Previous  1 ... 18  19  20  21  22  23  24  Next

In the words of our great pretender-to-be-leader Stephan Dion.

"That's not fair."

Actually this is what happens when the real science is presented to these frauds. Every time.

They can only use THEIR graphs.

BTW

In Goron's, The Inconvenient truth, those video clips of Antarctica and Greenland disintegrating.....notice the water doesn't foam like salt water should? Because it is actually an inland Glacier subject to a Jokulhlaups in Argentina. It is Lake Argentino breaking out.....a regular occurance.

   

Speaking of which...here's a YouTube member's vid on another little flaw with Al Gore's CO2 graph from An Inconvenient Truth. It's not the flaw you think it is. It's not the one mentioned earlier.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=pxuS67UOs0A

   

This is a graphical display of some set of data - nothing more. I didn't claim it was proof of global warming.

The claim was that the presentation of this data alone constituted a misrepresentation of data - nobody has even attempted (or demonstrated that they have attempted) to ascertain what the source of data is, how it was obtained, or why it was obtained. You (and others) are simply refuting its validity because it doesn't show you what you want to see.

Proof of misrepresentation might consist of showing that the makers of this graph intentionally omitted data in their possession, within the scope of their research. Nobody can claim misrepresentation without knowing the source of data, and that's been my issue with these claims.

Again, you're making assumptions as to the source and intent of this graph.

How does the lack of CO2 levels demonstrate that this graph is misrepresenting data? You're arguing that other graphs include CO2 levels, but that's not the case here. Doesn't your argument suggest that this chart is less likely to be misrepresenting data?

Cute.

   

I am as well - I'm a fan of the Gaia hypothesis (as a metaphor, not literally).

There can't be other effects on climate?

Until someone can explain this break in the trend, it's a valid criticism, but it's not conclusive proof against the effect of CO2 on climate change.

   

I should have said their is apparently a causal link, sicne the graph itself does not prove a causal link. I didn't actually say one caused the other, just that there (appears to be) a causal link. An examinatio of the graph, at least at this time scale, indicates that a rise in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere lagged the temperature rise. Since ice ages are primarily brought about by changes in insolent solar radiaiton, this is exactly what you'd expect (more solar radiation, rising temperarture, more CO2).

The question is: If you reversed the process and added more CO2 to the atmosphere (thus theoretically increasing the percentage of outward bound infrared radiation "reflected" back to earth) would you get a consequent increase in temperature. I.e., is it an interdependent relationship, and, if so, what is the nature of that relationship?).

   

There's another speculative explanation: there was some other phenomenon that caused warming between 1920-1960, and the apparent drop in temperatures opposing the increase in CO2 represents the return to the normal trend... as I've indicated below in red.

Of course, this demands accountability for the 20s-60s bump.... just an interesting possibility.

   

Chrichton's a hack, and Evans is less than well informed. There are competing influences going on in the time period shown, and there are more lines which should be plotted that aren't. Industry pre-70s included not only emissions of CO2, but also massive emissions of SO2 which in the atmosphere forms aerosols of sulphuric acid. These aerosols block incoming light and so have a cooling effect. In the 70s, emission controls began to effectively slow emissions of SO2, so the cooling effect was reduced. CO2 emissions, however, were never controlled, so they grew without restraint and warming took off.

   

Cue samsquanch, who likes to claim that sulphuric acid warms the atmosphere.

Good post - a lot better than my hypothesis.

   

hurley_108

Translation: anyone who does not trumpet the CO2 AGW dogma as fact is a hack or a fraud financed by BIG OIL.

Any CO2 AGW who gets made look foolish is not well informed....

The major embarrassment of the GW clique was "the hockey stick". The journal SCIENCE had the McIntyre/McItrick critique peer-revued. Selected scientists merely cited this as heresy due to (according to them) the science was firm and the debate was over. This "peer-revue" was peer-revued and denounced by that subsequent panel.

According to the Hurleys of this world---the test of valid science is whether or not it supported CO2 AGW.

   

Translation: You can't argue the facts of my post so you engage in your typical incoherent ranting.

And if Crichton wasn't a hack, he wouldn't resort to naming child molesting characters in his books after his real-life critics.

   

I didn't know he did that. Kind of cute, I think. Does he have one named Al Gore? BTW Evans is a fictional character from the book. No reason to get angry at him.

But back to the graphs. It may surprise you all to hear I agree with your general criticisms.

They choose selected data. They omit other relevant data. What they say varies depending on who's interpreting them. The interpretor avoids mentioning how anomalies can be attributed to varying theories, not just those he himself supports.

In other words insinuating something like a graph proves, or does not prove a factual "causal link" is BS.

In fact when you're talking C02/temperature graphs you even have cases such as the one in the Al Gore show of either fraud or unforgivable carelessness where the line doubles back on itself and shows three points for the same time period. Then there's the one where Gore arranges two graphs to show C02 forces temperature, but when you arrange the two graphs correctly they show the exact opposite. Temperature forces CO2.

The other side of the GW debate has also been guilty of misdirection through graphs. In his documentary The Great Global Warming swindle Martin Durkin adds a whole era of time to one graph, and represents it as the original.

My point is no matter which side is presenting them, graphs should be taken with a grain of salt. To me they're not much different in their purpose than an analogy. They give an accessible representation of a complexity. They're just a way of giving someone an immediate connection to the point that person is trying to make.

They do not automatically offer incontrovertible proof of any large general fact. As far as the global warming debate goes if they show anything, they show it's all largely theoretical.

   

Yeah that's why I'm instinctively suspicious of graphs.

N_Fiddle dog

I have noticed that in the comparison of the two "sides" that fraud seems more common on the GW side.

The responsible critics of AGW, take great care to avoid mistakes and misrepresentation. This is natural in that they avoid giving THEIR critics a bone, to give THEIR critics something valid.

This results in the phenomena of critics of McIntyre et al, generally limited to specious accusations of BIG OIL funding and what amounts to accusations of hearsay, based on false assumptions---such as CO2 driving climate.

"An Inconvenient Truth" has supplied an almost inexhaustible supply of ammunition to the debunkers-----the credibility of which increases with that blatant propaganda piece' endorsement by the IPCC, Academy Award and the Nobel Prize. The more it is endorsed as credible science the more credibile criticism of it becomes. The whole CO2 AGW/IPCC/KYOTO process is increasingly discredited.

The hockey pucks would have been wise to have distanced themselves from "the hockey stick" and "An Inconvenient Truth" early on rather than blunder by attempting to bestow credibility to them.

AGW is all politics and although it's proponents have had success with influencing public opinion they are really failures at politics.

   

-

   

Go back to my challenge and read it (emphasis added here):

You're introducing these correlations that don't exist in the presentation of the data I'm talking about. I'm well aware that false causation can be suggested by correlating two phenomenon, but you, nor samsquanch, has demonstrated how that applies here.

Look at the statements he made - he said it's evident from this graph that the data is misrepresented. We're not talking about any global warming data, or any graphs at all - he made the statement with regard to this graph alone with no basis whatsoever, and I challenged him to back that up.

This is merely one instance of people on this board making baseless claims that some, like yourself, have taken for granted. Being able to consider scientific statements impartially is important.

See, now you've got evidence that someone has tampered with a set of data - you can verify that data has been omitted in the cooling graph, and therefore any claims of a 'cooling' trend from that data can't be trusted.

If you had similar proof of the original data we're discussing, I'd completely agree. As it stands, you don't.

I made it absolutely clear that I didn't support the data itself since I didn't know its origins. I used the graph (the green dots are mine) to comment on an argument made by N_Fiddledog from a purely statistical viewpoint. I had no knowledge or interest of the origins of the graph, and I repeatedly stated that I didn't support any conclusions on global warming it may suggest.


IN FACT, my involvement started because N_Fiddledog altered that graph to omit data to indicate a trend not evident from the entire set of data - go back to page 14 or so if you want to see it.

I am entirely aware of the intents of data presentation, and it's been my arguement all along. I'm the one being skeptical of data presentation here, Aurora_Janus, and noone here has 'handed my ass to me' thus far.

Now that's laughable - you're self admittedly ignorant of the source of data, yet "sure it's crap". That's nothing more than baseless speculation, and you're challenging my bias?

Confuse me by introducing yet again an irrelevant point? No, I wouldn't want you to do that, either. I understand inherent issues in publishing research, especially on the subject of climate change, but this was never a general discussion on those issues. Specific claims were made, and I asked for specific justification, and thus far I've received none.

   

OK BN---stop chasing your tail---you are getting dizzy. You are off topic. Let us return to the topic of this thread:

Warming may bring mass extinctions: study.....

Even a very shallow examination shows no trend or anomaly outside the natural variability to support this political agenda.

First of all is the long term glaciation/interglacial cycle, on which is superimposed the Dansgaard-Oeschger 1500 year cycle, then there these decadal and duodecadal oceanic cycles----such as the El Nino/la Nina things.

It follows that in the absence of any observable warming----this study is "junk science" and belongs with Mann's "hockey stick" and gorons "An Inconvenient Truth."

   

Previous  1 ... 18  19  20  21  22  23  24  Next