The environmental debate thread

[jryan]

Chris C

 

Here is another interesting evaluation of the Schwartz model

 

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2007/time-constant-for-climate-greater-than-schwartz-suggests/

 

Though I can see from the outset that she does not well document her recalculation of the time scale (why is it that they all seem to fail on this critical piece of their evaluation?? Schwartz primary assertion is on the simplified time scale... and everyone changes it and doesn't really say why)

 

Anyway, Lucia determined that the problem with Schwartz appears not to be a matter of autocorrelation, but of data inaccuracy.

 

More fuel to the fire (pun intended) I suppose.

 

Also, back to UHI.. here is another interesting article:

 

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2007/7/22/its-all-in-the-adjustments.html

[Chris C]

Chris C

 

Here is another interesting evaluation of the Schwartz model

 

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2007/time-constant-for-climate-greater-than-schwartz-suggests/

 

Though I can see from the outset that she does not well document her recalculation of the time scale (why is it that they all seem to fail on this critical piece of their evaluation?? Schwartz primary assertion is on the simplified time scale... and everyone changes it and doesn't really say why)

 

Anyway, Lucia determined that the problem with Schwartz appears not to be a matter of autocorrelation, but of data inaccuracy.

 

More fuel to the fire (pun intended) I suppose.

 

Also, back to UHI.. here is another interesting article:

 

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2007/7/22/its-all-in-the-adjustments.html

 

UHI cannot explain low latitude-high altitude or high latitude glacier retreat/ ice loss. It cannot explain increased ocean heat content. I found the blog to be really lacking in information. Really, there is little difference between the rural and full series data station over the long-term trend, and there is a rather clear "external" signal in the climate system. A few worthwhile papers are Parker (2004,2006), Li et al. (2004), and Peterson (2003)

[jryan]

UHI cannot explain low latitude-high altitude or high latitude glacier retreat/ ice loss. It cannot explain increased ocean heat content. I found the blog to be really lacking in information. Really, there is little difference between the rural and full series data station over the long-term trend, and there is a rather clear "external" signal in the climate system. A few worthwhile papers are Parker (2004,2006), Li et al. (2004), and Peterson (2003)

 

Absolutely true... but again, observational melt and CO2 concentrations can not be directly corelated. They can both be corelated totemperature independantly, but you can't then simply jump to a Ice melt - CO2 corelation as CO2 doesn't directly melt glaciers. So again we are back to whether or not current models are accurate enough to project out into the future with regard to temperature and CO2 forcings. If they are then we can take those predicted temperatures and THEN estimate melt.

 

And again, the Schwartz study already admits to the 0.7 degree warming that we are associating with both AGW and glacier melt.... so current melt and Schwartz can't be put at odds, they agree. Where they diverge is in predictions of future temperatures, and future melts... which also can't be determined from current observed melt.

[swansont]

 

Note how the net cooling of 1940 to 1976 is not explained by that graph.

 

You've agreed that this is incorrect:

I have no argument with your statement about the 1941 to 1976 period. Sure, the cooling all happened between 1941 and 1950.

 

Use of the statement "net cooling of 1940 to 1976" is a strawman based on cherry-picking data (since 1940 was very near the peak temperature.) The cooling period was much shorter.

 

Some interesting numbers here, also, though it still adds up to pollution in the end.

 

"Carbon dioxide is released to the atmosphere by a variety of natural sources, and over 95% percent of total CO2 emissions would occur even if humans were not present on Earth. For example, the natural decay of organic material in forests and grasslands, such as dead trees, results in the release of about 220 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide every year. This carbon dioxide alone is over 8 times the amount emitted by humans."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_the_Earth's_atmosphere

 

You do realize that this completely irrelevant to the discussion, right?

 

As for the rest of it, it is my opinion. I could link you back to the post if you like.. but I fail to see the point in that.

 

Opinions don't belong here; this is a thread for discussing science. If you have opinions to share, open a thread in politics or general discussion.

[jryan]

Opinions don't belong here; this is a thread for discussing science. If you have opinions to share, open a thread in politics or general discussion.

 

Well, I will reword my statement and say that those are my own observations based on the science posted by other people. "Opinion" was the wrong word. Should I also hold off on personal observation? Are we left to simply parrot studies?

[Realitycheck]

You do realize that this completely irrelevant to the discussion, right?

 

I disagree. While the current discussion evolves around petty local minutiae such as urban heat islands and high altitude glacial retreat, I am down in the trenches pumping out the big numbers that matter, the grand scheme of things, the whole enchiladas.

[jryan]

Another black mark for NASA

 

I would have assumed that they would have had enough climate scientists on staff to complete a GW FAQ without pushing the answers off on sources not subject to federal QC oversight.

[waitforufo]

 

 

 

 

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch02.pdf

 

 

In the paper above provided by iNow, the following is printed below the figure shown above.

 

FAQ 2.1, Figure 2. Summary of the principal components of the radiative forcing of climate change. All these radiative forcings result from one or more factors that affect climate and are associated with human activities or natural processes as discussed in the text. The values represent the forcings in 2005 relative to the start of the industrial era (about 1750). Human activities cause signifi cant changes in long-lived gases, ozone, water vapour, surface albedo, aerosols and contrails. The only increase in natural forcing of any signifi cance between 1750 and 2005 occurred in solar irradiance. Positive forcings lead to warming of climate and negative forcings lead to a cooling. The thin black line attached to each coloured bar represents the range of uncertainty for the respective value. (Figure adapted from Figure 2.20 of this report.)

 

Pay particular attention to "The thin black line attached to each coloured bar represents the range of uncertainty for the respective value." Also note the sentence that states "All these radiative forcings result from one or more factors that affect climate and are associated with human activities or natural processes as discussed in the text." What about other forcings not discussed in the text? Uncertainty and unknown forcings are where all models fall apart. Also when uncertainty and unknowns are prevalent, one can easily attribute response to the wrong forcings based on sound scientific arguments. Later one then finds that a combination of other factors actually produced the measured results. To insure such a bad outcome, one will generally limit the time scale of the data analyzed to only cover only the period of time that best supports ones own argument.

 

Thank you, iNow, for proving the point of my last post (#32).

[iNow]

Show me a half lung.

[SkepticLance]

To Swansont

 

Yes, I agreed that the net cooling of 1940 to 1976 actually happened by 1950. That is off my point, though. The point I was making is that there was a temperature change (net cooling) which did not fit the forcings in the graph. The overall pattern of 1940 to 1976 is that of several coolings and warmings, which do NOT follow that predicted by greenhouse gases.

 

Neither did it follow that predicted by sulphate aerosol. Nor that predicted by aerosol and greenhouse gases together. To explain the pattern, it is necessary to include a powerful sunspot effect also. And the calculated solar forcings do not do this.

 

As I have argued before, scientists do not yet understand how sunspot activity changes global temperature, in spite of several theories. Until we understand the process, how the hell can we calculate it?

 

If you do not believe me, take another look at the graph of solar forcings. The biggest increase in sunspot activity, which drove a 0.4 C warming at a time when greenhouse gas increase was trivial, occurred from 1910 to 1940. Does the red line of solar forcings show this? No. It shows a trivial and short lived increase only. Why? Because the whole thing is not understood well enough to permit accurate calculations.

 

And to come to a final conclusion, if we do not understand something as powerful as sunspot forcings, and cannot calculate them, how can we make accurate predictions for the future?

 

iNow said

 

"Show me a half lung."

 

iNow, I really cannot take your postings seriously. If you want to reply, please reply seriously and rationally.

[iNow]

As I have argued before, scientists do not yet understand how sunspot activity changes global temperature, in spite of several theories. Until we understand the process, how the hell can we calculate it?

False premises lead to false conclusions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(emphasis mine):

 

http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/content/h844264320314105/fulltext.html

 

There are many interesting palaeoclimate studies that suggest that solar variability had an influence on pre-industrial climate. There are also some detection-attribution studies using global climate models that suggest there was a detectable influence of solar variability in the first half of the twentieth century and that the solar radiative forcing variations were amplified by some mechanism that is, as yet, unknown. However, these findings are not relevant to any debates about modern climate change. Our results show that the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanisms is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified.

 

 

 

 

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7108/abs/nature05072.html

 

Variations in the Sun's total energy output (luminosity) are caused by changing dark (sunspot) and bright structures on the solar disk during the 11-year sunspot cycle. The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years. In this Review, we show that detailed analysis of these small output variations has greatly advanced our understanding of solar luminosity change, and this new understanding indicates that brightening of the Sun is unlikely to have had a significant influence on global warming since the seventeenth century.

 

 

 

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/07/the-lure-of-solar-forcing/

 

This is not to say that there is no solar influence on climate change, only that establishing such a link is more difficult then many assume. What is generally required is a consistent signal over a number of cycles (either the 11 year sunspot cycle or more long term variations), similar effects if the timeseries are split, and sufficient true degrees of freedom that the connection is significant and that it explains a non-negligible fraction of the variance. These are actually quite stiff hurdles and so the number of links that survive this filter are quite small. In some rough order of certainty we can consider that the 11 year solar cycle impacts on the following are well accepted: stratospheric ozone, cosmogenic isotope production, upper atmospheric geopotential heights, stratospheric temperatures and (slightly less certain and with small magnitudes ~0.1 deg C) tropospheric and ocean temperatures. More marginal are impacts on wintertime tropospheric circulation (like the NAO). It is also clear that if there really was a big signal in the data, it would have been found by now. The very fact that we are still arguing about statisitical significance implies that whatever signal there is, is small.

 

 

 

 

It has been extremely well documented now that solar changes since about 1950 have a very minimal forcing, and maybe even negative.

 

 

 

 

Here's some more food for thought:

 

Solar influence on climate during the past millennium: Results from transient simulations with the NCAR Climate System Model -- Ammann et al. 104 (10): 3713 -- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

 

Changes in Solar Brightness Too Weak to Explain Global Warming - News Release

http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf

 

Max Planck Society - Press Release

 

Final Report of Synthesis and Assessment Product 1.1

 

ATMOSPHERE: Global Change in the Upper Atmosphere -- Laštovička et al. 314 (5803): 1253 -- Science

 

 

 

 

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf

 

The combined anthropogenic RF is estimated to be +1.6 [–1.0, +0.8]2 W m–2, indicating that, since 1750, it is extremely likely that humans have exerted a substantial warming influence on climate. This RF estimate is likely to be at least five times greater than that due to solar irradiance changes. For the period 1950 to 2005, it is exceptionally unlikely that the combined natural RF (solar irradiance plus volcanic aerosol) has had a warming influence comparable to that of the combined anthropogenic RF.

Since the start of the industrial era (about 1750), the overall effect of human activities on climate has been a warming influence. The human impact on climate during this era greatly exceeds that due to known changes in natural processes, such as solar changes and volcanic eruptions.

 

 

 

 

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter9.pdf

 

Simulations of global mean 20th-century temperature change that accounted for anthropogenic greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols as well as solar and volcanic forcing were found to be generally consistent with observations. In contrast, a limited number of simulations of the response to known natural forcings alone indicated that these may have contributed to the observed warming in the first half of the 20th century, but could not provide an adequate explanation of the warming in the second half of the 20th century, nor the observed changes in the vertical structure of the atmosphere.

 

 

Differences in the temporal evolution and sometimes the spatial pattern of climate response to external forcing make it possible, with limitations, to separate the response to these forcings in observations, such as the responses to greenhouse gas and sulphate aerosol forcing. In contrast, the climate response and temporal evolution of other anthropogenic forcings is more uncertain, making the simulation of the climate response and its detection in observations more difficult. The temporal evolution, and to some extent the spatial and vertical pattern, of the climate response to natural forcings is also quite different from that of anthropogenic forcing. This makes it possible to separate the climate response to solar and volcanic forcing from the response to anthropogenic forcing despite the uncertainty in the history of solar forcing noted above.

 

 

It is very unlikely that the 20th-century warming can be explained by natural causes. The late 20th century has been unusually warm. Palaeoclimatic reconstructions show that the second half of the 20th century was likely the warmest 50-year period in the Northern Hemisphere in the last 1300 years. This rapid warming is consistent with the scientific understanding of how the climate should respond to a rapid increase in greenhouse gases like that which has occurred over the past century, and the warming is inconsistent with the scientific understanding of how the climate should respond to natural external factors such as variability in solar output and volcanic activity.

 

 

Nevertheless, ozone, solar and volcanic forcing changes are generally not found to have made a large contribution to the observed NAM trend over recent decades (Shindell et al., 2001a; Gillett et al., 2003a).

 

Although natural internal climate processes, such as El Niño, can cause variations in global mean temperature for relatively short periods, analysis indicates that a large portion is due to external factors. Brief periods of global cooling have followed major volcanic eruptions, such as Mt. Pinatubo in 1991. In the early part of the 20th century, global average temperature rose, during which time greenhouse gas concentrations started to rise, solar output was probably increasing and there was little volcanic activity. During the 1950s and 1960s, average global temperatures levelled off, as increases in aerosols from fossil fuels and other sources cooled the planet. The eruption of Mt. Agung in 1963 also put large quantities of reflective dust into the upper atmosphere. The rapid warming observed since the 1970s has occurred in a period when the increase in greenhouse gases has dominated over all other factors.

 

 

 

In addition, differences in the timing of the human and natural external influences help to distinguish the climate responses to these factors. Such considerations increase confidence that human rather than natural factors were the dominant cause of the global warming observed over the last 50 years.

 

Estimates of Northern Hemisphere temperatures over the last one to two millennia, based on natural ‘thermometers’ such as tree rings that vary in width or density as temperatures change, and historical weather records, provide additional evidence that the 20th-century warming cannot be explained by only natural internal variability and natural external forcing factors. Confidence in these estimates is increased because prior to the industrial era, much of the variation they show in Northern Hemisphere average temperatures can be explained by episodic cooling caused by large volcanic eruptions and by changes in the Sun’s output. The remaining variation is generally consistent with the variability simulated by climate models in the absence of natural and human-induced external factors. While there is uncertainty in the estimates of past temperatures, they show that it is likely that the second half of the 20th century was the warmest 50-year period in the last 1300 years. The estimated climate variability caused by natural factors is small compared to the strong 20th-century warming.

 

 

Chapter 2 concludes that it is exceptionally unlikely that the combined natural (solar and volcanic) radiative forcing has had a warming influence comparable to that of the combined anthropogenic forcing over the period 1950 to 2005.

 

 

 

Why is that it's only the deniers who aren't sharing data in support of their claims, try to limit the datasets, or engage in significant logical fallacies? Hmmm...

[jryan]

Why is that it's only the deniers who aren't sharing data in support of their claims, try to limit the datasets, or engage in significant logical fallacies? Hmmm...

 

Strange... for someone that demands citation, I would have assumed that you would provide some for this statement.

 

But in the spirit of debate, I can provide you with studies based on limited datasets, if you want, from your side of the isle.

 

Here is just one

[swansont]

I disagree. While the current discussion evolves around petty local minutiae such as urban heat islands and high altitude glacial retreat, I am down in the trenches pumping out the big numbers that matter, the grand scheme of things, the whole enchiladas.

 

We're discussing anthropogenic greenhouse gases. Your quote concerned itself with natural sources.

[iNow]

But in the spirit of debate, I can provide you with studies based on limited datasets, if you want, from your side of the isle.

 

Here is just one

 

You should really check your sources prior to relying on them too heavily. The name "Steve McIntyre" shouldn't be associated with honest climate research.

 

 

 

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

 

McIntyre does not have an advanced degree and has published two articles in the journal Energy and Environment which has become a venue for skeptics and is not carried in the ISI listing of peer-reviewed journals. McIntyre was also exposed for having unreported ties to CGX Energy, Inc., an oil and gas exploration company, which listed McIntyre as a "strategic advisor.

 

 

 

http://info-pollution.com/mandm.htm

 

Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have become famous (or infamous) for claiming to have found major problems with a recent reconstruction of the past climate (called the Hockey Stick because of the shape). Even though major and glaring errors have been found in their writings, they continue to be favorites with the global warming "skeptics."

 

 

You also appear to have completely missed the tone and context of my previous comments. That... or you're intentionally misrepresenting what I've said. Either way, look again.

[waitforufo]

The rest of your post about changing how you live is really rather selfish and short sighted....

 

How I live shares the wealth of my success with many people. There are all those people that build my fossil fuel consuming recreational vehicles, those that distribute and sell them, those that produce the fossil fuels and those that distribute it. Then there are those that sell me breakfast, lunch, and dinner when I am away from home in the mountains enjoying nature and my friends. It's called the economy. Maybe you have heard of it.

 

My way sound much more generous than shutting down the economy based on articles published in research paper mills. I guess those people have to work too. Perhaps you think people would be better off if the wealth of the world were put into dumping iron oxide into the oceans to increase the number of little crustaceans. I know, maybe we could turn corn into alcohol and drive up food prices. That just might improve man kind’s lot.

 

Show me a half lung.

 

My lungs both function well. I was just testing them at Rocky Mountain altitudes in my snowmobile. But thank you for your concern.

 

I couldn't be happier. Maybe that is your problem. You just can't stand that others are doing better than you. You have to call them names.

[iNow]

How I live shares the wealth of my success with many people. There are all those people that build my fossil fuel consuming recreational vehicles, those that distribute and sell them, those that produce the fossil fuels and those that distribute it. Then there are those that sell me breakfast, lunch, and dinner when I am away from home in the mountains enjoying nature and my friends. It's called the economy. Maybe you have heard of it.

 

My way sound much more generous than shutting down the economy based on articles published in research paper mills. I guess those people have to work too. Perhaps you think people would be better off if the wealth of the world were put into dumping iron oxide into the oceans to increase the number of little crustaceans. I know, maybe we could turn corn into alcohol and drive up food prices. That just might improve man kind’s lot.

 

 

 

My lungs both function well. I was just testing them at Rocky Mountain altitudes in my snowmobile. But thank you for your concern.

 

I couldn't be happier. Maybe that is your problem. You just can't stand that others are doing better than you. You have to call them names.

 

Again... Tell us specifically which models you challenge and why.

 

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

[waitforufo]

Again... Tell us specifically which models you challenge and why.

 

What part of all of them don’t you understand? The author of the paper you site put the following below a figure you presented.

 

FAQ 2.1, Figure 2. Summary of the principal components of the radiative forcing of climate change. All these radiative forcings result from one or more factors that affect climate and are associated with human activities or natural processes as discussed in the text. The values represent the forcings in 2005 relative to the start of the industrial era (about 1750). Human activities cause significant changes in long-lived gases, ozone, water vapour, surface albedo, aerosols and contrails. The only increase in natural forcing of any significance between 1750 and 2005 occurred in solar irradiance. Positive forcings lead to warming of climate and negative forcings lead to a cooling. The thin black line attached to each coloured bar represents the range of uncertainty for the respective value. (Figure adapted from Figure 2.20 of this report.)

 

There is enough wiggle room in the above FAQ to drive a truck through. When someone writes something like that they themselves are casting doubt on their own work. So I state again..

 

Uncertainty and unknown forcings are where all models fall apart. Also when uncertainty and unknowns are prevalent, one can easily attribute response to the wrong forcings based on sound scientific arguments. Later one then finds that a combination of other factors actually produced the measured results. To insure such a bad outcome, one will generally limit the time scale of the data analyzed to only cover only the period of time that best supports ones own argument.

[iNow]

I interpret your inability to cite a specific model and your failure to describe specifically where you challenge it's accuracy to be an implicit concession.

 

If you do not intend to concede the argument, then show precisely which model you challenge and why.

[jryan]

You should really check your sources prior to relying on them too heavily. The name "Steve McIntyre" shouldn't be associated with honest climate research.

 

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

 

http://info-pollution.com/mandm.htm

 

You also appear to have completely missed the tone and context of my previous comments. That... or you're intentionally misrepresenting what I've said. Either way, look again.

 

This is funny... Sourcewatch is a Wiki site. The contribution and corroboration there is nil. With regard to GCX, that neither supports nor refutes a claim. These "Big Oil" dodges are nothing more than just that... a dodge.

 

Now info-pollution.com... the main page states:

 

Welcome to Info-pollution. Here I look at the wide variety information pollution. While I will try to look at all forms, I will concentrate on the areas I am most interested in, including anti-environmental myths and skepticism.

 

.... so his primary target is "skepticism"? And his positions and evidence rely heavily on RealClimate.org... which, last I checked, is not considered a "peer reviewed" source. It may link peer reviewed sources... but it sure pulls out the guns when peers review studies and are not in complete agreement.

 

And it's funny that you say he should never be listened to... his efforts eventually got NASA to eventually correct their surface temperature data. So someone is certainly listening.

 

This is nothing more than an ad hominem attack on your part.

[iNow]

And it's funny that you say he should never be listened to...

 

Yes, that is funny, especially since I never said that. Please stop misrepresenting my posts.

[Reaper]

Well, I can see that this thread is well under way. And you guys on the opposite side seem to be doing a little better now (well, certainly better than some other nameless group at some other forum I'm posting at...). However, some of you seem to fail to provide citations and are misrepresenting the data (or users posts) presented. So, I will ask of you that in order to provide an effective counter arguments, that you actually provide us with some genuine research being done or convincing evidence that show that the graphs are indeed missing something critical.

 

This is funny... Sourcewatch is a Wiki site. The contribution and corroboration there is nil...

 

But you haven't demonstrated it to be wrong. Just because it is a wiki doesn't mean its invalid or wrong.

 

 

 

.... so his primary target is "skepticism"? And his positions and evidence rely heavily on RealClimate.org... which, last I checked, is not considered a "peer reviewed" source. It may link peer reviewed sources... but it sure pulls out the guns when peers review studies and are not in complete agreement.

 

And it's funny that you say he should never be listened to... his efforts eventually got NASA to eventually correct their surface temperature data. So someone is certainly listening.

 

Can you be a little bit more specific here? Can you actually show us where this happened? And most importantly, can you provide us a peer reviewed study that is not in complete agreement. You are making claims, now you have to back them up.

 

This is nothing more than an ad hominem attack on your part.

 

This is nothing more than a strawman on your part.

[jryan]

But you haven't demonstrated it to be wrong. Just because it is a wiki doesn't mean its invalid or wrong.

 

Of course it doesn't... but it also means that the person posting the information doesn't have to be right either. And I am not stating that they are wrong, either.. just that that site gives no link to the verification.

 

And either way, the "big oil" arguments are tired, and not a particularly sound method of proving a point. It falls under the heading "conspiracy theory".

 

 

Can you be a little bit more specific here? Can you actually show us where this happened? And most importantly, can you provide us a peer reviewed study that is not in complete agreement. You are making claims, now you have to back them up.

 

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/246027

 

You can find the documentation in many places. I'm suprised you haven't heard of it, even if you didn't know who found the errors.

 

 

This is nothing more than a strawman on your part.

 

 

I'm not sure you know what a strawman argument is. Could you maybe clarify what you mean?

 

Yes, that is funny, especially since I never said that. Please stop misrepresenting my posts.

 

THat is plain semantics. You said that McIntyre "shouldn't be associated with honest climate research."

 

... so your big defense is that I misrepresented you as saying "should never listen to" rather than "should never be associated with any honest climate research". Care to explain to me the practical difference between the two statements?

 

Should we listen to him, but also not associate him with other studies? Or not mention any issues that he may bring up with individual studies.

 

Explain how that is supposed to work again?

 

Or maybe just explain when we should listen to McIntyre?

[iNow]

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/246027

 

You can find the documentation in many places. I'm suprised you haven't heard of it, even if you didn't know who found the errors.

NASA has themselves acknowledged (and corrected) the error. Lockheed was asking you to be specific where RealClimate.org discounted evidence that wasn't "in complete agreement" with their positions.

 

If you genuinely missed the tone of his request, then please address it now. However, I do get the sense that you knew precisely what he meant, and chose only to address the comment for which you had a ready response.

 

We know there was an error with a data point which has since been corrected. We want to see you support your claim that this site summarily dismisses information not in agreement with some agenda. Now that it's clear, let's see how you respond.

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure you know what a strawman argument is. Could you maybe clarify what you mean?

Of all the things this thread has discussed, this is the one you choose not to google for yourself? Wow...

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

 

straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. Often, the straw man is set up to deliberately overstate the opponent's position. A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.

 

 

 

 

Btw... We're all still waiting for you to make a claim that is supported by evidence. Thus far, you've been throwing rhetorical feces in the hope of sowing the seeds of doubt. Make a claim and support it. That is the thrust of this whole thread. If you cannot, then you should stop posting in it.

[jryan]

NASA has themselves acknowledged (and corrected) the error. Lockheed was asking you to be specific where RealClimate.org discounted evidence that wasn't "in complete agreement" with their positions.

 

If you genuinely missed the tone of his request, then please address it now. However, I do get the sense that you knew precisely what he meant, and chose only to address the comment for which you had a ready response.

 

We know there was an error with a data point which has since been corrected. We want to see you support your claim that this site summarily dismisses information not in agreement with some agenda. Now that it's clear, let's see how you respond.

 

I know they acknowledged the error... what you fail to understand is that McIntyre brought it to there attention. It says so in the article I showed you.

 

 

 

 

 

Of all the things this thread has discussed, this is the one you choose not to google for yourself? Wow...

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

 

I know the definition of a straw man argument, it just doesn't apply here.

 

 

 

 

 

Btw... We're all still waiting for you to make a claim that is supported by evidence. Thus far, you've been throwing rhetorical feces in the hope of sowing the seeds of doubt. Make a claim and support it. That is the thrust of this whole thread. If you cannot, then you should stop posting in it.

 

I have, your problem is that you fall into an all too comon method of discussion and debate online... that being that you refuse to accept self evident statements, and you refuse to accept, much less read, evidence that doesn't fit in with your belief system. So until I can produce a link for my argument from a source that YOU approve of, you will continue to argue that no evidence was given, and nobody can make an observation of their own without some third party (which you have to approve of). I provided an article to show that McIntyre actually was the genisis for the data correction at NASA... something that you could have "googled yourself", as you put it.

 

You are not a very strong debater, and your propensity to toss out invectives and ad hominems is an all to telling sign that you really aren't comfortable entertaining the possibility that you aren't 100% right.

 

If you need citation of that assertion, go read your own posts.

[JohnB]

You should really check your sources prior to relying on them too heavily.

Would that include "sourcewatch" which doesn't appear to mention McIntyre and McKitrick have also been published in GRL? A bit one sided what?

 

Ditto "Infopollution". That sites response to M&M?

 

6 links to Realclimate. (Partly run by Michael Mann.)

3 Blogs and

3 comments by Michael Mann.

 

Nothing like an independent review is there?

 

Re:"Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have become famous (or infamous) for claiming to have found major problems with a recent reconstruction of the past climate (called the Hockey Stick because of the shape). Even though major and glaring errors have been found in their writings, they continue to be favorites with the global warming "skeptics." " You won't of course mind providing peer reviewed articles to back this up?

 

I haven't participated in this particular thread before because I've been following Swansonts advice. In a previous thread he suggested that if I was unconvinced I should look at the methodology and the data and I've been doing so. I suggest that all others do the same. By all means read the blogs, but read the papers they reference. It's fascinating.

 

On the "cool" side is a site called Global Warming Science. It is a skeptic site but in the top right hand corner is a link to a natty little program that accesses the GISS database and will produce a temperature graph for any station(s) in the database. Very interesting when you look at the data.