should watch the movie. There's certainly no doubt that knowledge has advanced since the movie was made, but there's not much in it that could be considered substantively incorrect. The quality of the reporting has held up well. Of course, it should not be taken as primary scientific reporting (that's another straw man the AGW folks like to use). It is a distillation of scientific research being reported for the general education of a lay audience. And taken for what it is, it is quite good.

It's best to not get too sure of one's beliefs and keep an open mind when new evidence appears.

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/ta ... rmal-r.php