How's everyone enjoying their "Global Warming"?

[Cybrweez]

Ramesh said he had been accused of "voodoo science" in questioning the IPCC findings about the Himalayas in the past.

This accusation is becoming quite common in science. Also known as pseudo-science. Not just GW, but other areas of science as well. Its a very valuable weapon.

[ParanoiA]

So, the whole thing is one sided - it costs a whole freaking lot, and the only proposed solution is to go broke and cancel liberty on the scale never before imagined in our country.

I'm pretty sure y'all have spent more for less result on plenty of other things. And as for going broke, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't y'all already broke? Not just broke, but so deep in debt that you'll probably never get out of it?

Now, I'll agree that there may be measures that can be taken which may not cost so much, or have such an effect on liberty, (although I'm not convinced that it will have such an effect on it), but we don't seem to be thinking about those...it's much easier just to say that it's all lies.

--A

Yes we are already broke. But in theory, we still have credit, so you're not really broke as long as you can keep borrowing and borrowing and your grand kids have to worry about paying it back...if we make it that long.

It's natural to deny the exigency that creates the need for such change in structure and cost. That's why I'm highly suspicious of it. At the end of the day, I'm not so much a global warming advocate as much as I am an anti-global warming skeptic.

The silly ideas used to discredit global warming betray the desparate psychology of denial. When I hear actual science based criticism coming from an actual studied scientist, then I listen. When laymen comb the internet and toss out their favorite article that challenges GW, as if we can actually have a scientific debate on something in which no one is an expert themselves, then it smacks of validating prejudices.

[Zarathustra]

[At the end of the day, I'm not so much a global warming advocate as much as I am an anti-global warming skeptic.

I like that. We need that kind of skeptic, too.

The silly ideas used to discredit global warming betray the desparate psychology of denial. When I hear actual science based criticism coming from an actual studied scientist, then I listen. When laymen comb the internet and toss out their favorite article that challenges GW, as if we can actually have a scientific debate on something in which no one is an expert themselves, then it smacks of validating prejudices.

This might be true for some people. But the same could be said of those who support global warming. Since no one is an expert themselves, is *every* layman who participates in this debate merely expressing his own psychology? Why would that only apply to the "deniers?" Why would anyone assume that the laymen who support global warming are on the side of science when we don't understand the science enough to make that call?

It comes down to one word: "consensus." Therefore, it is not silly at all to challenge the validity of that consensus, since so much of this debate depends upon it. If evidence can be collected that casts doubt upon the methodology and ethical practice of the consensus, then the laymen on both sides are in exactly the same boat. It's irrational to place your faith in a consensus that may in fact be the product of political "circling the wagons."

The Himalaya glaciers is a perfect example. The IPCC claimed that their report contained the latest research. But it was merely a phone call with a guy who was speculating without ever having tested his speculation. I may not be qualified to evaluate the science, but I sure as hell am qualified to call bullshit on that. And if the highest levels of this "scientific" debate has such blatant amount of bullshit, then it is certainly reasonable (and not "desperate denial") to wonder how reliable the consensus is.

As long as you're psychoanalysing people you don't know, what would possibly be the psychological motivation for someone like me to deny global warming? Do you really think that I'm such a caring person that my concern for the global economy makes me irrational when it comes to science? My own personal stake in this is very small. What exactly is "desperate" about my "denial?"

[Avatar]

As long as you're psychoanalysing people you don't know, what would possibly be the psychological motivation for someone like me to deny global warming?

Tone of that 1st line could be a bit suspect...ahem...

Anyway, if I might join in, I've always had the impression your personal objection was more to the proposed solution in terms of cost, regulation, effectiveness and even fairness (of application) than anything else. Pretty sure you're against pollution and all that.

Yes we are already broke. But in theory, we still have credit, so you're not really broke as long as you can keep borrowing and borrowing and your grand kids have to worry about paying it back...if we make it that long.

Well if that's the case, in theory you'll never go broke, no matter how much you spend. The US is valuable enough that (as I'm pretty sure Brinn has said), the loan will never get called in.

I'm not so much a global warming advocate as much as I am an anti-global warming skeptic.

--A

[Zarathustra]

Tone of that 1st line could be a bit suspect...ahem...

But there's nothing suspect about calling skeptics, "desperate?" As a GW skeptic, I felt like I should take up for myself, at the very least, by challenging this assertion. I don't think the psychoanalysis can go much farther at all. Oil companies might conceivably be called desperate. But I'm not an Exxon CEO.

Anyway, if I might join in, I've always had the impression your personal objection was more to the proposed solution in terms of cost, regulation, effectiveness and even fairness (of application) than anything else. Pretty sure you're against pollution and all that.

That's all true. But given the fact that an unsubstantiated phone call can find it's way into an IPCC report and be passed off as "the latest research," I'm sceptical of the the theory, the bureaucracy, the methodology of the GW machine. I mean, what kind of peer-review process can the IPCC possibly have that lets something like that slip through? No other branch of science has anything resembling this level of sheer incompetance. Imagine if the drug companies tried to use a phone call from an anonymous lab technician to say that a drug was safe. And then a global government entity said, "Sounds good to me. Let's spend trillions of the global economy on this drug!" It's unimaginable in any other branch of science except global warming. And then for us mere "laymen" to point out such egregious examples of unscientific behavior is "desperate denial." Come on.

[ParanoiA]

This might be true for some people. But the same could be said of those who support global warming. Since no one is an expert themselves, is *every* layman who participates in this debate merely expressing his own psychology? Why would that only apply to the "deniers?" Why would anyone assume that the laymen who support global warming are on the side of science when we don't understand the science enough to make that call?

To me, yes. If you're a layman, you're merely repeating facts provided by experts. For or against, laymen don't have any business "debating" things they don't understand. It's just common sense. In that case, they are debating their pyschological disposition, not global warming. Advocates are every bit as bad about this as skeptics.

It comes down to one word: "consensus." Therefore, it is not silly at all to challenge the validity of that consensus, since so much of this debate depends upon it. If evidence can be collected that casts doubt upon the methodology and ethical practice of the consensus, then the laymen on both sides are in exactly the same boat. It's irrational to place your faith in a consensus that may in fact be the product of political "circling the wagons."

Agreed. Couldn't have said it any better. I think the consensus challenge is just as politicized and overblown at this point, though. Most scientists believe it. You have to do a lot of intellectual acrobats to work around that. The "lack of a consensus" is a propoganda mine field.

One thing that bugs me though, is the strength of that consensus and climate models. I'm bothered by the margin in that consensus - it should be wider and the skeptics should be limited to quacks, however there are good scientists writing papers in contradiction. Until this settles down, I'm not going to be comfortable really. Also computer models are not empirical by any stretch of the imagination, and it bothers me how dependent we are on them. I also realize they aren't the only scientific resource suggesting global warming, but they are referenced extensively on the subject, and I'm not too comfortable about that either.

As long as you're psychoanalysing people you don't know, what would possibly be the psychological motivation for someone like me to deny global warming? Do you really think that I'm such a caring person that my concern for the global economy makes me irrational when it comes to science? My own personal stake in this is very small. What exactly is "desperate" about my "denial?"

The only pyschoanalysis that leaps out at me is how in the world you made my post to Avatar, using generalities, about you. I'm left to conclude you qualified yourself in my comments, therefore you must believe it accurately describes you.

I was speaking of the psychology in general. It's only natural to deny such potential catastrophe, in its our programming. The ambiguous nature of humans to change, yet oppose change. When flimsy excuses and cherry picked logic are used to rationalize a position, then I get suspicious of the motives for that position. So would you. Since I see this in people, moreso on the skeptic side, then I suspect that psychology at play.

Personally, I've seen a fraction of this from you in the Climate Gate make believe controversy. But, I haven't seen it since and you appear a genuine sketpic to me, so I wouldn't describe you this way. I do believe you conflate the solution with the problem, as if they are symbiotically linked (exactly what they want you to believe, by the way) and that drives your genuine skepticism. But I just threw that in there since you thought I was talking about you in the first place.

[Zarathustra]

Paranoia, I understand that your "desperate denial" was a general statement, not directed at me. But, as with any general empirical claim, if you can't apply it to specific examples--or there are specific examples which contradict it--then it casts doubt on the general theory. I was giving you a chance to apply your theory to a real world example to see if it held up. Did you have anyone in mind at all when you made this claim? Or merely a hypothetical denier? If it wasn't based on evidence gathered from specific examples, then it was merely baseless speculation. My response wasn't taking offense, but a disproving a general theory with evidence from a specific example (me).

[Avatar]

But there's nothing suspect about calling skeptics, "desperate?"

Not in a generalisation like that. If it was you specifically who was desperate, then sure. All generalisations should be read as though you're an exception to it.

That's all true. But given the fact that an unsubstantiated phone call can find it's way into an IPCC report and be passed off as "the latest research," I'm sceptical of the the theory, the bureaucracy, the methodology of the GW machine. I mean, what kind of peer-review process can the IPCC possibly have that lets something like that slip through?

Oh, I totally agree with that...after reading Lore's article on the previous page, my thought was "damn right they should be reviewing it.

And stricter standards should be applied when we want to claim "peer review."

--A

[ParanoiA]

Paranoia, I understand that your "desperate denial" was a general statement, not directed at me. But, as with any general empirical claim, if you can't apply it to specific examples--or there are specific examples which contradict it--then it casts doubt on the general theory. I was giving you a chance to apply your theory to a real world example to see if it held up. Did you have anyone in mind at all when you made this claim? Or merely a hypothetical denier? If it wasn't based on evidence gathered from specific examples, then it was merely baseless speculation. My response wasn't taking offense, but a disproving a general theory with evidence from a specific example (me).

Oh ok. Well, the first thing that jumps out, and my favorite by the way, is the "local weather proof". I love this one. It's snowing in November and super duper cold - global warming must be bullshit. Right. This is why I used the flat earth analogy that when I look out my window the ground is flat - so therefore round earth theory must be bullshit. Global warming doesn't suggest we won't have seasons and stuff...for crying out loud.

Another one is the "cycles" excuse. This one is cute too, and it presupposes that scientists and laymen are so stupid that sun cycles never dawned on them - any of them. They usually start out in "lecture" style, explaining how the earth goes through temperature cycles - but they never explain why it is they think this "cycle theory" was never explained in climate class. They seem quite impressed with "cycles" and are so taken by it that it explains everything to them. Scientists just don't understand these cycles. That's all.

There are other examples but those are the two heavy hitters. Of course, there's the magic article routine as well. Some article written years ago says it's all bullshit, but no one even thinks about the rebuttal to that article. Has anyone looked? The guy posting this article sure hasn't looked. No one has any idea if the whole thing has been refuted or not because they dug it up on the internet somewhere - or worse, it's never been peer reviewed in order to get refuted scientifically.

That kind of stuff. Sorry, I don't write this down when it happens, but I don't think it would be too hard to cruise the threads here and find some. If you insist, I will do it. I'm not thinking this is news to you though. I'm betting you run into this yourself.

[Zarathustra]

Oh ok. Well, the first thing that jumps out, and my favorite by the way, is the "local weather proof". I love this one. It's snowing in November and super duper cold - global warming must be bullshit. Right. This is why I used the flat earth analogy that when I look out my window the ground is flat - so therefore round earth theory must be bullshit. Global warming doesn't suggest we won't have seasons and stuff...for crying out loud.

But at the same time, the GW crowd uses isolated phenomena to argue for a global trend. How many times have we heard "hottest year on record" lately? Even in IPCC and NOAA reports? Why can that used as evidence for global warming, but recent cooling trends cannot be used to refute them?

Yes, I realize that there are seasons. But this applies equally to the observation that ice melt at the poles during the summer--and yet that's touted as a catastrophe. When we're bombarded by commercials showing two polar bears struggling on an ice floe--and this is supposed to be "proof" that polar bears in general are going extinct (even though their numbers are increasing)--is it any wonder that the other side responds with localized, specific evidence to counter those claims? If the GW side wasn't using anecdotal evidence, we wouldn't have to counter it with contrary anecdotal evidence.

Another one is the "cycles" excuse. This one is cute too, and it presupposes that scientists and laymen are so stupid that sun cycles never dawned on them - any of them. They usually start out in "lecture" style, explaining how the earth goes through temperature cycles - but they never explain why it is they think this "cycle theory" was never explained in climate class. They seem quite impressed with "cycles" and are so taken by it that it explains everything to them. Scientists just don't understand these cycles. That's all.

Again, this is a distortion of the sceptics' criticism. If Syl will let me get away with it, I'll call it a strawman. No one ever said that these guys are too stupid to notice it.

Here's an entire article which addresses just this point:

January 14, 2010
Climategate: How to Hide the Sun
By Dexter Wright
The Climategate crowd successfully worked to obscure the connection between solar activity and climate. The leaked CRU e-mails reveal how.


In 2003, two Harvard-Smithsonian Professors, Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas, published a peer-reviewed paper in the scientific journal Climate Research which identified solar activity as a major influence on Earth's climate. This paper also concluded that the twentieth century was not the warmest, nor was it the century with the most extreme weather over the past thousand years. These two scientists reviewed more than two hundred sources of data. The paper specifically examined climate variations observed to coincide with solar variations. One of the more notable correlations cited in this paper is the well-documented coincidence of the Little Ice Age and a solar quiet period from A.D. 1300 to A.D. 1900. Soon and Baliunas asserted that the lack of solar activity resulted in cooler temperatures across the globe. The evidence they compiled also indicated that as the sun became more active global temperatures began to rise and the Little Ice Age ended.

In the past, the issue of the solar connection has always fallen down on one question; what is it about sunspots that cause a change in the climate? Soon and Baliunas identified the physical connection as solar wind, which varies on an eleven-year cycle similar to sunspots'. The solar wind is made up of high-energy particulate radiation and when strong enough, it has a visible effect upon the atmosphere in the form of auroral displays in the polar regions (e.g., the Northern Lights). Some instances of solar wind were so powerful that the aurora was seen even in lower latitude, as happened during the Battle of Fredericksburg, Virginia during the War Between the States (Civil War). Both armies were so distracted by the intensity of the display that the battle actually paused as the soldiers, North and South, watched in awe.


With such convincing evidence, the Soon and Baliunas paper became the target of a great deal of criticism from the gang led by the now-discredited Dr. Jones of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at East Anglia University in Britain. The recently uncovered e-mails from him and his collaborators show an orchestrated effort to discredit the work of these two scholars.


What is also notable is that Soon's and Baliunas's references were the very same data that the Jones Gang had reviewed and suppressed. The data in question is known as proxy data. Proxy data is data compiled from tree rings, sediments, and ice cores, as well as other indirectly measured estimates of temperature. Correlating an accurate timeline for these data sets across the globe is supremely difficult, but these proxy data sources were beginning to indicate a cycle or signal which might expedite the process. This signal was thought by some in the Jones Gang to be a solar cycle.


The discussion of solar influences is brought up in an e-mail from Dr. Daly, dated 9 August 1996. Dr. Daly uncovered an eleven-year signal in the temperature data set from the island of Tasmania. He found this signal by using a mathematical signal analysis formula known as a Fourier Transform. It is clear from the tone of his e-mail that he knows this is not welcome news, but he goes on to state the following concerning the temperature data set compiled by the Jones Gang:


(I tried the same run [Fourier Transform] on the CRU global temperature set. Even though CRU must be highly smoothed by the time all the averages are worked out, the 11-year pulse is still there, albeit about half the size of Sydneys).


The eleven-year cycle corresponds exactly with the one observed on the sun. This fact was kept secret by the Jones Gang.


Correlating the timeline of these proxy data was identified as problematic by Dr. Wigley, another member of the Jones Gang, in an e-mail dated 12 Aug 1996. In his effort to correlate the data, Dr. Wigley concludes that the solar signal is strong enough to convince him that solar forcing is a major factor in climate change:


(4) Causes. Here, ice cores are more valuable (CO2, CH4 and volcanic aerosol changes). But the main external candidate is solar, and more work is required to improve the "paleo" solar forcing record and to understand how the climate system responds both globally and regionally to solar forcing.


What is significant about this paragraph is that it identifies the main cause of climate change as "solar forcing," not carbon dioxide (CO2). This fact was also kept secret.


Remarkably, this was exactly what Soon and Baliunas published in their Climate Research paper. The solar correlation became a lightning rod. More than a dozen e-mails from the Jones Gang discuss how to discredit Soon and Baliunas. Ultimately, the gang decide to compile a new paper to counter the conclusion made by Soon and Baliunas, as detailed in an e-mail from Dr. Scott Rutherford dated the 12 March 2003. Dr. Rutherford does not go head-to-head with the data presented in the Climate Research paper, but he seemingly wishes to "cook" other data to counter the honest work of Soon and Baliunas, as stated by the following:


First, I'd be willing to handle the data and the plotting/mapping. Second, regarding Mike's suggestions, if we use different reference periods for the reconstructions and the models we need to be extremely careful about the differences. Not having seen what this will look like, I suggest that we start with the same instrumental reference period for both (1xxx xxxx xxxx). If you are willing to send me your series please send the raw (i.e. unfiltered) series. That way I can treat them all the same. We can then decide how we want to display the results.


Dr. Rutherford goes on to suggest that Soon and Baliunas should be dealt with severely:


... there is nothing we can do about them aside from continuing to publish quality work in quality journals (or calling in a Mafia hit).

It seems clear that the Jones Gang felt threatened by the Climate Research paper. By all appearances, they saw the threat as significant enough to consider the scientific equivalent of evidence-tampering in order to hide the sun. Is this the kind of reaction we would expect from scientists interested in the truth? Or is it what we would expect from the infamous Mafioso John Gotti?

Perhaps William Shakespeare said it best in his famous play of conspiracy and intrigue, Hamlet: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

link

So, as this article shows, there is no need to speculate that these men are too stupid to notice the sun. Maybe they're smart enough to hide it.

And as long as we're considering desperation as a motivation . . . what does it say about these scientists' psychology that they are joking about a Mafia hit on their critics? Sounds desperate to me, even in jest.

[ParanoiA]

But at the same time, the GW crowd uses isolated phenomena to argue for a global trend. How many times have we heard "hottest year on record" lately? Even in IPCC and NOAA reports? Why can that used as evidence for global warming, but recent cooling trends cannot be used to refute them?

Yes, I realize that there are seasons. But this applies equally to the observation that ice melt at the poles during the summer--and yet that's touted as a catastrophe. When we're bombarded by commercials showing two polar bears struggling on an ice floe--and this is supposed to be "proof" that polar bears in general are going extinct (even though their numbers are increasing)--is it any wonder that the other side responds with localized, specific evidence to counter those claims? If the GW side wasn't using anecdotal evidence, we wouldn't have to counter it with contrary anecdotal evidence.

So because they did it, you get to do it? Really? This is why it's aggravating to participate in these threads when you don't participate in the spin machines. I just can't relate to this logic.

Indulge yourself if you want, but I have no interest in joining a team and losing my sensibilities to competitive investment. I have no interest in political party games and the groupthink nonsense that clogs up these discussions.

When anecdotal evidence of the "polor bear" theory proves silly, I fail to see the sense in pimping a "winter season" theory in response. That's just me. But I also don't think that's why they're doing it. They're doing it, because they really believe it proves something. Rush Limbaugh is convinced beyond doubt.

And remember, I only elaborated on the flimsy denials that skeptics come up with because you asked specifically for it. I see it on both sides. I just see it more on the skeptic side, naturally since the advocates have the majority nod at the moment.

Again, this is a distortion of the sceptics' criticism. If Syl will let me get away with it, I'll call it a strawman. No one ever said that these guys are too stupid to notice it.

It's not a distortion, it's an interpretation. The article you provided is not an example of what I'm talking about. And the people who do this, probably have never read that article since they sound nothing like what I just read.

Zarathustra, you're not the typical skeptic. I don't believe you represent the majority of skeptics. You think and reason and engage your intellect with a sense of honor and sincerity. Most skeptics (admittedly I'm basing this on my own anecdotal experience, although I think the sample size is adequate) sound like morons. They just say the word "cycles" and "models" and throw some words in between and that's their argument. Seriously, I know you've heard this on Limbaugh and other talk radio shows. I'm adding in personal acquaintances, TV pundits, online blogs and forums. You're a rare catch Z.

[Avatar]

Just in case y'all haven't noticed, (and this is my last attempt at getting people involved), the annual Kevins Watch Awards are underway.

Read this thread and go make some nominations, then cast your votes. As I mentioned in that thread, some of you have already been nominated by others. Go contribute.

(Ok, carry on. )

--A

[Loredoctor]

Ramesh said he had been accused of "voodoo science" in questioning the IPCC findings about the Himalayas in the past.

This accusation is becoming quite common in science. Also known as pseudo-science. Not just GW, but other areas of science as well. Its a very valuable weapon.

Which is an exaggeration. Science is not plagued with accusations of being "voodoo science." Unlike religion, which is plagued with accusations of being false rather frequently.

[Zarathustra]

NOAA has been manipulating worldwide temperature data in order to fraudulently advance the global warming political agenda.

[Avatar]

If that's true, it's a bad thing. Don't these people realise they're tarnishing the very idea of science? And that what they're doing will not only set back their cause, but potentially derail it?

--A

[Zarathustra]

If that's true, it's a bad thing. Don't these people realise they're tarnishing the very idea of science? And that what they're doing will not only set back their cause, but potentially derail it?

--A

I don't think there's any question about whether it's true. I'm not aware of NOAA disputing it. In fact, I believe they were resisting the release of this data for several years, but it was finally given in a FOI request.

Did you take a look at the article? NOAA cut its measurement stations from 6000 to 1500, and they disproportionately cut the cooler stations that were at higher latitudes, higher altitudes, and in rural areas (despite the known urban heat island effect which causes city temperatures to be higher). This artificially resulted in higher average temperature measurements when compared to the baseline that was created by the data which included those cooler stations. This alone accounts for half of the warming which NOAA claimed happened last century. But it gets even worse with the data manipulation.

For instance, they developed a temperature graph to express the data, in a grid of 8000 squares. How do you fill in a grid of 8000 with only 1500 measurement stations? You average them together. This means that the one and only temperature station for Hawaii (which is located at the relatively warmer airport) stands in for a 1200 km radius. It's merely assumed that the temperature out in the ocean 1200 km closer to the pole is the same temperature as that airport. That's just one example among thousands of averaging mistakes.

[Avatar]

I skimmed it. If there's no refutation, it's a good indication. And yeah, that example seems to go beyond a simple averaging mistake...should be clear there's not enough data.

--A

[ParanoiA]

I don't think there's any question about whether it's true. I'm not aware of NOAA disputing it. In fact, I believe they were resisting the release of this data for several years, but it was finally given in a FOI request.

Did you take a look at the article? NOAA cut its measurement stations from 6000 to 1500, and they disproportionately cut the cooler stations that were at higher latitudes, higher altitudes, and in rural areas (despite the known urban heat island effect which causes city temperatures to be higher). This artificially resulted in higher average temperature measurements when compared to the baseline that was created by the data which included those cooler stations. This alone accounts for half of the warming which NOAA claimed happened last century. But it gets even worse with the data manipulation.

For instance, they developed a temperature graph to express the data, in a grid of 8000 squares. How do you fill in a grid of 8000 with only 1500 measurement stations? You average them together. This means that the one and only temperature station for Hawaii (which is located at the relatively warmer airport) stands in for a 1200 km radius. It's merely assumed that the temperature out in the ocean 1200 km closer to the pole is the same temperature as that airport. That's just one example among thousands of averaging mistakes.

I find this very disturbing. I also have to admit ignoring a fellow here at work that mentioned this very issue about a year ago. In my defense, he could not quantify it.

I'll be watching how this plays out. I may have to eat a piece of humble pie and admit to him I was wrong. Or I could just quit....hmm, decisions, decsions.

[Avatar]

--A

[Rawedge Rim]

So are we still enjoying our "global warming" this year. Heck it only accounts for 2+ feet of snow in DC (and I'm not sure that's a bad thing, might muck up some of the legislation trying to hurry through)