Island disappears..global Warming .....Global Warning!

[ZANDOLIE]

Richard Lindzen pecan? Come on even if he had a shred of credibility left he is only one man of a very few holdouts.

Of course the man does not take money directly from hydrocarbon interests. He recieves compensation and a public platform from institutions that are heavily funded by those interests.

[pecan]

Richard Lindzen pecan? Come on even if he had a shred of credibility left he is only one man of a very few holdouts.

Of course the man does not take money directly from hydrocarbon interests. He recieves compensation and a public platform from institutions that are heavily funded by those interests.

and you truly believe that everyone on the other side are as pure as the newly driven snow?

And no one stands to profit on the sale of carbon credits?  Has Al Gore divested the shares in the company he founded that sells carbon credits (Generation Investment Management)?.  Gore claims to be carbon neutral .i.e. he buys carbon credits ... from guess who?   Yep, are much credibility as Lindzen I suppose.
 

However, I cannot comment on the credibility of Lindzen.  All I know is that the debate continues.  Why is that the 'deniers' have no credibility and are profit driven while the proponents of "the science is settled' are doing it for the good of mankind and the world?  Are they that altruistic?  I find that hard to believe especially since Al Gore's hockey stick was debunked and he just happens to sell carbon credits as well?

What about the other people at the conference?  They are all in the pocket of big oil too?

The one thing from a scientific point of view is that the application of the scientific method seems to be treated with disdain by the proponents of man-made global warming.

Here is an outline from Wikipedia (my comments are in red):


Scientific method refers to bodies of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

Comment: in only a couple of decades, we have come to the conclusion that the science is settled when  explaining climate change? 

Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methodologies of knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable in order to dependably predict any future results.

Comment: Even the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration just acknowledged that it is wrong to blame our warning climate on human pollution alone.   

Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many hypotheses together in a coherent structure. This in turn may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.

Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process be objective to reduce a biased interpretation of the results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.


My beef is with the prevailing opinions about the science being settled as that conclusion flies in the face of the scientific method.

[truetrini]

Pecan I really feel you playing de ass and taking opposite views as de devil's advocate!

Our ancestors you talking about were not even homo sapiens...homo erectus maybe, but look how we have evolved in this OPTIMAL TEMPS!

The oil people feed yuh dem pills good!

[Bakes]

Pecan you being a blasted contrarian because yuh want to be a contrarian... so cut the shit about science not being settled.  I was responding earlier and went to quote a snippet from the Times article I posted and accidentally deleted the blasted post instead.  From that article, if you bothered to read it... the very oil company scientists concluded that global temperatures were rising and conceded that there was a human factor being the spike in temperature.  I am yet to read one opinion that ascribes global warming to just human factors... so enough of the red herrings.  And I deliberately used 'spike' b/c if you knew anything about what you're talking about you'd know that we have never EVER seen anything of this scale before. 

Carbon emissions are at their highest point ever, in the 150 or so years that we've been measuring them.  Global temperatures are marching lockstep with the spike in Carbon levels but you talking shit about what caveman woulda feel in de Ice Age??  You cannot be real.  You talk about Al Gore "hockey stick" graph.  What hockey stick graph... did you even see the documentary or are you just parroting what you read on some website elsewhere??  Also, I'd love to see how they 'debunked' what he had to say. 

At least you're honest about your selfishness... some of us are not that inconsiderate that we won't concern ourselves with what type of world we'll be leaving our kids.

[ZANDOLIE]

Richard Lindzen pecan? Come on even if he had a shred of credibility left he is only one man of a very few holdouts.

Of course the man does not take money directly from hydrocarbon interests. He recieves compensation and a public platform from institutions that are heavily funded by those interests.

and you truly believe that everyone on the other side are as pure as the newly driven snow?

And no one stands to profit on the sale of carbon credits?  Has Al Gore divested the shares in the company he founded that sells carbon credits (Generation Investment Management)?.  Gore claims to be carbon neutral .i.e. he buys carbon credits ... from guess who?   Yep, are much credibility as Lindzen I suppose.
 

However, I cannot comment on the credibility of Lindzen.  All I know is that the debate continues.  Why is that the 'deniers' have no credibility and are profit driven while the proponents of "the science is settled' are doing it for the good of mankind and the world?  Are they that altruistic?  I find that hard to believe especially since Al Gore's hockey stick was debunked and he just happens to sell carbon credits as well?

What about the other people at the conference?  They are all in the pocket of big oil too?

The one thing from a scientific point of view is that the application of the scientific method seems to be treated with disdain by the proponents of man-made global warming.

Purity is irrelevant. What matters is the quality and integrity of the research. when is the last time Mr. Lindzen has written an experimental paper that provides evidence to the contrary, instead of critiquing people who have done actual work?

Are you suggesting that climate change was cooked up as a means of making money? The premises behind climate change are INDEPENDENT of the trade of credits

Al Gore does not make science and is pretty irrelevant as far as the science behind climate change is concerned.


A re-do that showed the "hockey stick" was in fact the result of poor modelling methods. But since then more work on other temperature markers has been done. And the cumulative result of this work shows....guess what...Hockey sticks! And that work has been the subject of MUCH scrutiny.   

The fact is Pecan, current evidence still shows a trend toward acceleration of global climate change with obvous histroical relevance.  IMO the major problem is not the science behind climate change, but the politics inherent in managing the massive transition from harvesting dense energy forms to low yield, sustainable sources.

Look  oil won't last forever and will not be cheap in the coming years, the conversion HAS to be made at some point, why not read the writing on the wall and instead of just denying, get involved in helping to decide what forms of energy and therefore what kind of world your chldren and grandchildren will inherit?

[truetrini]

NO ONE IS AS BLIND AS SOMEONE WHO DOES NOT WANT TO SEE!

[The_Ice]

want to to say global warming is a farce? explain all the bloody rain throughout this dry season in t&t... and its not like its this yr only... its been becoming progressively worse throughout the recent yrs... same thing in canada w/ the temperature fluctuations.

[truetrini]

want to to say global warming is a farce? explain all the bloody rain throughout this dry season in t&t... and its not like its this yr only... its been becoming progressively worse throughout the recent yrs... same thing in canada w/ the temperature fluctuations.

Jes now you going to melt away too...so pst plenty so we have some sort of archival records of your existence....  soon The_ice will be known as The_Melted! 

[pecan]

First of all, I have changed my views since this was debated a year or so ago.

I no longer insist that proponents of anthropogenic global warming are practicing junk science.

However, unlike most of you in this thread, I still see valid questions begin raised by experts in specialied fields about the cause of climate changes.

I am not debating if global warming is happening, the science will fall where it falls.

I admit that I cannot settle the science.  As a layperson, all I can do is rely on what I read in the media.

To quote Lawrence Solomon (Google him), "For us [the lay persons], the answer cannot be to settle the science directly.  For the most part, the layman must rely on the argument from authority, including a careful sifting of the credibility of the authorities and the relevance of their expertise to their particular claims for which they are advanced as witnesses".  Page 7 "The Deniers".

So yes, we must question the credibility of Lindzen as well as the credibility of Al Gore and the UN.

Science cannot be based on consensus, it cannot be based on how many people sign a petition (even though I did post a link to a petition)

Rather, it must be based on repeatable testing of hypotheses.

And what I see happening in the global warming debate is that policy is being made on politics rather than on science.

[pecan]

I will come back to respond to Bakes, TT, Zandolie and Ice

[truetrini]

First of all, I have changed my views since this was debated a year or so ago.

I no longer insist that proponents of anthropogenic global warming are practicing junk science.

However, unlike most of you in this thread, I still see valid questions begin raised by experts in specialied fields about the cause of climate changes.

I am not debating if global warming is happening, the science will fall where it falls.

I admit that I cannot settle the science.  As a layperson, all I can do is rely on what I read in the media.

To quote Lawrence Solomon (Google him), "For us [the lay persons], the answer cannot be to settle the science directly.  For the most part, the layman must rely on the argument from authority, including a careful sifting of the credibility of the authorities and the relevance of their expertise to their particular claims for which they are advanced as witnesses".  Page 7 "The Deniers".

So yes, we must question the credibility of Lindzen as well as the credibility of Al Gore and the UN.

Science cannot be based on consensus, it cannot be based on how many people sign a petition (even though I did post a link to a petition)

Rather, it must be based on repeatable testing of hypotheses.

And what I see happening in the global warming debate is that policy is being made on politics rather than on science.

do you remember your God argument with me?

Yuh say it better to believe in case there really is a God?

yUH ASKING FUH ALL KINDA HYPOTHESIS and the testing of them, yuh want empirical evidence, yet there is NO Empirical evidence of a God yet yuh choose to believe???

Come on man.  what valid questions are posed contradicting global warming?  Even those with agendas KNOW that they speaking with forked tongues and Global warming is a fact, and man made too!

They are the ones bringing politics into the fray, because they have no legitimate arguments against the HARD science of global warming and greenhouse gas emissions!

Face the facts man doh back track, and dodge now, yuh stance change yuh say?  it eh change enough!

Ah gorn!

[pecan]

First of all, I have changed my views since this was debated a year or so ago.

I no longer insist that proponents of anthropogenic global warming are practicing junk science.

However, unlike most of you in this thread, I still see valid questions begin raised by experts in specialied fields about the cause of climate changes.

I am not debating if global warming is happening, the science will fall where it falls.

I admit that I cannot settle the science.  As a layperson, all I can do is rely on what I read in the media.

To quote Lawrence Solomon (Google him), "For us [the lay persons], the answer cannot be to settle the science directly.  For the most part, the layman must rely on the argument from authority, including a careful sifting of the credibility of the authorities and the relevance of their expertise to their particular claims for which they are advanced as witnesses".  Page 7 "The Deniers".

So yes, we must question the credibility of Lindzen as well as the credibility of Al Gore and the UN.

Science cannot be based on consensus, it cannot be based on how many people sign a petition (even though I did post a link to a petition)

Rather, it must be based on repeatable testing of hypotheses.

And what I see happening in the global warming debate is that policy is being made on politics rather than on science.

do you remember your God argument with me?

Yuh say it better to believe in case there really is a God?

yUH ASKING FUH ALL KINDA HYPOTHESIS and the testing of them, yuh want empirical evidence, yet there is NO Empirical evidence of a God yet yuh choose to believe???

Come on man.  what valid questions are posed contradicting global warming?  Even those with agendas KNOW that they speaking with forked tongues and Global warming is a fact, and man made too!

They are the ones bringing politics into the fray, because they have no legitimate arguments against the HARD science of global warming and greenhouse gas emissions!

Face the facts man doh back track, and dodge now, yuh stance change yuh say?  it eh change enough!

Ah gorn!

this is a quick one to answer.

My belief in God is not going to cost the tax payers billions and billions of dollars

The UN's belief in anthropogenic global warming is going to cost trillions of dollars.  I just think that money can do more immediate good if spent elswhere.

Allyuh don't understand me.

By no stretch of the imagination am I suggesting we stand idly by while the we deplete the global resources.

But lets avoid knee jerk reactions and just make sure we utilize our resources effectively.  We already made one big mistake with our dependency on oil.  Let's not replace it with other solutions that may have adverse and unknown effects down the road.

And what I see coming out of the UN seems in terms of what has to be done boggles my imagination.

And the whole issue of carbon tax credits ... stand there and believe that some organizations will not profit enormously from this new currency.  The wrong people will profit from this.

Maybe I just not as smart like allyuh.

When Mr Gore begins to practice what he preaches, maybe I might pay more attention to what he has to say.



I still want to respond to the other posts .. but I done spent too much time on this one aready.

[truetrini]

But I beg to differ.  It is the belief in God that drives much of the opposition to Global Warming.

They say the world cannot come to an end unless Jesus returns!  The Christian lobby is as powerful as the energy lobby.

In fact many of those dissenters are born again christians scientists!

[pecan]

But I beg to differ.  It is the belief in God that drives much of the opposition to Global Warming.

They say the world cannot come to an end unless Jesus returns!  The Christian lobby is as powerful as the energy lobby.

In fact many of those dissenters are born again christians scientists!

what drugs you on?

[truetrini]

But I beg to differ.  It is the belief in God that drives much of the opposition to Global Warming.

They say the world cannot come to an end unless Jesus returns!  The Christian lobby is as powerful as the energy lobby.

In fact many of those dissenters are born again christians scientists!

what drugs you on?

the one that says global warming is real.

[ZANDOLIE]

what drugs you on?

 

Allyuh don't understand me.

By no stretch of the imagination am I suggesting we stand idly by while the we deplete the global resources.

But lets avoid knee jerk reactions and just make sure we utilize our resources effectively.  We already made one big mistake with our dependency on oil.  Let's not replace it with other solutions that may have adverse and unknown effects down the road.

When Mr Gore begins to practice what he preaches, maybe I might pay more attention to what he has to say.

Come on man! Surely you are not equating the impacts of oil with the more modern alternatives. Oil production began well before humans even knew anything about its negative impacts. Solar, wind, geothermal, hydrogen etc. have all been studied extensively and ALL have considerably more positives in terms of impacts.

You are willing to dismiss viable alternatives because of "adverse and unknown effects" but still want to cling to technologies that produce visible and well-known advese effects. What's up with that  

There is only one adverse effect that is holding back the use of these technologies....short-term loss corporate profits.

[truetrini]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/14/evangelical.rift/index.html

http://www.abpnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4049&Itemid=53

http://pewforum.org/news/rss.php?NewsID=17948

http://pewforum.org/news/rss.php?NewsID=17948

http://homebrewedchristianity.com/2009/04/16/evangelicals-and-global-warming/

I s me who on a mind altering substance or dem?

[pecan]

Antarctic ice nearly size of N.Y. City breaks up
Icebergs calve off after ice bridge stabilizing shelf collapsed in early April

New satellite images from the European Space Agency show massive amounts of ice are breaking away from an ice shelf on the western side of the Antarctic Peninsula, researchers said Wednesday.

"There is little doubt that these changes are the result of atmospheric warming," said David Vaughan of the British Antarctic Survey.

Strong warming on peninsula

Average temperatures in the Antarctic Peninsula have risen by 3.8 degrees Fahrenheit over the past 50 years — higher than the average global rise, according to studies.


The Wilkins shelf, which is the size of Jamaica, lost 14 percent of its mass last year, according to scientists.


Breakup to continue for weeks
Over the next several weeks, scientists estimate the Wilkins shelf will lose some 1,300 square miles — a piece larger than the state of Rhode Island.

One researcher said, however, that it was unclear how the situation would evolve.

"We are not sure if a new stable ice front will now form between Latady Island, Petrie Ice Rises and Dorsey Island," said Angelika Humbert of Germany's Muenster University Institute of Geophysics.

But even more ice could break off "if the connection to Latady Island is lost," she said, "though we have no indication that this will happen in the near future."

In the meantime, researchers said the quality and frequency of the ESA satellite images have allowed them to analyze the Wilkins shelf breakup far more effectively than any previous event.

"For the first time, I think, we can really begin to see the processes that have brought about the demise of the ice shelf," Vaughan said.

 

These are all events that warrant observation.  But is it caused by man made global warming?  

Let’s see what Prof Duncan Wingham has to say.  He is lead investigator with the European Space Agency that is responsible for CryoSat. Here are his credentials:
 
Professor of Climate Physics at University College London (UCL) and head of the Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling (CPOM) of the UK National Environmental Council (NERC), he led the team that wrote the original 50-page CryoSat proposal in 1998. Today he serves as CryoSat Lead Investigator.

This is a scientist who has been using satellites to study the polar regions sine the start of his career.
He is not a strident ‘denier’, but he is cautious.  He is reported to have said that we cannot be certain that the collapse of the northern ice shelves is not the result of human-caused global warming “because packets of heat in the atmospheres do not come conveniently labeled ‘the contribution of anthropogenic warming’”.  "But the warming of the Peninsula has been going on for a considerable time, and the pattern of regional change is variable, and neither of these is favorable to the notion we are seeing the results of global warming".
At the US station at the South Pole, temperatures have in fact fallen by a degree since 1957. "The Antarctic Peninsula is exceptional because it juts out so far north," Wingham explained.
The professor continued: " I am not denying global warming . For instance, Greenland, in the northern hemisphere, does seem to be going. But Greenland's ice cap - Greenland is quite far south - is a last survivor from the ice age and only its height protects it. The more that cap melts, the more it will continue to melt as it gets lower and warmer. But Antarctica is different. Even in the Arctic I am sceptical of some claims that 40 per cent of the sea ice has already vanished, and that what remains is drastically thinning.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/02/24/ice_shelf_collapse/

Now granted that this is a 2005 report and with the launch of CryoSat II, new light will be shed on the status of the polar regions.

So do we do spend billions and billions in a knee jerk reaction or do we exercise moderation and have an orderly migration to new energy alternative and dispense with the hyperbole?

[pecan]

Pecan I really feel you playing de ass and taking opposite views as de devil's advocate!

Our ancestors you talking about were not even homo sapiens...homo erectus maybe, but look how we have evolved in this OPTIMAL TEMPS!

The oil people feed yuh dem pills good!

I can't be facetious or sarcastic without somebody jumping off a cliff.

[pecan]

Pecan you being a blasted contrarian because yuh want to be a contrarian... so cut the shit about science not being settled.  I was responding earlier and went to quote a snippet from the Times article I posted and accidentally deleted the blasted post instead.  From that article, if you bothered to read it... the very oil company scientists concluded that global temperatures were rising and conceded that there was a human factor being the spike in temperature.  I am yet to read one opinion that ascribes global warming to just human factors... so enough of the red herrings.  And I deliberately used 'spike' b/c if you knew anything about what you're talking about you'd know that we have never EVER seen anything of this scale before. 

Of course I believe that humans affect the environment we live in.  So it is not surprising to have oil scientist conclude that some temperature change is caused by humans.  And when you say ‘spike’, I am concluding that you are referring to the dramatic temperature rise post 1900 (i.e Mann’s ‘hockey stick temperature graph).  I think your use of the phrase ‘red herring’ cuts both ways when it comes to the use of Mann’s graph to prove global warming .. cause that is exactly what it was, a red herring.

And if as you say, you have yet to read any opinions that ascribes global warming to just human factors, why then the hue and cry about the catastrophic effects of anthropogenic global warming?  If human factors are not a major contributor to global warming, then why the concern about man made greenhouse gasses.  Does mankind possess so much hubris that we feel we can control global climate?

And I deliberately used 'spike' b/c if you knew anything about what you're talking about you'd know that we have never EVER seen anything of this scale before. 

Well Bakes, there are people who would disagree with you.  So they must be wrong too.  Does it not depend on the scale you are using to assert we have never seen anything like this before.  See my comments below on Al Gore’s hockey stick.

[pecan]

Carbon emissions are at their highest point ever, in the 150 or so years that we've been measuring them.  Global temperatures are marching lockstep with the spike in Carbon levels but you talking shit about what caveman woulda feel in de Ice Age??  You cannot be real. 

Jezan ages . the comment about ice age man was supposed to be facetious.  Steups.

Apparently, scientists only began to accurately measure CO2 in real time in 1958.  So the data since then is fairly reliable. However, to estimate CO2 levels, prior to that, the UN IPCC relies on ice-core data – on air that has been trapped for hundreds for thousands of years in the ice.  So if you have some references that show we have been accurately measuring CO2 for 150 years, please post it.  Let’s see, 150 year ago was 1859.  Yep, I find it easy to believe that scientists have been diligently and accurately measuring CO2 since 1859.

Here is what Dr. Jaworowski has to say.

“The notion of low pre-industrial CO2 atmospheric level, based on such poor knowledge, became a widely accepted Holy Grail of climate warming models. The modelers ignored the evidence from direct measurements of CO2 in atmospheric air indicating that in 19th century its average concentration was 335 ppmv[11] (Figure 2) . In Figure 2 encircled values show a biased selection of data used to demonstrate that in 19th century atmosphere the CO2 level was 292 ppmv[12]. A study of stomatal frequency in fossil leaves from Holocene lake deposits in Denmark, showing that 9400 years ago CO2 atmospheric level was 333 ppmv, and 9600 years ago 348 ppmv, falsify the concept of stabilized and low CO2 air concentration until the advent of industrial revolution [13].

http://www.john-daly.com/zjiceco2.htm

Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski is chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw and former chair of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. He was a principal investigator of three research projects of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and of four research projects of the International Atomic Energy Agency. He has held posts with the Centre d'Etude Nucleaires near Paris; the Biophysical Group of the Institute of Physics, University of Oslo; the Norwegian Polar Research Institute and the National Institute for Polar Research in Tokyo


Is he wrong? Is he right? I don’t know.  Bakes, you assert that CO2 levels are at an all time high.  But Dr. Jaworowski disagrees with those who you believe are 100% right.  Isn’t it nice to know that a complex system such as our climate can so easily be quantified to the point where we can comfortably conclude that the science is settled.  (I am being sarcastic).  Maybe Jaworowski is in the pockets of big oil or he is a Christian Scientist.

[pecan]

You talk about Al Gore "hockey stick" graph.  What hockey stick graph... did you even see the documentary or are you just parroting what you read on some website elsewhere??  Also, I'd love to see how they 'debunked' what he had to say. 

I must admit, I did not see the entire film.  I had to turn it off before I puked while listening to the hyperbole.

 Spend some time and read the report by Dr. Edward Wegman. He clearly debunked Michael Mann’s statistical analysis that Gore used in his “Inconvenient Truth” and was so widely sanctioned by the IPCC in their 2001 ‘Summary for Policy Makers”.  Now Zandolie did suggest that subsequent analysis of the data set did show the hockey stick.  IF so, Zandolie, will you post those links so I can read them.  Here is a quote from the Wegman's 92 page report (in the report, I think he did address subsequent studies - have to admit,  i Have not read the report - only the executive summary as well as someone else's review of the report)

“It is important to note the isolation of the paleoclimate community; even though they [Michael Mann et al] rely heavily on statistical methods they do not seem to be interacting with the statistical community. Additionally, we judge that the sharing of research materials, data and results was haphazardly and grudgingly done. In this case we judge that there was too much reliance on peer review, which was not necessarily independent. Moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that this community can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility. Overall, our committee believes that Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis.

Hmm Bakes, was the 90’s temperature the spike you were referring to?  The one that I don’t know anything about?  I suppose Dr. Wegman does not know what he is talking about too?



http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/WegmanReport.pdf

In fact, he was so convincing that the UN IPCC dropped it from the 2007 Report “Summary for Policy Makers”.

My point: what does this say about the science being settled? In 2001, The UN was shouting from the rooftops that the spike in temperature rise coincided with the the industrial era.  It turned out to be false.  Now it has been dropped from the 2007 report.  Yes sir, the science is settled (sarcasm again).

Btw, here is Dr. Wegman’s bio:  Edward Wegman is a statistics professor at George Mason University and chair of the National Research Council’s Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics. He holds a Ph.D. in mathematical statistics and is a Fellow of the American Statistical Association and a Senior Member of the IEEE.  He received a B.S. in mathematics from Saint Louis University in 1965, he then went to graduate school at the University of Iowa where he earned an M.S. in 1967 and a Ph.D. in 1968, both in mathematical statistics. He held a faculty position at the University of North Carolina for ten years. Dr. Wegman is credited with coining the phrase "computational statistics" and developing a high-profile research program around the concept that computing resources could transform statistical techniques. He joined the faculty of George Mason University in 1986 and developed a master’s degree program in statistical science. He also has been the associate editor of seven academic journals, a member of numerous editorial boards, and the author of more than 160 papers and five books.

[pecan]

At least you're honest about your selfishness... some of us are not that inconsiderate that we won't concern ourselves with what type of world we'll be leaving our kids.

Well I am glad that you are not inconsiderate. How noble of you.  I hope that you are living the life you preach and that your carbon footprint is neutral.  So for every fart you emit, I hope you are buying the appropriate carbon offset from Gore.

I have three children and perhaps you can ask them if I do not look out for them.  So to suggest that I am inconsiderate when it come to future generations is just plain mean-spirited.  But I should expect no less as that seems to be your modus operandi when you disagree with someone on this forum.   I know I do my bit in trying to be socially and environmentally responsible.  So don’t get your knickers in a knot man.

[pecan]

Purity is irrelevant. What matters is the quality and integrity of the research. when is the last time Mr. Lindzen has written an experimental paper that provides evidence to the contrary, instead of critiquing people who have done actual work?

You are the one who suggested that Lindzen was receiving monies for expressing his views.  So purity is relevant if you are one-sided in the application of it.  IF both parties are doing it, pox on them.  I agree that
the inegrity and robustness is part of the research. Micahel Mann mat be a brilinat paleoclimatologist, but he is not a top flight statistician. Dr. Wegman is.

And re: Lindzen - Is not critiquing not part of peer review?

Are you suggesting that climate change was cooked up as a means of making money? The premises behind climate change are INDEPENDENT of the trade of credits

Al Gore does not make science and is pretty irrelevant as far as the science behind climate change is concerned.

Al Gore was the one who helped promote the notion of the hockey stick.  I do not trust Al Gore. He set up a carbon offset company. 

A re-do that showed the "hockey stick" was in fact the result of poor modelling methods. But since then more work on other temperature markers has been done. And the cumulative result of this work shows....guess what...Hockey sticks! And that work has been the subject of MUCH scrutiny.   

Dr. Wegman's work (see a rely to Bakes above) was published in July 2006.  Can you point me in the direction of recent statistical analysis of Mann's data set.  I would be interested in seeing the conclusions and how it relates to Wegman's analysis.

The fact is Pecan, current evidence still shows a trend toward acceleration of global climate change with obvous histroical relevance.  IMO the major problem is not the science behind climate change, but the politics inherent in managing the massive transition from harvesting dense energy forms to low yield, sustainable sources.

Look  oil won't last forever and will not be cheap in the coming years, the conversion HAS to be made at some point, why not read the writing on the wall and instead of just denying, get involved in helping to decide what forms of energy and therefore what kind of world your chldren and grandchildren will inherit?

I agree with you.

But I want to comment further on this an wil come back later.

[pecan]

You cannot be real.  You talk about Al Gore "hockey stick" graph.  What hockey stick graph... did you even see the documentary or are you just parroting what you read on some website elsewhere?? 

One more thingh

I am not a climate scientist and I have to 'parrot' other people if I am to speak on the issue of climate change and  global warming.  I read what they say and I judge the credibility of the who says it, or who reported it. These sources include the media (and they tendency to report anything that sounds like a crisis to generate revenue), Al Gore, Un IPCC, and other scientists and science reporter who may have their own biases.



I suppose you have you own laboratory and do not have to parrot what other people say. 

[truetrini]

So do we do spend billions and billions in a knee jerk reaction or do we exercise moderation and have an orderly migration to new energy alternative and dispense with the hyperbole?

[/b]

Truly incredulous!  why migrate to alternative sources when all is well?  No man made troubles?  Knee jerk?  who is promulgating anything knee jerk?

It is the summary dismissal of excellent science that astounds, and the fact that you choose to find fault with that self same science!

Millions and Millions were ...are being spent on a war in Iraq, you found fault with that, but when it comes to saving the planet you find fault and doubt in the science???

When industrial nations fail to curb emmissions and when there is mounting evidence of a rise in respiratorry illnesses, melting ice caps etc....when voices cry out you find that to be knee jerk?

Everyone knows the reality of the situation, there has to be changes, Bush and Blair set the movement back decades!

No one is saying shut down all cars etc.  but for the sake of immediate gratification, corporate greed nothing meaningful has been done for decades!

Bush withdrew the electric cars in california, had his people downplay global warming...and our reaction to that while vociferous can hardly be categorized as knee jerk.

get a grip!

yuh ebelive when yuh dead yuh go mysteriously sprout wings and transform into an angel, yet yuh cyar believe what yuh see with yuh own eyes?

Steups

[pecan]

So do we do spend billions and billions in a knee jerk reaction or do we exercise moderation and have an orderly migration to new energy alternative and dispense with the hyperbole?

[/b]

Truly incredulous!  why migrate to alternative sources when all is well?  No man made troubles?  Knee jerk?  who is promulgating anything knee jerk?

It is the summary dismissal of excellent science that astounds, and the fact that you choose to find fault with that self same science!

Millions and Millions were ...are being spent on a war in Iraq, you found fault with that, but when it comes to saving the planet you find fault and doubt in the science???

When industrial nations fail to curb emmissions and when there is mounting evidence of a rise in respiratorry illnesses, melting ice caps etc....when voices cry out you find that to be knee jerk?

Everyone knows the reality of the situation, there has to be changes, Bush and Blair set the movement back decades!

No one is saying shut down all cars etc.  but for the sake of immediate gratification, corporate greed nothing meaningful has been done for decades!

Bush withdrew the electric cars in california, had his people downplay global warming...and our reaction to that while vociferous can hardly be categorized as knee jerk.

get a grip!

yuh ebelive when yuh dead yuh go mysteriously sprout wings and transform into an angel, yet yuh cyar believe what yuh see with yuh own eyes?

Steups

Lets agree to disagree since you dont read what I say and I dont read what you say

[ZANDOLIE]

Dr. Wegman's work (see a rely to Bakes above) was published in July 2006.  Can you point me in the direction of recent statistical analysis of Mann's data set.  I would be interested in seeing the conclusions and how it relates to Wegman's analysis.

You probaby don't have have access to this particular literature source so the link is meaningless and I can't reproduce the information due to copyright infringement. But here is the citation and my summation of the report.

      Brumfiel, Geoff. 2006. Academy affirms hockey stick graph. Nature. 441: 1032-1033


In the article the United States National Academy of Sciences chair Gerald North, a climatologist at Texas A&M University says, the committee has a "high level of confidence" that the latter half of the 20th centurywas warmer than any other period in the past four centuries, verify the accelerated rise in temperature AKA "hockey sticks". But, he claims it was Mann et al's data covering an earlier period from AD 900 to 1600, that is less certain, not the more recent data. Climate change sceptics claim that this current warming trend is a rebound from a minor ice age that occured around 1600.

So the academy essentially upholds Mann’s findings, although the panel concluded the uncertainties in climate records prior to 1600 were not communicated as clearly as they could have been. The NAS also confirmed some problems with the statistics, but statisticians found them to have a relatively minor impact on the overall finding (Blumfiel, 2006).

This is about as much a summary as I care to make. Basically Mann et al used what is called the principal component method to analyze data primarily coming from tree ring data. To compensate for uncertainties inherent in this marker they used weighted means in their data sets. The criticism stems from the large outliers produced on their graph. If there is anyone that knows climatology maybe they can weigh to correct me if I am wrong here.

But the point is moot anyway. Every scientific paper can be critiqued. And Wegman did NOT find Mann's conclusions false, he stated they cannot be supported within the confines of the methodology. But even if this one was not supported by NAS and IPCC statisticians, one still cannot deny the MOUNTAIN of other evidence that trends toward man-made climate change. And much of that work has been picked apart and not found wanting. 

By the way Mann's paper is open access. Here is a link....http://www.caenvirothon.com/Resources/Mann,%20et%20al.%20Global%20scale%20temp%20patterns.pdf

Here is the link to the "Wegman Report"...http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/others/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf

[Bakes]

At least you're honest about your selfishness... some of us are not that inconsiderate that we won't concern ourselves with what type of world we'll be leaving our kids.

Well I am glad that you are not inconsiderate. How noble of you.  I hope that you are living the life you preach and that your carbon footprint is neutral.  So for every fart you emit, I hope you are buying the appropriate carbon offset from Gore.

I have three children and perhaps you can ask them if I do not look out for them.  So to suggest that I am inconsiderate when it come to future generations is just plain mean-spirited.  But I should expect no less as that seems to be your modus operandi when you disagree with someone on this forum.   I know I do my bit in trying to be socially and environmentally responsible.  So don’t get your knickers in a knot man.

Dred you's ah sensitive c**t... you hanging with dat next bitch West Coast Werklmann Roscharch...  oh wait, dat was you. The irony of you talking about me getting my "knickers in a knot" when your panty wedge quite up inside yuh colon.  Go take a Midol and come off yuh period, when yuh hormone levels normalize read my post again and yuh'll see that all I did was reference language YOU yuhself type.  YOU talk about

"And I am not that much of a hypocrite to say that I do not want to change my decadent and wasteful way of life (there is sarcasm in this statement so don't jump off a cliff).

I don't know the degree of your sarcasm... I don't monitor your personal activities to how much you're exaggerating.  I reference your "decadent and wasteful way of life" because such activities are exactly what's hastening the planet's decline and the fact is we owe a moral obligation to our children to leave the planet in AS GOOD CONDITION, that we met it, if not better.  What the f**k is so "mean spirited" about that idea?  The fact is that the behavior you mentioned reflects a very selfish attitude... I don't have to 'suggest' you are inconsiderate... YOU call yuhself 'selfish'... if you are selfish then you are inconsiderate by definition you dumbass.  Doh ketch feelings because I telling yuh what YOU self say.  My entire conversation with you has been civil and limited to the issue up until this point but you want to play yuh ketching feelings like ah bitch and say you throwing word fuh me about what my "modus operandi" is?

Look woman make ah turn and f**k yuhself yes.

[Bakes]

You cannot be real.  You talk about Al Gore "hockey stick" graph.  What hockey stick graph... did you even see the documentary or are you just parroting what you read on some website elsewhere?? 

One more thingh

I am not a climate scientist and I have to 'parrot' other people if I am to speak on the issue of climate change and  global warming.  I read what they say and I judge the credibility of the who says it, or who reported it. These sources include the media (and they tendency to report anything that sounds like a crisis to generate revenue), Al Gore, Un IPCC, and other scientists and science reporter who may have their own biases.



I suppose you have you own laboratory and do not have to parrot what other people say. 

A parrot merely mimics sounds it hears without processing or comprehension... I'm happy for you that you have found your level.  I won't waste any further time indulging you in your senseless inarticulate chatter.