What Do We Think About Climate Change

[dccd]

Boston, Lets jump ahead on the controversy for a moment. I am most interested on your idea of a solution to warming, I'll admit to a bias about what this is about for the true believers of this global "Threat De jour". But if everyone from Nigerians to the Swiss became believers in this warming. What would be three things would you demand happen .... politically

If you like, I also would like to know if anyone has calculated or noted the increase in ariable land, thus increased greening, due to the rising "greenhouse" gasses. Think of all that permafrost in Siberia that may become a horrible, huge new breadbasket for more humans!

[Boston]

Hi D
you know thats a great question
some of the greatest minds in the scientific community are yet to form a consensus as to the best approach
I certainly respect there understanding of the issues and await there latest recommendations
I can only say I hope we are not to far gone to fix this mess we seem to have created for ourselves
however if ICCAT is any indication of political action
we are in big trouble

your question about the permafrost and arable land is interesting
I think most of the permafrost land once thawed is far to marshy to be of much use, although that from years ago and to be fair Ild have to go look up some of the latest on the subject

arable land increase?
last I heard we're loosing arable land fast
just go look at whats happening in the valley's of southern California
look up soil husbandry and I think it will answer your question far better than I can
but all in all
the deserts are growing
the farm land is shrinking

three things I demand happen politically ?
I see a guillotine set at the ready for any who chose to answer that last
the first step in any solution is to realize a mistake had been made

thanks for breaking some new ground
B

[Jimbo1490]

Thomas,

Tempest in a teacup admitted, there's still the UNEXPLICABLE net upward adjustment to the surface temp data, when even the most cursory examination of that data gathering network strongly begs for a net DOWNWARD adjustment! The 'tempest' really only amounts to a change in the upward adjustment; the net direction is still basically WRONG!

On your newfound respect for MBH-98, remember that if ONE SINGLE PROXY data set is removed(the bristlecone pines), there is no net warming. Ditto for Briffa's 'new' recons; all hangs on what a few bristlecone pines did. This is clearly agenda driven science.

Jimbo

[Jimbo1490]

The best course of action question was covered way earlier in the thread, so this is not really a new direction but another re-tread. The most mature, coolheaded and well-documented solution I've seen so far is presented by Bjorn Lomborg in this lecture. I originally posted this more than a year ago.

Jimbo

[dccd]

Thanks very much Jimbo1490, The lecture you linked to was the most coherent look at the Global Warming threat I have ever seen. Suggested warming pales in comparison to other more fixable problems in the real world. I also advise everyone to see Bjorn Lomborg in this lecture at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dtbn9zBfJSs

I, only drop in on this thread about "the propaganda" when I am aggravated by its relentlessness. So to repeat your video find is a good thing.

Boston are you comfortable with your belief that increase in greenhouse gasses, only serve to reduce arable land ... globally?

Also, regarding the Guillotine, I think that the first political leader to implement the ultimate solution to stem imaginary global meltdown (confiscatory taxing of the capitalist) will meet its blade after a few years of the following economic depression sure to follow. He would probably be imortilized for a statement like, "let THEM take the hybrid bus" (while they themselves jetset and limosine around on our taxes)

[Boston]

I find it interesting you mention Bjorn Lomborg
wasnt he dragged into Danish court over his having reported false information
hang on
let me go look it up
Dam it pays to have a memory

Readers take note !! Warning !!

Lomborg was accused of scientific dishonesty. Several environmental scientists brought a total of three complaints against Lomborg to the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD), a body under Denmark's Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MSTI). The charges claimed that (his book) "The Skeptical Environmentalist" contained deliberately misleading data and flawed conclusions. Due to the similarity of the complaints, the DCSD decided to proceed on the three cases under one investigation.

[edit] DCSD investigation

On January 6, 2003 the DCSD reached a decision on the complaints. The ruling was a mixed message, deciding the book to be scientifically dishonest, but Lomborg himself not guilty because of lack of expertise in the fields in question:[4]

Objectively speaking, the publication of the work under consideration is deemed to fall within the concept of scientific dishonesty. ...In view of the subjective requirements made in terms of intent or gross negligence, however, Bjørn Lomborg's publication cannot fall within the bounds of this characterization. Conversely, the publication is deemed clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice.

The DCSD cited The Skeptical Environmentalist for:

1. Fabrication of data;
2. Selective discarding of unwanted results (selective citation);
3. Deliberately misleading use of statistical methods;
4. Distorted interpretation of conclusions;
5. Plagiarism;
6. Deliberate misinterpretation of others' results.

he was deemed innocent by reason of ignorance
he filled a complaint about the ambiguities of the language of the ruling and the right of the ruling body to review his work as scientific
the decission was remitted back to the DCSD which found that

On March 12, 2004, the Committee formally decided not to act further on the complaints, reasoning that renewed scrutiny would, in all likelihood, result in the same conclusion.[6]

the hole thing was a mess mostly because neither the ruling Danish body the MSTI nor the DCSD had an understanding nor any preparation for agnotology

I'm not suprised his work is being hailed as good science by this threads major contributors

thanks for proving the need for a warning about academic honesty on this page

Boston are you comfortable with your belief that increase in greenhouse gasses, only serve to reduce arable land ... globally?

I have yet to discus the reduction in quality or quantity of arable land on this thread other than to suggest the following

arable land increase?
last I heard we're loosing arable land fast
just go look at whats happening in the valley's of southern California
look up soil husbandry and I think it will answer your question far better than I can
but all in all
the deserts are growing
the farm land is shrinking

please reword the question and I will do my best to provide accurate honest data
B

[Jimbo1490]

Boston.

Everything you've posted in red above about Lomborg is EXACTLY what we've been saying about Mann, Briffa and Hanson. The documentation is all there for anyone to see. Again you hold up skeptics to a very high standard of accuracy, honesty and integrity, while at the same time routinely ignoring egregious violations of the exact same standards by AGW supporters. We have a word which perfectly describes people like you, Mr Boston; it's

HYPOCRITE


Jimbo

[Boston]

hey G
did that look like a personal attack to you
does it make you wonder why I went on a slightly sarcastic approach for a while
and once again with the Mann wagon

Jim
had you actually read any of my previous posts you would realize that Ive been more than willing to disregard Mann's work if you will only admit that the thousands of other graphs available show the same trends
besides bntii has demolished your Issues with Mann and shown the readers time and time again that Mann is not sporting horns and a forked tail

while at the same time routinely ignoring egregious violations

Mann, Briffa and Hanson ?
thats funny
I dont seem to remember any of these guys getting sued by the scientific communities governing bodies

Ild be dam curious to see some actual litigation records if you got em
my mind remains open and welcoming of new scientifically viable information
if there work was in some way censured by the governing scientific community then Im certainly willing to move on from considering there work and getting on to the thousands and thousands of scientists who have also contributed to the knowledge of global climate change

regards B

[masalai]

Just been browsing weather sites and thought of you all and seeing as how Australia is on the opposite side of the globe and a day ahead so a bit of future knowledge may be of assistance....

http://www.jcomm.info/ = The Joint WMO-IOC Technical Commission for Oceanography and Marine Meteorology...

and a JOB.... Director sought for IOCCP - - - The International Ocean Carbon Coordination Project (IOCCP) (www.ioccp.org) promotes the development of a global network of ocean carbon observations for research through technical coordination and communication services, international agreements on standards and methods, and advocacy and links to the global observing systems. The IOCCP is co-sponsored by the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO and the Scientific Committee on Oceanic Research.
The IOCCP is seeking to appoint a director for the project, located at the IOC Secretariat in Paris, France.
Deadline for application: 30 September 2008.

Another site here may be helpful too - http://www.imos.org.au/ - - and - - http://www.bom.gov.au/oceanography/p.../spslcmp.shtml - - and - - http://www.bom.gov.au/oceanography/f...=13&forecast=1

[Jimbo1490]

Boston,

When you first got into this thread and posted the MBH-98 'hockey stick' graph, and I pointed out that it had been discredited 5 years ago. You then posted several 'other' graphs, purporting to show the same thing. Trouble is, ALL were simply re-drawn versions of MBH-98, which, it's true, are EVERYWHERE.

Real, honest reconstructions include the little Ice age and our recent climb out of it, while MBH-98 does not. Real, honest reconstructions include a medieval warm period which was WARMER than today; MBH-98 does not. The Graphs you posted from Briffa are drawn from equally non-rigorous recons, and suffer basically the same flaws as Mann's. See Climateaudit for the full story. Perry, Guillo and I have posted links to the appropriate pages on that site earlier in the thread, but you can't be bothered to read them. I read all the rebuttals from realclimate, to the point that I can point out their logical and technical flaws, such as with the lack of causality, which they tacitly admit really IS a problem that has not been resolved.

I look forward to Thomas' posts, because his questions are intelligent and stimulating. He makes me work hard to prove what I'm about, thus raising the level of discussion. One big reason for this is that over 2 years ago, he and I agreed to stop bickering about this or that personal info on the 'experts' we summon to the discussion via citation, bit instead just stick to the scientific questions.

But abrogation of the scientific method by 'experts' is ALWAYS going to be fair game, so those episodes keep coming up. Getting a paycheck from this or that oil industry group, energy lobby, left-leaning university, the UN, the US government, and environmental group or WHATEVER does not automatically disqualify any expert's work because it does not automatically follow that anyone has abrogated the scientific method in pursuit of an ulterior motive, just because he is getting a paycheck from any of the above.

You, OTOH, have done the thread no service at all. You NEVER address the questions, but instead devolve to the now very tired tactic of personal destruction. You have squandered your credibility and any goodwill others once felt toward you with your posts to this thread.

I hope you are happy.



Jimbo

[Boston]

G
had that look of another personal attack wouldnt you say

Jimmy
If the premise of your questions lie on sound scientific footing Ild be happy to address them
when they wallow in blatant agnotologistic views
then frankly
they lie beneath the dignity of a scientific review
most
have already been reviewed and found wanting or blatantly false

Professor Robert Neel Proctor I think it was who coined the term "agnotology" to describe the study of culturally-induced ignorance or doubt, particularly the publication of inaccurate or misleading scientific data

is it a personal attack to show ones work as biased and therefore subject to question

is it a contribution to point out that research supporting an industries ability to continue its profitable pollution; is provided by that industry

is it usefull to discuss the levels of co2 when it is refused to be admitted that human activity has something to do with those levels

how does it help the discussion for detractors to refuse to admit that gigatons of waste spewed into the atmosphere every year, year after year is altering the atmospheric chemistry

what you call "honest reconstructions" is the basic logic through which your view of man having nothing to do with global climate change is shown to be untenable

Im suprised actually that you keep bringing up Bntii contributions
he has after all
cleaned your proverbial clock sir, over this hole Mann graph problem you seem to have

stomp your feet as you might the cat is out of the bag

enjoy your evening
B

[Jimbo1490]

is it a personal attack to show ones work as biased and therefore subject to question

is it a contribution to point out that research supporting an industries ability to continue its profitable pollution; is provided by that industry

The answer to all of these questions (which you have posed rhetorically, meaning that you think the 'obvious answer is yes!) is an emphatic 'No!'

This stuff is all innuendo. Prove that someone has abrogated the scientific method or protocols first(as I have done with Mann and others), or else STFU!

Jimbo

[Guillermo]

Originally Posted by bntii

These studies are 2007 and 2008... It's good to keep current eh?

Well done. You took the time to search for rebuttals. But, as Jimbo has outlighted (not just now, but a long time ago; this is getting circular) such rebuttals are under great doubt because of they being based in greatly suspicious land instruments based data, as well as authors repeatedly refusing to discuss their methods.

Originally Posted by bntii

I will ask you the same question I asked Jimbo..
The yearly carbon emissions we are releasing are greater then twice quantity of carbon which is accumulating in the atmosphere each year.
The question now and for the past three decades in this field is not how we could have possibly caused the increase in atmospheric Co2, but why the levels are not far higher.
The question I have for you:
If we were not adding this Co2 to the atmosphere, would the atmospheric concentration of Co2 still be increasing?
If so, Why?

I don't have an answer for that. You must remember just a few posts ago I was also wondering about the "missing carbon". Precisely I asked for help to try to gather data for the several components of the CO2 sources/sinks, but got little enthusiasm.

Originally Posted by bntii

And no I did not counter you premise the temperatures are dropping over "at least the last ten years"...
I did that in the earlier post.

You countered, but you did not prove the contrary. So my statement is still valid. Even if you don't like it, it's a proven FACT.

Originally Posted by bntii

What I did was raise some questions I have as to why there is a graph which shows apparently no change presented as evidence of change.
Why is it you believe that "monthly mean" representations are very level in spite of changes while a yearly or five year mean of the same data show marked change?
Monthly mean: average of the mean monthly maximum and minimum (°C)
.......

Not so difficult to understand. You cannot use big scales to realize short time effects. If you use eons scales, i.e., you don't even notice the present era. So a monthly scale is quite adequate to analyze the last dozen of years.

As an example, if we use just a 500 years period analyzed in terms of decades, like the boreholes temperature analysis conducted by Pollack et al.(http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globa...g/pollack.html, http://www.geo.lsa.umich.edu/climate/core.html), we can say the present times are just a part of the bouncing back from the Little Ice Age.

Cheers.

[Jimbo1490]

Something relvant, again

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WWpH0lmcxA#

Jimbo

[Boston]

Jim
your lack of civility proves your data's failure to survive scrutiny
and your arguments to tolerate debate

your man
Lomborg
was not exonerated
he was found innocent by reason of ignorance in scientific maters
he then went on to argue that his work wasn't scientific and therefore didnt fall under the jurisdiction of Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty

so I ask you
is it innuendo to ask

is it a contribution to point out that research supporting an industries ability to continue its profitable pollution; is provided by that industry

or to reprint the findings of his trial
remember The DCSD cited him for:

1. Fabrication of data;
2. Selective discarding of unwanted results (selective citation);
3. Deliberately misleading use of statistical methods;
4. Distorted interpretation of conclusions;
5. Plagiarism;
6. Deliberate misinterpretation of others' results.

your insistence is bordering on paranoia
97% is a consensus
why cant you admit it

cheers
B