Suzuki 1 Harper 0
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 18 Next
N_Fiddledog @ Thu Feb 28, 2008 8:48 pm
Reverend Blair Reverend Blair:
Well then, you are mistranslating. Those are mainstream media sources, not some vague, hard to find site.
I'm not sure why'd you'd even be concerned about it. It doesn't change the fact of global warming. Anyway, since they don't seem to have Google where you live, here's some links that make reference to it.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... luntz.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... matechange
http://www.cleantechblog.com/2007/01/yo ... lobal.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... luntz.html
That makes six sources cited altogether. Is that sufficient, or would you like me to do more of your homework for you?
I'm not sure why'd you'd even be concerned about it. It doesn't change the fact of global warming. Anyway, since they don't seem to have Google where you live, here's some links that make reference to it.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... luntz.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... matechange
http://www.cleantechblog.com/2007/01/yo ... lobal.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... luntz.html
That makes six sources cited altogether. Is that sufficient, or would you like me to do more of your homework for you?
So that's it? A 2003 memo from Frank Luntz advising Bush to use the term climate change. And upon this you base your conviction the right wing invented the term.
OK, I'm just going to be kind and post you a quote from a speech by Clinton in 2000.
$1:
We will reverse the course of climate change and leave a safer, cleaner planet.
Look don't bother me with this silliness for a while OK? I'm trying to put together a post for you, explaining how we know the Medieval Warm Period, and the Little Ice existed contrary to what Mann's hockey stick tells us.
N_Fiddledog @ Thu Feb 28, 2008 9:04 pm
OK, this is going to take a few posts. There's a lot of misinformation to sift through. Let's start here...
Reverend Blair Reverend Blair:
$1:
]It's not nonsense at all. The hockey stick is backed up by data from several other disciplines. McIntyre and McItrick did originally publish in a mining magazine.
I guess that's kind of true in the way that Nature could be described as a bird magazine, because I'm sure there was most likely something about a bird in there at one time or another.
$1:
On February 12, 2005, Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick published a paper in Geophysical Research Letters that claimed various errors in the methodology of Mann et al. (1998). The paper claimed that the "Hockey Stick" shape was the result of an invalid principal component method.[15] They claimed that using the same steps as Mann et al., they were able to obtain a hockey stick shape as the first principal component in 99 percent of cases even if trendless red noise was used as input.[16] This paper was nominated as a journal highlight by the American Geophysical Union,[17] which publishes GRL, and attracted international attention for its claims to expose flaws in the reconstructions of past climate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_graph
Toro @ Thu Feb 28, 2008 9:05 pm
20 years ago, Davey-boy was going around saying that 2 species an hour were going extinct. If you do the math, that's 350,400 species have gone belly-up since, or as much as 10% of all living, breathing things on the planet.
But I digress.
Carry on.
Reverend Blair @ Thu Feb 28, 2008 9:09 pm
Look, you asked a question and I gave you the answer. Did the phrase climate change exist before Luntz? Likely, but he was the one who brought it into common usage. That's not just a memo from 2003, Fiddledog, it's a political strategy that defines the Republican/Conservative policy on climate science to this day.
I've seen many, many posts like the one you are about to put together on the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. Please provide links to the peer-reviewed science that somehow links those events to your denial of global warming. Not a single piece of work by Mann, mind you, but the entire global warming theory.
You'll need full data from both the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm period from all over the planet to show those were global events first. I think requiring three sources showing that would be sufficient. You'll also have to rule out natural events that could have caused them, such as volcanic activity. Again, three sources should be sufficient. After that you will have to come up with solid data showing the same thing is happening now as happened then. Again, three sources...peer reviewed, of course.
You've made the claim that the medieval warm period and the Little Ice Age prove that global warming theory is false, now let's see you prove it.
Reverend Blair @ Thu Feb 28, 2008 9:19 pm
$1:
20 years ago, Davey-boy was going around saying that 2 species an hour were going extinct. If you do the math, that's 350,400 species have gone belly-up since, or as much as 10% of all living, breathing things on the planet.
But I digress.
Carry on.
But I digress.
Carry on.
You also misrepresent. Not all of those species are/were the large macro fauna, and Suzuki was clear about that. His work also helped to change the way we do things, slowing down the extinction rate for a time. His claims are backed up by scientific fact...not like the vague and failed economic theories that some cling too.
N_Fiddledog @ Thu Feb 28, 2008 9:21 pm
Reverend Blair Reverend Blair:
Mann did reveal his methods, by the way. He was late doing so because of a conflict with his co-authors, but claims that he was purposely hiding his methodology are unsupported conspiracy theories.
Sorry, but once again, you're wrong.
$1:
One point of contention relates to McIntyre's requests for Mann to provide him with the data, methods and source code McIntyre needed to "audit" MBH98.[19] Mann provided some data and then stopped. After a long process - in which the National Science Foundation supported Mann - the code was made publicly available [20]. It happened because Congress investigated after an article in the Wall Street Journal [21] detailed criticisms raised by McIntyre.[22] Congress was especially concerned about Mann’s reported refusal to provide data. In June 2005, Congress asked Mann to testify before a special subcommittee. The chairman of the committee (Joe Barton, a prominent global warming skeptic) wrote a letter to Mann requesting he provide his data, including his source code, archives of all data for all of Mann's scientific publications, identities of his present and past scientific collaborators, and details of all funding for any of Mann's ongoing or prior research, including all of the supporting forms and agreements. [23] The American Association for the Advancement of Science viewed this as "a search for some basis on which to discredit these particular scientists and findings, rather than a search for understanding."[24] When Mann complied, all of the data was available for McIntyre.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_graph
Toro @ Thu Feb 28, 2008 9:24 pm
Reverend Blair Reverend Blair:
$1:
20 years ago, Davey-boy was going around saying that 2 species an hour were going extinct. If you do the math, that's 350,400 species have gone belly-up since, or as much as 10% of all living, breathing things on the planet.
But I digress.
Carry on.
But I digress.
Carry on.
You also misrepresent. Not all of those species are/were the large macro fauna, and Suzuki was clear about that. His work also helped to change the way we do things, slowing down the extinction rate for a time. His claims are backed up by scientific fact...not like the vague and failed economic theories that some cling too.
lol
That's right. Environmentalists have never been prone to shrill hysteria! I hope he doesn't think I should go to prison now!
Thanks to Dave, the number of species that died wasn't 350,000, it was 50.
Whew! Close call.
Reverend Blair @ Thu Feb 28, 2008 9:28 pm
Have you got proof that only 50 species have gone extinct in the last twenty years, Toro? Again, 3 peer reviewed sources will be fine.
Toro @ Thu Feb 28, 2008 9:33 pm
Reverend Blair Reverend Blair:
Have you got proof that only 50 species have gone extinct in the last twenty years, Toro? Again, 3 peer reviewed sources will be fine.
Hmm, I guess I better not attempt using obvious sarcasm around you Blair.
What I know is
Number of species extinct in 20 years < 350,400.
And "<" means "less than." That's math, Blair.
Edit - By serendipity, I stumbled across this site
http://www.dbc.uci.edu/~sustain/bio65/l ... 5lec01.htm
The estimated number of recorded extinctions from 1600 to 1983 was 724. We must have really accelerated mass extinctions over the past 25 years, eh?
Reverend Blair @ Thu Feb 28, 2008 10:03 pm
$1:
Sorry, but once again, you're wrong.
Not at all. I was referring to what happened with the NAS, not with some science-hating congressional committee run by a Republican lunatic.
Here's some links:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/06 ... ck_rel.php
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/02 ... eja_vu.php
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... n#more-506
Reverend Blair @ Thu Feb 28, 2008 10:16 pm
I'm familiar with math, Toro. It's not like I went to school in Prince Albert, after all.
You missed my point though. The data that Suzuki was using when he said we were losing two species is valid. It includes all species and is based on the loss of biodiversity from the microscopic level on up. There's plenty of science to back that up. Go have look.
You've chosen to misrepresent that.
N_Fiddledog @ Thu Feb 28, 2008 10:21 pm
Reverend Blair Reverend Blair:
$1:
It's not that simple, and a lot of that is nonsense.
It's not nonsense at all. The hockey stick is backed up by data from several other disciplines. McIntyre and McItrick did originally publish in a mining magazine. When their work was peer reviewed by statisticians, several glaring errors were found.
The NAS did uphold the hockey stick graph. They said that the accuracy of the data was overstated as it went back in time, but that it was supported from reams of other data that bore out its basic findings.
Mann did reveal his methods, by the way. He was late doing so because of a conflict with his co-authors, but claims that he was purposely hiding his methodology are unsupported conspiracy theories. There is no reason for him to reveal his source code...the raw data should give similar results no matter what the source code is. Run it through several different systems, and the findings should be the same.
Nobody ever suggested that his was the only model or that only his model be used either. The IPCC picked his because it represented the largest amount of supporting data, exclusive of Mann's work.
This has all been covered at various scientific sites. Likely the best coverage, complete with critiques of both Mann's work and what McIntyre and McIttrick have been up to is at the Delta Blog. Real Climate also has a lot of information.
That the denial industry chooses to go after some scientists while ignoring the greater body of scientific work makes their motives suspect from the start. Cherry picking data is dishonest at best,
Talk about a surplus of rhetoric and a lack of real information though, it's hilarious how you guys keep going back to the hockey stick and Mann but don't look at the more recent data. Again, I'll refer you to Real Climate and the Delta Blog, I guess I'll toss in Woods Hole too. There are the many, many articles published in journals like Nature. Climatologists, biologists...working scientists from every discipline with even a slight connection to global warming have produced paper after paper that supports the theory and shows that we are already seeing massive changes.
Meanwhile the denial industry does no original research, publishes no papers based on original research, and cherry picks data...often presenting it out of context or just plain old misrepresenting it...and claim that all those people doing real science are somehow wrong.
Look, I could go through that piece by piece, and show you how every statement is hyperbole, misleading rhetoric, or outright false, but let's cut to the chase.
What does the Hockey stick graph actually say. Let's have a look at it.
So according to that graph most of global temperatures for the last 1000 years were pretty unremarkable, then we reach the 20th century and zowie wham temperatures soar upwards.
So scientists view this, and some of them have a problem. What happened to the Medieval warm period they say. What happened to the Little Ice Age?
Actually Mcintyre and McKittrick weren't the first to have a problem.
$1:
The first sign that something amiss with the “hockey stick” was published in 2003 by Harvard scientists Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas. Soon and Baliunas performed a survey of the existing scientific literature concerning the climate of the past 1,000 years and compiled evidence for and against the existence of the MWP and the LIA. They found that overwhelmingly, within the scores of scientific articles that they reviewed, there was strong evidence to support the existence of these well-known climatic episodes that were largely absent from the “hockey stick” reconstruction. Apparently, the handle of the “hockey stick”—that part of it which represents natural variation—is too flat.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index ... -2005-rip/
Then Jan Esper turned up. Esper had a problem with the proxies Mann was using to get his temperature data. He was using tree rings. Turn out there's a problem with tree rings.
$1:
It turns out that one must be careful when using tree rings to reconstruct long-term climate variability because as the tree itself ages, the widths of the annual rings that it produces changes—even absent any climatic variations. This growth trend needs to be taken into account when trying to interpret any climate data contained in the tree-ring records. In most cases, the tree-ring records are first detrended to remove this growth trend, and then the remaining variation in the rings is used to derive a climate signal. The problem with this technique is that by detrending the tree-ring record, long-term climate trends are lost as well. Esper et al. point out that this could be one likely reason why the handle of the “hockey stick” is so flat—it lacks the centennial-scale variations that were lost in the standardization of its primary data source. Using an alternative technique that attempted to preserve as much of the information about long-term climate variations as possible from historical tree-ring records, Esper and colleagues derived their own annual Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstruction. The result (Figure 2) is a 1,000-yr temperature history in which the LIA and the MWP are much more pronounced than the “hockey stick” reconstruction—more evidence that the “hockey stick” underestimates the true level of natural climate variation.
Next came Von Storch who we've metioned earlier. I have to be honest I don't fully understand exactly what it was Von Storch did to examine Mann's methodology, but according to THIS GUY...
$1:
What von Storch’s research team found was that the techniques used to construct the “hockey stick” vastly underestimated the true level of variability in the known (modeled) temperature record (Figure 3). It is thus reasonable to conclude that the same techniques, when applied in the real world, would similarly underestimate the true level of natural variability and thus underplay the importance of the LIA and MWP. Again, the von Storch finding adds further evidence that the handle of the “hockey stick” is too flat.
The critique of the hockey stick graph did not stop there. Are you beginning to get the picture it was not just McIntyre and McKittrick who had a problem here. Next up was Anders Moberg.
$1:
And now, with the publication of a paper in Nature magazine in early 2005 by Anders Moberg and colleagues, it’s all over for the hockey stick. Recognizing that different kinds of proxy temperature records may be more appropriately related to climatic variations at different time scales, Moberg applied a statistical technique called ‘wavelet analysis’ that allows each proxy to explain temperature variations on a timescale that it was most sensitive to.
Here's what he came up with. Turns out there actually was climate happening before the 20th century.
But wait, it doesn't stop there. There's been recent studies. Turns out, yes Virginia there was a Medieval Warm Period.
$1:
Several articles have appeared in Energy and Environment recently with results of considerable interest to us at World Climate Report. The first piece is by Dr. Craig Loehle who received his Ph.D. in mathematical ecology in 1982 from Colorado State University. Loehle gathered as many non-tree ring reconstructions as possible for places throughout the world. There are dozens of very interesting ways to peer into the climatic past of a location, and Loehle included borehore temperature measurements, pollen remains, Mg/Ca ratios, oxygen isotope data from deep cores or from stalagmites, diatoms deposited on lake bottoms, reconstructed sea surface temperatures, and so on. Basically, he grabbed everything available, so long as it did not rely on trees (about which Loehle and World Climate Report show “are not simple thermometers”!)
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog ... re_record/
OK so does that information come from skeptic sites. Yes. Does it necessarily follow the information is wrong though. If it does, prove it. I believe these are all peer reviewed studies (with the possible exception of the first one). Either they say what these guys say, or they don't. If they don't, show me. I'd like to know. If they do though there really was a Medieval Warm Period, and a Little Ice Age which should have made themselves known on any graph, and the hockey stick graph is therefore crap.
Reverend Blair @ Thu Feb 28, 2008 11:17 pm
Soon and Baliunas have been discredited. Their work failed peer review and are widely considered to have manipulated data on purpose. Both took funding from the oil companies and lied about it. von Storch supports global warming theory, he just didn't like Mann's graph.
It doesn't matter where the data comes from. What does matter is that the studies fit the scientific method and pass peer review. Your data has failed that challenge.
The Medieval Warming Period is accepted, as is the Little Ice Age. What is not known is if they were truly global or not and what forcing factors, if any, were involved. What it comes down to though, is that they have no impact on modern global warming theory.
Global warming theory is, quite simply, that increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will lead to higher temperatures. There are other factors, especially ocean temperature (the oceans can absorb a huge amount of heat as well as a huge amount of CO2), but the science behind global warming is greenhouse theory.
That particular theory explains why the planet isn't a frozen rock hurtling through space, and is tightly entwined with evolutionary theory. No serious scientist has questioned it for decades.
You are still fixated on the hockey stick graph though. You have not produced anything to show that global warming isn't real, just some critiques of an eight year old paper. Mann's work is a really, really small part of the science that's out there.
We know the earth is warming and that it's happening quickly. We know that GHGs lead to increased temperatures (you can actually do that experiment yourself if you doubt it...look it up). We know about the greenhouse effect. We know that the predictions made by the climate models a decade ago are coming true...the biggest discrepancy is that it's happening faster than we thought it would. That's independent of Mann's work or the critiques of it, but even the graphs you posted show a more rapid warming now than during the MWP. You'll also notice that your graphs stop eight years ago. We have more data now, and it supports global warming theory.
You can keep attacking Mann's work if you want (by the way, he has published corrections, but they don't affect the conclusions. McKittrick has also published corrections, but his do change the conclusions, so who had the better conclusions to begin with?) but those attacks haven't been relative to the overall science for five years or so. Science is not static, it's dynamic and has moved on.
So present some evidence...real, scientific evidence... that global warming isn't real. Prove the greenhouse effect to be wrong.
sasquatch2 @ Thu Feb 28, 2008 11:52 pm
CM BURNS
$1:
THAT is a personal attack.
If you're so opposed to personal attacks then why did you attack me?
Care to retract it?
If you're so opposed to personal attacks then why did you attack me?
Care to retract it?
Although attacks on GM foods may be currently popular in europe at this point it is irresponsible scarmongering to suggest these are not safe and nutricious.
<b>*edited by Mod* - Personal attack</b>
Wayne Coady @ Thu Feb 28, 2008 11:55 pm
It looks to me if the new economy of Canada is going to be based on taxes , one might call it a false economy. What happens, to those citizens who just reach the point where they can no longer afford to live in a country whose only way to generate finance is through taxes?
A carbon tax may sound good, but when that tax put people out of work then what? Surely we can find a better way to protect the environment and generate a new manufacturing industry at the same time.
To tell you all the truth, I getting a little tired of having taxes extorted from me to be used to finance private business. If taxes are going to be collected to bankroll private business....then maybe the state should take over those business who cannot make it without buming off the tax payers.
Ottawa looks more like a bunch of American businessmen these day , who are dressed up as Canadian politicans, any way. ![[bash]](./images/smilies/bash.gif "Bash")
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 18 Next