Global warming or not?

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Was the list taken from http://www.heartland.org/publication..._Alarmism.html ?

Thanks even more to you Sparrow for that. I was just about to do some searching along those lines myself.

[kazbates]

Originally Posted by kennyc

No Ralph, your the one that said we have to replicate the Earth and that the results otherwise were bogus.

As far as YOUR data, many others have raised exactly the same issues and they have been addressed by the climate scientists who all agree that it has been considered in the results.

I have no requirement to debate you on this - it is not my science or my publication (despite the fact that I agree with it). You are perfectly welcome to your opinion. If you are so certain it negates the published conclusions then certainly you should be working to present that to the world.

As far as your analogy you miss one very important point that I've made repeatedly. Scientists are not perfect, nor are all of them right all of the time, but Science IS. It is Science that says this about Global Warming and yes I believe it. Science is the ultimate and best tool we have to understand the world around us.

I'm not sure if you are accusing me of calling you names, but I have not and will not. I respect you as an individual but your opinion on this issue is wrong.

See, kenny, that's where things start turning south. Ralph's opinion isn't wrong anymore than yours is. Just because it doesn't coincide with yours doesn't make it wrong. There are many supported arguments on both sides. Keeping an open mind and listening to both sides of the argument (without obvious sarcasm) is (or should be) the basis of the Scientific process that you embrace. I'm really not trying to pick at you. I respect your opinions to much for that, but I think we should all keep an open mind when listening to the opinions of others. I'm no great scholar, just a humble teacher who sees the validity of debate. We learn so much more when debating an issue than we do when we are forced to accept one hypothesis or theory.

You are correct in saying that Science is at the core of the argument. Unfortunately, our understanding of the scientific findings can vary greatly. You believe that Darwin was correct in his hypothesis. Others have disproved his hypothesis. I think it's a combination of the two. Although we would like Science to be exact, it rarely is.

[Greg Anos]

(Red to RSE - I thought you knew better than to argue theology with with a Fundie. I'm still waiting for you to catch up on my notes...)

(Right, Red. It's just I'd never seen a science Fundie before. I didn't think they could exist..)

Go ahead and Believe kennyc. I'm outa here.....

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by kazbates

You believe that Darwin was correct in his hypothesis. Others have disproved his hypothesis.

Did you mean 'disproved' Kaz?
I think a disproven theory is dumped in the scientific community, no room for opinion on it's validity once that happens.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by kazbates

You believe that Darwin was correct in his hypothesis. Others have disproved his hypothesis.

Wait? What? When? How?

And if anybody brings up 'Intelligent Design' I'm instituting a new form of Godwin on this thread and walking away.

[GeoffC]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

That is the point I keep trying to point out. Measurable, yes. Repeatable and replicable, no! We don't have another planet for a control, and we can't compare just one variable and keep the other ones constant. We don't even know what all the other variables are. And we can't do 50 or 100 experiments and compare them to do statistical averages.

Undoubtedly it wasn't our fault[?], but Venus is often quoted as an 'end-game' for the Earth (runaway CO2) - sulphuric acid clouds reflect sunlight.

[kennyc]

Here's an interesting link, just received by email this is not a scientific publication, just an article:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/1...73a7WQBpWRY%3D

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by kazbates

See, kenny, that's where things start turning south. Ralph's opinion isn't wrong anymore than yours is. Just because it doesn't coincide with yours doesn't make it wrong. ....I'm no great scholar, just a humble teacher who sees the validity of debate. ...

You are correct in saying that Science is at the core of the argument. Unfortunately, our understanding of the scientific findings can vary greatly. You believe that Darwin was correct in his hypothesis. Others have disproved his hypothesis. I think it's a combination of the two. Although we would like Science to be exact, it rarely is.

Kaz, you are mistaken. Ralph has taken the contrary approach to the existing legitmate science. Til prove otherwise it is wrong. This is not a debate, this is not a public hearing, this is not a trial. This is Science. We've been through that so I won't repeat it.

Darwin (by that I mean the Theory of Natual Selection i.e. evolution) has NEVER been disproven. If you believe otherwise then you are mistaken.

[Dulin's Books]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Was the list taken from http://www.heartland.org/publication..._Alarmism.html ?

No but it may be the original source of the list. Whatever you think of the source of the list it remains of course that the studies are real and peer reviewed in respected journals. Along with the most recent paper on the ENSO that i posted about earlier.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/200...JD011637.shtml

Originally Posted by kennyc

I'm not sure if you are accusing me of calling you names, but I have not and will not. I respect you as an individual but your opinion on this issue is wrong.

Actually you have

Originally Posted by kennyc

the results are not about duplicating the Earth you silly boy,

well you brought in the huffington post of all places so i'll put in the WSJ. At least this is written by a scientist- granted one that the AGW believers think they have discredited.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB2000...917025400.html

And for some elightening conversation between some of the actual climate scientists involved in the papers/debate etc i give you this discussion from 2005 on realclimate.org

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...ge-2/#comments

[kazbates]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Did you mean 'disproved' Kaz?
I think a disproven theory is dumped in the scientific community, no room for opinion on it's validity once that happens.

Originally Posted by Moejoe

Wait? What? When? How?

And if anybody brings up 'Intelligent Design' I'm instituting a new form of Godwin on this thread and walking away.

Originally Posted by kennyc

Kaz, you are mistaken. Ralph has taken the contrary approach to the existing legitmate science. Til prove otherwise it is wrong. This is not a debate, this is not a public hearing, this is not a trial. This is Science. We've been through that so I won't repeat it.

Darwin (by that I mean the Theory of Natual Selection i.e. evolution) has NEVER been disproven. If you believe otherwise then you are mistaken.

Okay, already. . .I stand corrected. Some of his conclusions have been brought into serious question, though, even by the all holy scientific community! Sheesh, you guys are tough. Believe it or not, I agree with some of Darwin's theory even though I am a Christian. The two do not HAVE to be mutually exclusive. A quote by Charles Darwin:

Darwin confessed, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

There is a great deal in this world that defies explanation by the science that we know. I like to keep all my options open.

Kenny, when I'm wrong, I admit it. I am not wrong. I have come to no definitive conclusion other than to say that what we have done in the past through our own short-sightedness has had an effect on our planet. I am still withholding judgment on the ultimate cause of Global warming. You, however, have closed your mind to any other conclusions or data that might be significant if they do not agree with your own viewpoint. The fact that you have quoted a very definitely left leaning media source tells me that you are doing the same thing that you've accused the general populace of doing and that is following the hype. If someone quotes a source that you perceive to be right leaning, you ridicule them and tell them they are wrong. Yet, there is scientific truth in what they are saying as well.

The TRUE Scientific Process is continually reevaluating the conclusions drawn, no matter what the theory.

[kennyc]

Okay, I actually spent a bit of time checking out these links. dulin's books. I've interspersed my comments or information I found from googling.


Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 years (Climate Research, vol. 23, 89–110, January 2003) - Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas

Sallie Baliunas is an astrophysicist Willie Wei-Hock Soon (born 1966) is an astrophysicist He is chief science adviser to the
Science and Public Policy Institute, an organisation which devotes most of its scientific coverage to arguing against anthropogenic
global warming or playing down the effects of global warming and whose chief policy advisor, Lord Monckton, is well known for his
public opposition to the mainstream scientific opinions on global warming


Corrections to the Mann et al. (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series (Energy & Environment, vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 751-771, November 2003) - Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications (Energy & Environment, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 69-100, January 2005) - Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance (Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 32, February 2005) - Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
Reply to comment by Huybers on "Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance" (Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 32, October 2005) - Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

Reply to comment by von Storch and Zorita on "Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance" (Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 32, October 2005) - Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

Ross McKitrick is a Canadian economist Stephen McIntyre is the editor of "Climate Audit", a blog


Estimating future sea level changes from past records (Global and Planetary Change, vol. 40, issues 1-2, pp. 49-54, January 2004) - Nils-Axel Mörner

Mörner disagrees with the widely held view of past and future sea level change.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/arti...ies_About_Lies

Comments on "Impacts of CO2-Induced Warming on Simulated Hurricane Intensity and Precipitation: Sensitivity to the Choice of Climate Model and Convective Scheme" (Journal of Climate, vol. 18, issue 23, December 2005) - Patrick J. Michaels, Paul C. Knappenberger, Christopher Landsea

In a July 27, 2006 ABC News report, it was revealed that a Colorado energy cooperative, the Intermountain Rural Electric Association, had given Michaels $100,000.[23] The report noted that the cooperative has a vested interest in opposing mandatory carbon dioxide caps. The wider context of the report concerned entities within the fossil fuel industry giving money to scientists in an effort to create a perception that there is a lack of consensus in the scientific community regarding global warming.

A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies (Energy & Environment, vol. 18, nos. 7-8, pp. 1049-1058, December 2007) - C. Loehle
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...1195830AAenQCp


Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data (Nature 433, 613-617, February 2005) - Anders Moberg, Dmitry M. Sonechkin, Karin Holmgren, Nina M. Datsenko and Wibjörn Karlén
This is from "Letters to Nature" http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture03265.html



Snowfall-Driven Growth in East Antarctic Ice Sheet Mitigates Recent Sea-Level Rise (Science, vol. 308. no. 5730, pp. 1898 - 1901, 24 June 2005) - Curt H. Davis, Yonghong Li, Joseph R. McConnell, Markus M. Frey, Edward Hanna
I've read the abstract and while it may account for some increase in ice cap, it likely is an isoloate piece that must be taken into account with all the other data



Comment on "The Spatial Extent of 20th-Century Warmth in the Context of the Past 1200 Years" (Science, vol. 316. no. 5833, p. 1844, June 2007) - Gerd Bürger

Comment, not a research paper.

Causes of the Unusually Destructive 2004 Atlantic Basin Hurricane Season (Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, vol. 87, issue 10, October 2006) - Philip J. Klotzbach, William M. Gray

I can't find any details on this so have no idea if it is relavent or not. Based on the other findings above and these all came from the same website source ( http://www.heartland.org/publication..._Alarmism.html )
lends further skepticism to it.

[pshrynk]

Just on a side note, and along with RSE's analysis: In the 70's there was a genuine fear that we were running out of food. That there was no way to produce more and that the environment was so destroyed that we would soon reach the limit of the Earth to sustain the growth that was then seen as immutable and expanding in rate, rather than retracting. Then, came the 80's and 90's and the revelation that, indeed, there was not an upper limit on production and the economics of scarcity were flawed (Not completely wrong, as the internet and housing bubbles showed). And the growth rate increase of the population growth actually reversed and there is expectation that at some point, the rate of expansion of population may, in fact, start going down.

All this to say that we must not make radical decisions based on current tech capabilities. Not when we've seen the exponential rate of tech advancement.

That said, I'm on the side of the tree huggers, because I don't want to see the polar bear become extinct in the wild. I feel that biodiversity is an essential part of our own personal ecologies that we do not fully understand at this point. Keeping a speicies around just for the sake of keeping it around is a good thing that we will ultimately be glad of.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by kazbates

Darwin confessed, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

There is a great deal in this world that defies explanation by the science that we know. I like to keep all my options open.

Just in passing, later generations of scientists have developed a plausible explanation for the evolution of the eye by natural selection.
It's described, for example, in Dawkins' books ('The Selfish Gene' and/or 'The Blind Watchmaker' iirc).
Although, ironically, Dawkins is a good example of a scientist who seems to have lost his way (sadly).

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Dulin's Books

No but it may be the original source of the list. Whatever you think of the source of the list it remains of course that the studies are real and peer reviewed in respected journals. Along with the most recent paper on the ENSO that i posted about earlier.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/200...JD011637.shtml






Actually you have



....

As far as your list, see my comments on each article above.


Please point out specifically by providing a link where I have called Ralph or Anyone in this thead name or insulted them in a personal manner. If you think the "silly boy" was an insult then I apoligize, it was intended more as humor.

[pshrynk]

Originally Posted by kazbates

Okay, already. . .I stand corrected. Some of his conclusions have been brought into serious question, though, even by the all holy scientific community! Sheesh, you guys are tough. Believe it or not, I agree with some of Darwin's theory even though I am a Christian. The two do not HAVE to be mutually exclusive. A quote by Charles Darwin:

Some of Darwin's original hypotheses have been challenged successfully, but only to show that there is more to selection than mere hardship. Also, the parallel theory of genetic drift has been shown to have a significant impact on species diversification. Darwin originally felt that the changes were less gradual than what has been shown.