The Ministry of Truth

[chuck34]

If anyone has read Orwell's classic "1984", you will know very well what the Ministry of Truth is. Basically it is the department within the government that is responsible for re-writing the past so that it fits with whatever the "truth" of today is. Well that concept seems to be alive and well in today's world.

One thing that I follow a bit is the debate on "Global Warming"/"Climate Change"/whatever they want to call it now. These two stories from the past week or so really take the cake for me. Minstry of Truth, indeed.


This article talks about "adjustments" made to the temperature record. If they keep going this way the '30s will have been an ice age. The past was just too warm for us to claim that the slight warming we may have had in the 90's was "unprecidented" and "a disaster". So we'll just make some adjustments to past temperatures so that they fit with our Truth. CRU (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/19/crus-new-hadcrut4-hiding-the-decline-yet-again-2/)


This article has in it a discussion about the USS Skate, and it's surfacing at the North Pole on March 17, 1959. This has been the accepted date since the event happened. But now apparently someone has noticed that having an ice free arctic in 1959 doesn't fit the narrative. So we'll just adjust the date to August of 1958.
Sea Ice News Volume 3, #2 | Watts Up With That? (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/18/sea-ice-news-volume-3-2/)

[schmenke]

I blame the Second Amendment.

[edv]

http://i.imgur.com/GDOoR.jpg

[race aficionado]

I remember reading 1984 in my last years of high school (1974) and it all looked so ominous.

Then 1984 came and nothing like the book was happening - Okay, I did get married and it was a disaster but that was not the book's topic . . . . - just for the record, I did marry successfully for the second time years later and I made up for the first fiasco - but back to the topic, the book has indeed been looking more ominous and real as years have gone by.

:s mokin:

[donKey jote]

the debate on "Global Warming"/"Climate Change"/whatever they want to call it now.
this debate... do you mean the one generated (mostly) by paranoid US conspiracy theorists, or the scientific debate between those who actually work in the field ? :dozey:

Global Warming (http://chick.com/reading/tracts/1075/1075_01.asp)

[schmenke]

Don't go there Donks :p :


P.s. did you know that the moon landings were faked! :eek:

[chuck34]

this debate... do you mean the one generated (mostly) by paranoid US conspiracy theorists, or the scientific debate between those who actually work in the field ? :dozey:

Global Warming (http://chick.com/reading/tracts/1075/1075_01.asp)

You mean the scientists who have just, once again, adjusted past temperatures DOWN in order for their warming theory to hold water. If the science was such a slam dunk, why are all their predictions way off?
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/scafetta_model_updated-fig-02_03_2012.png

[donKey jote]

Don't go there Donks :p :
I know, you're right... specially since I have no intention of flogging this dead donkey any further :p

[donKey jote]

You mean the scientists who have just, once again, adjusted past temperatures DOWN in order for their warming theory to hold water. If the science was such a slam dunk, why are all their predictions way off?
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/scafetta_model_updated-fig-02_03_2012.png
yep, that's exactly the reason they did it. Case over. :p

[BDunnell]

You mean the scientists who have just, once again, adjusted past temperatures DOWN in order for their warming theory to hold water. If the science was such a slam dunk, why are all their predictions way off?
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/scafetta_model_updated-fig-02_03_2012.png

Forgive me, but how on earth can you claim to know any better?

[chuck34]

Forgive me, but how on earth can you claim to know any better?

Forgive me, but I don't base my entire life around blind appeals to authority.

I don't have the degrees that many of these guys have, on that point you are right. So I suppose that disqualifies me from any personal observation, common sense, deductive reasoning, and plain logic. And I am not the only one that thinks Global Warming is a bunch of crap (specifically the over-emphasis of any human related factors), much of the stuff I read on the subject comes from climate scientists. There is not a monolithic block of scientists that all believe in this theory, there are many who disagree with many parts of the theory from the influence of man, to the severity, to there actually being any warming.

Besides I'm not just "making this stuff up". If you want to discuss specifically the temperature adjustments, then this isn't some grand conspiracy, it's public knowledge, release by the CRU in a press release. And this isn't the first time they've done this. Why do you suppose they keep adjusting temperatures? And why do you think they only adjust those temperatures in one direction? Did people in the 30's not know how to read a thermometer?

[donKey jote]

Forgive me, but I don't base my entire life around blind appeals to authority.
Me neither, not even to Him up There.


there are many who disagree
How handy. How many?


If you want to discuss specifically the temperature adjustments, then this isn't some grand conspiracy, it's public knowledge, release by the CRU in a press release.
I don't suppose they stated any possible reasons for the adjustment. Why do you want to stick with the old data, because it fits your ministry of truth better?


Why do you suppose they keep adjusting temperatures?
Keeping up to date with new data measurement or analysis techniques maybe?
Nah... maybe they simply enjoy feeding the denialists/sceptics/whatever they want to call them now.


Did people in the 30's not know how to read a thermometer?
Sure they did, but a lot of them are sadly not with us anymore. I reckon they've been deliberately silenced.

[donKey jote]

RealClimate: Updating the CRU and HadCRUT temperature data (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/03/updating-the-cru-and-hadcrut-temperature-data/)

Joking aside, there are some important points to be made here. First and foremost is the realisation that data synthesis is a continuous process. Single measurements are generally a one-time deal. Something is measured, and the measurement is recorded. However, comparing multiple measurements requires more work – were the measuring devices calibrated to the same standard? Were there biases in the devices? Did the result get recorded correctly? Over what time and space scales were the measurements representative? These questions are continually being revisited – as new data come in, as old data is digitized, as new issues are explored, and as old issues are reconsidered.http://www.realclimate.org/images/hadcrut_diff.jpg
Since many missing data points in CRUTEM3 were in the high latitudes, which have been warming substantially faster than the global mean, this was a source of a low bias in CRUTEM3 (and HadCRUT3), when these data products were used to estimate global mean temperature trends.

[chuck34]

How handy. How many?

That's a fun game. Don't want to play though.

Do you deny there are climate scientists out there that do not agree with the IPCC reports?


I don't suppose they stated any possible reasons for the adjustment. Why do you want to stick with the old data, because it fits your ministry of truth better?

They stated reasons, you even posted some below. But this is data. Data does not change. If you are going to correct for biases in reportings then the main one in climate science would be the urban heat island effect, and that would make the adjustments the complete opposite of what has been going on. I have seen no data that suggests a need to cool the past, just armwaving about biases and calibrations. Show me the exact data the suggests the need for cooling past historic temperatures.


Keeping up to date with new data measurement or analysis techniques maybe?
Nah... maybe they simply enjoy feeding the denialists/sceptics/whatever they want to call them now.

Again, show the data. What new data measurement technique is there for measuring temperature? And why would that require adjusting past temperatures? It would make much more sense to adjust the new data to fit the historic.

[chuck34]

RealClimate: Updating the CRU and HadCRUT temperature data (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/03/updating-the-cru-and-hadcrut-temperature-data/)
http://www.realclimate.org/images/hadcrut_diff.jpg

So now you are claiming that somehow they've discovered that the thermometers from the past were all calibrated incorectly, and all in the same direction? That the measurement biases were all in the same direction? That somehow no one knew how to record a temperature reading, but now we know what they should have recorded? And (I just love this one) that time and space were different historically?

Show the data.

Oh yeah it says right there under your graph "many missing data points were in the high latitudes". But they've found them now right? Must have because that's the only way they could possibly claim that they have been "warming substantially faster than the global mean".

[donKey jote]

chuck, I really couldn't be bothered with you claiming I'm claiming something you might think I'm claiming when I'm not claiming anything, but simpling offering a link which may contain some answers to your somewhat repetitive questions.
Somehow I don't think you really want to hear any answers. You claim to have an open mind. If so, try using it also on sources such as those here (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/). There are surely many others by the way, that was the result of a quick google.
Otherwise by all means feel free to preach to the converted at your Ministry of Bollox.

[schmenke]

Ah and so goes another thread...
inceptum finis...

;)

Cost-effective Christian Louboutin Shoes is you best option, is relevant recruiting on the top, Ben Janes Venture, if you refuse to about that highlight, a child violet underside accept to as being abashing that face men, Louboutin Allow for! Along with value for this a new government, Christian louboutin shoes Womena?? your password strength Troubles, in terms of acceptable some with others which timetabled consultation from the web shop females, a certain amount of tools christian louboutin peep toes (http://www.louboutinsaleladies.com/christian-louboutin-peep-toes-c-2.html) are men, and it also man goal and it is to get an undesirable groups of Louboutin Sandals as being a present for the girl partner often known as web. Precisely why louboutin shoes? could easily get now could be the imprinted, eye enough additionally understanding assemble each of them. Necessities such as designs which can be always on the red carpet worldwide time and again. Reproductions of trainers have been a tremendous help for ladies within this discipline accomplishments as they get the most stunning footwear while using type of price tag christian louboutin pumps (http://www.louboutinsaleladies.com/christian-louboutin-pumps-c-1.html) mounted on the idea. That is definitely the simplest way to manage to adjust their appearance along with bodyChristian Christian louboutin turn up picture in minutes. They're exactly the kind of shoes go with any kind of clothes the black gown, or perhaps a pair of shiny bric. The objective involving Christian louboutin uk shoes is the model that can gown your current lower limbs properly. Can make the lower limbs look correctly good enough.christian louboutin uk bootsThey will even arrived at persuade marketers of specialized outside footwear named move and cost-effectively beyond the range collection flip flops. Maintaining which in your mind recognize the actual swelling as well as concern yourself with massive hindfoot, Louboutin Shoes or boots a web-based, a lady don't possess a child positive aspects and elegance regarding brickwork accomplishing abnormal stiletto heel bone sandals.low-cost louboutin Sandalsarrives inside mud coloration, which could possibly be unquestionably rather fairly neutral; thus youre certain that this can complement virtually any louboutin shoes sale (http://www.louboutinsaleladies.com/) kinds and colours involving clothes. It really is unquestionable which has in which imaginative contemplating; For this reason, this individual is able to develop his just regarding just about every and every footwear layout and design along with layout and design special. Footwear is the sneakers elegant women ought to own. Although cost of Alfredia shoes is a touch tad pricey, some Christian can accompany you for a long period. Besides, footwear is much cheaper if you know how to buy all of them on the internet. Read More: Louboutin Sale,2012 High Abatement Christian Louboutin Sale Shoes Hot Online. (http://www.louboutinsaleladies.com/)

[donKey jote]

THE DUCK. « Dr. Boli's Celebrated Magazine. (http://drboli.wordpress.com/2009/12/15/the-duck/)

starring starter as the journalist and chuck as the second scientist, or the first, or... sod it ! :laugh:

[Rollo]

So two questions: Is the earth warming? If it is are we causing it? No sure answers to either one yet.

If there are no sure answers to either one yet then because it's an uncertain contingency, then doesn't the issue need to be treated the same way as you would any other insurance question?

Assuming that the outcome of the risk in this question is a significant loss of quality of life, then doing nothing about the issue is negligent.

[donKey jote]

Chuck34 is correct though that there are opinions on both sides of the question among the scientific community.

Global Warming: Man or Myth - The Scientific Consensus (http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/global_warming_scientific_consensus.html)


Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change:
48% of Americans think most climate scientists do not agree that the Earth has been warming in recent years, and 53% think climate scientists do not agree that human activities are a major cause of that warming (Doran and Zimmerman, 2009). A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago of 3,146 Earth scientists showed 96.2% of climatologists who are active in climate research agree that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 97.4% agree that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 80% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Petroleum geologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent believing in human involvement.

Anderegg et al. (2010) in their PNAS paper, Expert credibility in climate change (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract?sid=5ce5529a-3fb5-422c-9eab-acb264229858), used an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that:



97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change[/*:m:cxj4immb]
The relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.[/*:m:cxj4immb]

[Rollo]

Treating it as an insurance question would be an error.

I also don't believe in running around like Chicken Little as some supposedly prominent people have done. I do think, given the potential severity if true, that much more rigorous data gathering needs to be done now so that serious action can be taken sooner rather than later.

I don't necessarily see it as being in error.

My Pug 206 is worth about $11,000 and I pay $655/year in fully-comprehensive insurance. That works out to be 5.954%.
World GDP is probably about $63.120 trillion. To insure that sort of loss at 5.954% would be a collective spend of about $3.758 trillion.

Many writings in antiquity speak of great stands of cedar in the Lebanon. In Shakespeare's time it was said that a squirrel could run from John O'Groats to Land's End from treetop to treetop; the mighty oaks which once stood on that sceptered isle now lay at the bottom of the ocean, having been made into ships and sunk by cannon fire.
The example of Brazil teaches us that areas which used to be rainforest and after being cleared and being worked with agriculture, after a few decades fall fallow and turn into deserts with similar soil characteristics as the Sahara; if that's the case, is that why the Sahara exists? Did it used to be rainforest? In China they're noticing desertification of former arable land after only 30 years.

The reasons I think that climate change is purely caused by humans, has to very little with carbon emissions but very much to do with humans ruining the environment by removing the natural ability for carbon sequestration.
Argue all you like about carbon emissions because no-one is seriously considering spending trillions in tree planting programs.

Irrespective of if the risk is real or not, no serious action will ever be taken because the monetary cost in doing so is immense. There simply is no will of governments to do it and certainly no incentive for private enterprise to do it either.

[chuck34]

If there are no sure answers to either one yet then because it's an uncertain contingency, then doesn't the issue need to be treated the same way as you would any other insurance question?

Assuming that the outcome of the risk in this question is a significant loss of quality of life, then doing nothing about the issue is negligent.

This is exactly what I am speaking about. There is uncertainty, you can be certain about that. Since there is uncertainty why does it make sense to FORCE people into schemes that might slightly mitigate the impact of a gas that might slightly have some unknown impact on something down the road? Plus, by FORCING these schemes upon people/economies it will certainly hurt already hurting economies and the people that live in them.

By all means, if you feel that driving a "green" car, and using "alternative" energies, etc. will be good for you and humanity down the road, use them, and advocate others to use them. But please do not FORCE people to do things that are against their economic best interests. Particularly when there is uncertainty about the cause and impacts of what you are speaking about.

[chuck34]

Argue all you like about carbon emissions because no-one is seriously considering spending trillions in tree planting programs.

Honestly, if you wanted to start that, I'd be much more willing to go about doing that than the silliness governments are proposing currently.

[Malbec]

This is exactly what I am speaking about. There is uncertainty, you can be certain about that. Since there is uncertainty why does it make sense to FORCE people into schemes that might slightly mitigate the impact of a gas that might slightly have some unknown impact on something down the road? Plus, by FORCING these schemes upon people/economies it will certainly hurt already hurting economies and the people that live in them.

By all means, if you feel that driving a "green" car, and using "alternative" energies, etc. will be good for you and humanity down the road, use them, and advocate others to use them. But please do not FORCE people to do things that are against their economic best interests. Particularly when there is uncertainty about the cause and impacts of what you are speaking about.

Chuck, in my past experiences 'debating' on this topic with you I have found you to be a most civilised poster, however I've also found your understanding of the scientific process limited at best.

I understand that you view the evidence for/against global warming and its causes as being uncertain although you are not aware of the weighting of scientific opinion. I also know that you trumpet the existence of papers that 'disprove' the hypothesis behind global warming as evidence that the scientific arguments discrediting it are as strong as, possibly stronger than the arguments for it.

I suggest to you that with any scientific issue you will find evidence against as well as for it. Take cigarette smoking or the toxic effects of asbestos, you will find much evidence out there refuting or limiting the carcinogenic effects of both. Yet I have not seen you posting about conspiracies to claim that asbestos and cigarettes are carcinogenic when scientific evidence that refutes this exists.

I believe this is because you are approaching these issues with a political agenda and interprete the evidence out there accordingly. I'm afraid scientific evidence regarding most matters doesn't really care for politics and approaching problems with this mindset is not conducive to actually elucidating how and why things happen.

[schmenke]

The "body" of scientific opini8on has been wrong before and will certainly be wrong again. That's a good thing. It is the way science works. Because someone including, a scientist, says something is true does not make it true. Presumably that scientist looked at the available evidence and proposed a theory which he/she thought explained the data. It's then up to others to independently confirm or disprove the theory. Regardless of the current thought on the subject, or how many agree with it, it will remain a theory until indisputable fact confirms it. Some theorys were around for quite a while before they were disproved. The history of science is replete will cases, including contemporary ones, where one theory was held as true by the vast majority of scientific opinion, yet was overturned when more hard evidence or a better theory was found.

Man as the primary agent of global warming remains just that - a theory. It may well be a correct theory for this one. We just don't know for sure yet. I had mentioned above, and this is one of the things which causes me to be more of a skeptic on the subject, we now understand that there have been a number of rapid (less than a hundred years) changes in mean global temperatures. We don't know why, just that they occurred. Most were before man existed.

Quack



:p :

[Malbec]

The "body" of scientific opini8on has been wrong before and will certainly be wrong again. That's a good thing. It is the way science works. Because someone including, a scientist, says something is true does not make it true. Presumably that scientist looked at the available evidence and proposed a theory which he/she thought explained the data. It's then up to others to independently confirm or disprove the theory. Regardless of the current thought on the subject, or how many agree with it, it will remain a theory until indisputable fact confirms it. Some theorys were around for quite a while before they were disproved. The history of science is replete will cases, including contemporary ones, where one theory was held as true by the vast majority of scientific opinion, yet was overturned when more hard evidence or a better theory was found.

Thank you for that explanation, and of course it is true that many scientific theories have been disproved. However for decision making purposes it is necessary to go with what is best known now. It is possible that cigarette smoke really isn't carcinogenic but that there is an indirect link between smoking and cancer and that link is identified. However it would be unethical to discourage smoking on the premise that the link is indeed indirect, not direct. The same is true for global warming.

(BTW there is no such thing as "indisputable fact" when it comes to science. The recent furore regarding CERN and the speed of light should highlight that regardless of the outcome of the repeat experiment).

[chuck34]

Chuck, in my past experiences 'debating' on this topic with you I have found you to be a most civilised poster, however I've also found your understanding of the scientific process limited at best.

I understand that you view the evidence for/against global warming and its causes as being uncertain although you are not aware of the weighting of scientific opinion. I also know that you trumpet the existence of papers that 'disprove' the hypothesis behind global warming as evidence that the scientific arguments discrediting it are as strong as, possibly stronger than the arguments for it.

I suggest to you that with any scientific issue you will find evidence against as well as for it. Take cigarette smoking or the toxic effects of asbestos, you will find much evidence out there refuting or limiting the carcinogenic effects of both. Yet I have not seen you posting about conspiracies to claim that asbestos and cigarettes are carcinogenic when scientific evidence that refutes this exists.

I believe this is because you are approaching these issues with a political agenda and interprete the evidence out there accordingly. I'm afraid scientific evidence regarding most matters doesn't really care for politics and approaching problems with this mindset is not conducive to actually elucidating how and why things happen.

You seem to be suggesting that my opinon is based solely upon political philosophy. If that is the case then you are wrong. 5-6 years ago, or so, I was a believer in global warming. But then I really started looking into the evidence. And it simply was not that strong in my mind. One example is using a very small number of tree rings to base temperature reconstructions upon, and the many errors associated with that (still finding more errors to this day). Another example is the minimizing of the Medieval Warm Period, or trying to claim it was only regional, and ignoring all the archeological, cultural, and historical evidence to the contrary. There are many other examples of data being inapropriately (granted to me, possibly not others) adjusted, ignored, or otherwise misused.

My oposition to the theory is simply evidence based, not political. However, my oposition to the "solutions" put forward are political in nature. I believe in free markets, not government command and control, particularly on issues that have not been proven.

I do not put forward conspiracy theories on cigarettes and asbestos for the simple fact that the evidence I have seen clearly demonstrates the health detriments of those two things. I am not some "conspiracy nutter" as many have tried to claim. I don't believe anything someone would tell me. I do see the evidence linking cigarettes and asbestos being pretty darn clear. I do see the evidence for the US landing on the moon as pretty darn clear. I do see the evidence for the earth being round as pretty darn clear. This silly meme being put forward that since I don't buy into one theory that I must be a nutter is silly on it's face, and pretty damn demeaning, but then I suppose that is point, marginalize and discredit you oponents personally when you don't want to face up to counter evidence presented to you.

[Gregor-y]

Chuck, Starter's trying to save your bacon. Why don't you just let him?

Science is not an episode of NYPD Blue with a definitive answer (hell, neither is law enforcement or the justice system if you've ever had a chance to work within it). So there's never going to be the 2+2=4 evidence you seem to need before you stop poisoning yourself.

[chuck34]

Chuck, Starter's trying to save your bacon. Why don't you just let him?

Science is not an episode of NYPD Blue with a definitive answer (hell, neither is law enforcement or the justice system if you've ever had a chance to work within it). So there's never going to be the 2+2=4 evidence you seem to need before you stop poisoning yourself.

What are you talking about. Of course there is not a definitive answer here. Where have I said otherwise? All I'm saying is that when I look at the data, I don't see the same conclusion as many people. I'm asking questions about the data, adjustments made to it, conclusions drawn from it, assumptions made about it, etc. Or in other words "science".

But if someone wants to just accept what someone says, simply because they have a degree, tells them without questioning it themselves, by all means go ahead. Just don't FORCE me to do the same thing.

[schmenke]

...But if someone wants to just accept what someone says, simply because they have a degree, ...

Where on earth is anyone saying that? :s

In science conclusions are based on results derived from facts (data) and/or observations (empirical).

Conclusions can be either irrefutable – they become law.
Conclusions can be disputable – they become theory.

In neither case do academic qualifications contribute to the conclusions :mark: .

[Malbec]

You seem to be suggesting that my opinon is based solely upon political philosophy. If that is the case then you are wrong.

Why then is it that while you criticise the methodology or conclusions of pro-global warming papers and question the funding sources, I have NEVER seen you do the same for anti-global warming papers, many of which are funded from industry?

By all means criticise papers, that is what they are there for anyway but do so fairly.


I do not put forward conspiracy theories on cigarettes and asbestos for the simple fact that the evidence I have seen clearly demonstrates the health detriments of those two things. I am not some "conspiracy nutter" as many have tried to claim. I don't believe anything someone would tell me. I do see the evidence linking cigarettes and asbestos being pretty darn clear. I do see the evidence for the US landing on the moon as pretty darn clear. I do see the evidence for the earth being round as pretty darn clear. This silly meme being put forward that since I don't buy into one theory that I must be a nutter is silly on it's face, and pretty damn demeaning, but then I suppose that is point, marginalize and discredit you oponents personally when you don't want to face up to counter evidence presented to you.

Interesting that you read my post this way, or rather you didn't bother reading it properly.

I contrasted your stance on global warming where you back a position taken by a minority of the scientific population with what I assumed was your stance on cigarettes, asbestos and cancer where you are happy to take the view of the scientific mainstream. To make it simpler for you, I assumed your views on other topics were mainstream which is the opposite of labelling you as a conspiracy theorist.

[Malbec]

All I'm saying is that when I look at the data

How do you know that the particular data you are looking at is not highly selective? Do you rely on single research papers, reviews or meta-analyses?

[chuck34]

Why then is it that while you criticise the methodology or conclusions of pro-global warming papers and question the funding sources, I have NEVER seen you do the same for anti-global warming papers, many of which are funded from industry?

I criticise papers that don't look at the evidence as a whole. Often times, in my opinion, some papers do inflate the severity of the "crisis" in order to keep the grant money from governments. Afterall governments will not spend large sums of money to study simple natural variability. And sure some papers that are funded "by industry" have biases as well (although not as widespread as alarmists would have you believe). But I see many, not all, of those as more response papers. What do you expect industry to do, sit back and take it as someone attacks their livelyhood? So yeah those papers need to be taken with a grain of salt, but so does every paper.


By all means criticise papers, that is what they are there for anyway but do so fairly.

So when anti-global warming papers are dismissed out of hand because their funding came "from industry", that is being fair? If one is to be fair, one must question the motivation behind all studies (ideally there wouldn't be any, but this is the real world). I simply apply the same level of skepticism to both sides of this argument and come out believing the arguments and evidence of the anti side. Others appear to believe the pro side and dismiss any anti evidence/claims simply due to the funding. Is that fair in your mind?



Interesting that you read my post this way, or rather you didn't bother reading it properly.

I contrasted your stance on global warming where you back a position taken by a minority of the scientific population with what I assumed was your stance on cigarettes, asbestos and cancer where you are happy to take the view of the scientific mainstream. To make it simpler for you, I assumed your views on other topics were mainstream which is the opposite of labelling you as a conspiracy theorist.

I'll be honest, I have no idea what you are saying. My views on an issue are not based on what is mainstream or not. For me to weigh in on a subject I need to first care enough about it to look at the evidence, then look at both sides of the argument and weigh the evidence in my mind. Then I go with the side that appears to me to have the weight of evidence on their side.

Again, my stance on global warming started out on the pro side. When I first heard about the issue, the majority opinion was pro, and (most importantly) their arguments seemed to be very rational to me. So I was with them. However, after looking at some of the evidence the anti side put forth, I realized their arguments/evidence outweighed the pro side. So I change my stance.

[chuck34]

How do you know that the particular data you are looking at is not highly selective? Do you rely on single research papers, reviews or meta-analyses?

How does anyone know for sure that the data they are looking at is not highly selective? I try to look at as much as is out there. Granted I do not spend my entire day looking at the problem, but it is far from a single paper.

[Malbec]

I criticise papers that don't look at the evidence as a whole. Often times, in my opinion, some papers do inflate the severity of the "crisis"

How do you know if the figures are inflated?

I say again, are you looking at individual papers, reviews or meta-analyses? Have you done your own statistical analysis to see whether the numbers looked at are high powered enough to be significant?


in order to keep the grant money from governments.

Except research of this sort is rarely funded by governments although there are grants available. Much of the money comes from the research institutions themselves with money raised from many sources of which governments are but one. Industry (of the green sort) or charities are others.


Afterall governments will not spend large sums of money to study simple natural variability.

Quite right, governments don't spend much money at all directly on research.


So when anti-global warming papers are dismissed out of hand because their funding came "from industry", that is being fair? If one is to be fair, one must question the motivation behind all studies (ideally there wouldn't be any, but this is the real world). I simply apply the same level of skepticism to both sides of this argument and come out believing the arguments and evidence of the anti side. Others appear to believe the pro side and dismiss any anti evidence/claims simply due to the funding. Is that fair in your mind?

Depends on the quality of the paper. As I've already alluded to a petrochemical company's stance on the global warming issue is likely to be the opposite of a solar panel manufacturer for instance so industrial sponsorship is not one-sided.


I'll be honest, I have no idea what you are saying. My views on an issue are not based on what is mainstream or not. For me to weigh in on a subject I need to first care enough about it to look at the evidence, then look at both sides of the argument and weigh the evidence in my mind. Then I go with the side that appears to me to have the weight of evidence on their side.

Ok I must admit my point wasn't clearly worded.

I have no problem with your stance as a climate 'sceptic'. I do have a problem with your bias in the way you critique papers. I have never seen you criticise papers that are anti-global warming while obviously you spend a lot of time picking holes in pro-global warming ones. Also I find your methodology as you look through the papers simply wrong.

You clearly have a lot of enthusiasm for reading scientific papers, why don't you go on a course and learn how they are written and how to assess them for quality?

[BDunnell]

Forgive me, but I don't base my entire life around blind appeals to authority.

I resent the implied suggestion that, somehow, I do.

[BDunnell]

I have no problem with your stance as a climate 'sceptic'. I do have a problem with your bias in the way you critique papers. I have never seen you criticise papers that are anti-global warming while obviously you spend a lot of time picking holes in pro-global warming ones. Also I find your methodology as you look through the papers simply wrong.

You clearly have a lot of enthusiasm for reading scientific papers, why don't you go on a course and learn how they are written and how to assess them for quality?

What I wish to know is what other scientific theories people like Chuck also seek to debunk, and about which they believe they 'know' so much. Funny it should only, apparently, be this one to which they apply their scepticism. Self-interest and political bias at play, perhaps? Surely, if the one about global warming is wrong, there are others that must also be incorrect? Why isn't Chuck bothered about those, too? Why hasn't he 'looked into them' and formed a view? He could be doing an awful lot of good for the world's scientific knowledge if he's right.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Nineteen Eighty-Four. It came true in North Korea, where every home apparently has a portrait of 'the leader' on the wall.

To claim it has come true in parts of the world that give you access to online messageboards, such as this one, would be moronic.

[schmenke]

...
I have no problem with your stance as a climate 'sceptic'. I do have a problem with your bias in the way you critique papers. I have never seen you criticise papers that are anti-global warming while obviously you spend a lot of time picking holes in pro-global warming ones. Also I find your methodology as you look through the papers simply wrong.

You clearly have a lot of enthusiasm for reading scientific papers, why don't you go on a course and learn how they are written and how to assess them for quality?

Good advice.

The scientific community does not publish papers on “evidence” as chuck suggests. Evidence is merely the catalyst for further study. Papers are used to publish conclusions derived from the analysis of data obtained through either direct measurement and/or empirical results from experimentation.

If one has doubts about the results, most papers will include:
The scope of the study;
The parameters of their analysis;
The margins of error of their results.
The publisher will often make these readily available.

Drawing opinions on a subject by referencing web sites like “whatsupwiththat” is rather imprudent :s

[Rollo]

This is exactly what I am speaking about. There is uncertainty, you can be certain about that. Since there is uncertainty why does it make sense to FORCE people into schemes that might slightly mitigate the impact of a gas that might slightly have some unknown impact on something down the road? Plus, by FORCING these schemes upon people/economies it will certainly hurt already hurting economies and the people that live in them.

Why do you continue to pay tax to support the military? The Military is also basically a collective insurance question.
Why does it make sense to FORCE people into schemes that might slightly mitigate the impact of other nations that might slightly have some unknown impact on something down the road? Plus, by FORCING these schemes upon people/economies it already certainly does hurt already hurt the economy and the people who live in it.

I would argue that because the US refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol and that the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 was defeated in the Senate then rather than lambasting the government, you should be praising it for already acting in accordance with your wishes.

[EuroTroll]

There is a mistake in reasoning that many people make, and that's to reason that as soon as someone casts any doubt on an accepted theory, the theory becomes invalid.

While I applaud Chuck's reluctance to simply yield to authority, I don't share it in this case. When the overwhelming majority of climatologists believe that global warming is happening and that man is causing it, I tend to think this is indicative of the truth.

Yes, there are those who disagree. But then, there are also crackpot historians who claim that the Holocaust never happened.

[BDunnell]

While I applaud Chuck's reluctance to simply yield to authority, I don't share it in this case.

Like I said, my problem with it is that it strikes me as extremely selective. After all, his views on how one should look upon the US Constitution are somewhat different.

[EuroTroll]

Like I said, my problem with it is that it strikes me as extremely selective. After all, his views on how one should look upon the US Constitution are somewhat different.

Well, we all have topics where we agree with "the man" (whoever that might be), and topics where we don't. It's so natural and common that I don't see it as a weakness in argument.

[BDunnell]

Well, we all have topics where we agree with "the man" (whoever that might be), and topics where we don't. It's so natural and common that I don't see it as a weakness in argument.

I agree, of course, but I do feel that global warming scepticism attracts a lot of people who do not normally have an especially enquiring, sceptical mind. I resent being told that I don't by people whose only anti-'officialdom' scepticism seems to be directed at said officialdom from a position of right-wing political bias.

[chuck34]

How do you know if the figures are inflated?

One example
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/scafetta_model_updated-fig-02_03_2012.png


I say again, are you looking at individual papers, reviews or meta-analyses? Have you done your own statistical analysis to see whether the numbers looked at are high powered enough to be significant?

I am sure that any answer I give to this question will not be sufficient for you.


Except research of this sort is rarely funded by governments although there are grants available. Much of the money comes from the research institutions themselves with money raised from many sources of which governments are but one. Industry (of the green sort) or charities are others.

I don't know how to link to a .pdf. Do a google search of "government grants to study climate change". There you will find a .pdf from the CBO

Since 1989, a Cabinet-level committee has coordinated the activities of 14 federal agencies that study climate change or work to mitigate emissions of greenhouse gases, although the bulk of the spending is carried out by DOE and NASA.
Those 14 federal agencies spent 7.5 Billion dollars studying climate change and technology to mitigate it in 2009. I guess $7,500,000,000 isn't much money these days.


Quite right, governments don't spend much money at all directly on research.

But wait there's more! The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 "invested" an adition 35.7 Billion dollars into this study.


Depends on the quality of the paper. As I've already alluded to a petrochemical company's stance on the global warming issue is likely to be the opposite of a solar panel manufacturer for instance so industrial sponsorship is not one-sided.

And I've said so as well. It just seems that you are more than willing to agree with the solar panel manufacturer's stance, and dismiss the petrochemical company's stance out of hand.


Ok I must admit my point wasn't clearly worded.

I have no problem with your stance as a climate 'sceptic'. I do have a problem with your bias in the way you critique papers. I have never seen you criticise papers that are anti-global warming while obviously you spend a lot of time picking holes in pro-global warming ones. Also I find your methodology as you look through the papers simply wrong.

I don't normally critique anti papers because there are enough people around here that do that. If you really want to know there is a recent paper that I don't agree with. I don't have it at hand right now, but it basically tries to link changes in climate on Earth with solar variation (which I somewhat agree with), and then it goes on to link solar variations with tidal forces from Jupiter (that I totally disagree with).

I'm glad to know that you think my method of looking at papers is simply wrong. What makes you an authority on how I form my own opinions?


You clearly have a lot of enthusiasm for reading scientific papers, why don't you go on a course and learn how they are written and how to assess them for quality?

I suppose my time going through engineering school left me completely unprepared for looking at scientific papers. :rolleyes:

[chuck34]

I would argue that because the US refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol and that the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 was defeated in the Senate then rather than lambasting the government, you should be praising it for already acting in accordance with your wishes.

I do applaud them for steering clear of any multi-national schemes such as Kyoto. But I stongly disagree with what this President (and to some extent the last one as well) has tasked the EPA with doing.

[chuck34]

I agree, of course, but I do feel that global warming scepticism attracts a lot of people who do not normally have an especially enquiring, sceptical mind. I resent being told that I don't by people whose only anti-'officialdom' scepticism seems to be directed at said officialdom from a position of right-wing political bias.

I completely reject this stance. Why is it that since I reject the "official" stance on global warming I must reject the "official" stance on other issues? Does that mean that since you accept the "offical" stance on global warming that you MUST accept the "offical" stance on everything? Would you have accepted the "official" stance that the earth is flat? How about the one that said man could not travel faster than the speed of sound? What other crazy ideas that were at one time the "official" would you have accepted unquestionly?

And if my opinions are only based on "right-wing" political biases, why would I disagree with much of what is said about gun control (to pull out an example that gets much attention)? The "official right-wing" stance on gun control would be that no government anywhere can ever pass any law that restricts gun ownership due to the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution. I happen to disagree with that stance. The 2nd Amendment only applies to the Federal Government, not State or local governments.

[chuck34]

I have to hand it to you guys. You have done a great job protecting your point of view with a classic tactic of debating from a weak position. Attack the person, not the ideas.

Bravo!

[Firstgear]

We used to call it Global Warming, now we call it Climate Change.

In my opinion, if you need to change the name to suit the evidence/data, then it's wise to be skeptical.

[donKey jote]

I suppose my time going through engineering school left me completely unprepared for looking at scientific papers. :rolleyes:
Well it certainly doesn't seem to have helped much in this case... unless you count Watts / Heartland Institute propaganda as scientific papers :p

[donKey jote]

then it's wise to be skeptical.

It's always wise to be reasonably sceptical.

[chuck34]

Well it certainly doesn't seem to have helped much in this case... unless you count Watts / Heartland Institute propaganda as scientific papers :p

Bravo! Yet another attack on the messenger not the message. Good job.

Just out of curiosity, what paper have I linked to was written by Watts or the Heartland institute?

[schmenke]

Jeez chuck, lighten up. That tin foil hat you’re wearing is going to cause you an aneurism :p : .

[BDunnell]

I completely reject this stance. Why is it that since I reject the "official" stance on global warming I must reject the "official" stance on other issues? Does that mean that since you accept the "offical" stance on global warming that you MUST accept the "offical" stance on everything? Would you have accepted the "official" stance that the earth is flat? How about the one that said man could not travel faster than the speed of sound? What other crazy ideas that were at one time the "official" would you have accepted unquestionly?

With respect, Chuck, this somewhat juvenile response hardly marks you out as boasting an intellect superior to those whose contributions you seek to rubbish elsewhere. Maybe you might like to let us know which other current scientific theories exercise you so much — or is it, mysteriously, just this one, just as is the case with many others of your political persuasion? As I said, given the knowledge you claim in this area, you ought, if you really have the courage of your convictions, to seek to debunk some others. Then there is the whole issue of how on earth someone like you can have the gall to suggest they know better than people who have spent years on academic study, but, I suppose, that's the internet for you.

[chuck34]

With respect, Chuck, this somewhat juvenile response hardly marks you out as boasting an intellect superior to those whose contributions you seek to rubbish elsewhere. Maybe you might like to let us know which other current scientific theories exercise you so much — or is it, mysteriously, just this one, just as is the case with many others of your political persuasion? As I said, given the knowledge you claim in this area, you ought, if you really have the courage of your convictions, to seek to debunk some others. Then there is the whole issue of how on earth someone like you can have the gall to suggest they know better than people who have spent years on academic study, but, I suppose, that's the internet for you.

Sigh.

I just don't understand why my thinking one important topic is based on flawed logic/reasoning/data means that I must have other theories I disagree with. Or the fact that I am not discussing those other topics right here in this thread and pulling it wildly off topic means that I am mysteriously wrong on this issue.

But if you MUST be satisfied .... how about the Keynesian economic theories? I think that much of that theory is wrong and based upon faulty data and misread economic indicators.

How do you have the gall to suggest you know better than people who have spent years on academic study? Or do you buy into this thought that there are no scientist/climatologist that disagree with the IPCC? When there are scientists who hold differing opinons on a theory, how do YOU decide which one is right?


But by all means, continue to attack me instead of addressing the points I bring up on the issue. It's a good debate technique if you are uncomfortable with your position.

[BDunnell]

Sigh.

I just don't understand why my thinking one important topic is based on flawed logic/reasoning/data means that I must have other theories I disagree with. Or the fact that I am not discussing those other topics right here in this thread and pulling it wildly off topic means that I am mysteriously wrong on this issue.

But if you MUST be satisfied .... how about the Keynesian economic theories? I think that much of that theory is wrong and based upon faulty data and misread economic indicators.

How do you have the gall to suggest you know better than people who have spent years on academic study? Or do you buy into this thought that there are no scientist/climatologist that disagree with the IPCC? When there are scientists who hold differing opinons on a theory, how do YOU decide which one is right?


But by all means, continue to attack me instead of addressing the points I bring up on the issue. It's a good debate technique if you are uncomfortable with your position.

Sometimes you are not much of a debater, Chuck. I am absolutely comfortable with my position. I feel you ought not to be with yours. To others such as Malbec I will leave comment upon where your reading of academic papers is wrong, because their knowledge on such things is superior to mine. This, perhaps, is a stance others should bear in mind on certain matters.

[chuck34]

Sometimes you are not much of a debater, Chuck. I am absolutely comfortable with my position. I feel you ought not to be with yours. To others such as Malbec I will leave comment upon where your reading of academic papers is wrong, because their knowledge on such things is superior to mine. This, perhaps, is a stance others should bear in mind on certain matters.

So I am not much of a debater because I present facts that support my argument, then those who oppose my argument attack ME, not the material? Ok, if that's the criteria, then I'm not much of a debater.

All I have heard in at least the last 3 pages is how I am not qualified to pass judgment. Ok fine, I fully agree I am not qualified in this area. But I am not the one writing papers/synthisysing data/etc., I am merely linking to them and stating that I agree with those papers more than I do the "mainstream" papers. But apparently that makes me some sort of dunce. Fine, if that is what you want to believe of me, no skin off my nose.

[donKey jote]

Bravo! Yet another attack on the messenger not the message. Good job.

Just out of curiosity, what paper have I linked to was written by Watts or the Heartland institute?

Sigh :dozey:
That was my point: None ! You haven't presented a single paper at all !
You have -in this thread- presented a chart from the "http://wattsupwiththat (http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/scafetta_model_updated-fig-02_03_2012.png)" website, cherry-picked or compiled from a paper or papers which I doubt you have read, to apparently prove christ knows what conspiracy. Wattsupwiththat has a certain agenda and is linked to Watts and the Heartland institute, correct?

All of the points you raise have been refuted by the "mainstream", a lot of them also in the link I gave you or within (http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/).

But no amount of reason seems to be good enough for you in your anti-"mainstream" crusade.
À propos "mainstream"... is this some new doublespeak in your Ministry of "Truth", you know, a bit like "official stance" or "liberal" or "patriot act" or "freedom fries"?



But apparently that makes me some sort of...If the hat fits... continue playing the "victim" card if you feel fit. Talk about classic tactic of debating from a weak position. :laugh:

[Malbec]

Those 14 federal agencies spent 7.5 Billion dollars studying climate change and technology to mitigate it in 2009. I guess $7,500,000,000 isn't much money these days.

But wait there's more! The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 "invested" an adition 35.7 Billion dollars into this study.

No.

The ARRA allocated about $7 billion to ALL research across several agencies including ones like NASA and the US Dept of energy which handles nuclear power safety. To pretend that all of this was related to global warming related research is ludicrous if not downright misleading.

If you include research into green power sources, which is completely separate to research into global warming then you get a figure closer to your $35 billion. However research into new wind turbines is not the same as researching into global warming. The figures you posted are misleading at best and do your cause no good whatsoever.

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009)


I don't normally critique anti papers because there are enough people around here that do that. If you really want to know there is a recent paper that I don't agree with. I don't have it at hand right now, but it basically tries to link changes in climate on Earth with solar variation (which I somewhat agree with), and then it goes on to link solar variations with tidal forces from Jupiter (that I totally disagree with).

OK fair enough, this doesn't come through in your posting though.


I'm glad to know that you think my method of looking at papers is simply wrong. What makes you an authority on how I form my own opinions?

I write medical research papers, not many but enough. I am a reviewer on two peer-reviewed journals in my speciality and sub-speciality of medicine. Basically I review papers submitted to the journals, check for relevance and quality and propose to the editorial board whether the paper should be accepted, rejected or returned to the author for revisions.

I also teach medical students in tutorials on how to read and assess a scientific paper, and just as importantly how to weigh up papers with opposing conclusions and take decisions based on them in the acute medical environment.

Therefore I have a little experience in assessing how other people read papers.

I asked you several questions to see what level you were at. I'm afraid you didn't 'get' any of them. If I were to ask you if the car you're sitting in is in neutral or drive and you were to stare at me blankly it would be fair of me to assume you knew little about cars or driving. Unfortunately your response (or lack of it) to my questions showed me you are not well trained in reading and assessing papers. Not many people are, after all this is not exactly a commonly used skill.

I note your response to my previous post has been extremely defensive, and I do sympathise somewhat with your position but my suggestion that you get proper training in how to read a paper wasn't meant as an insult.

If you were to keep your posting on this matter at the level of post 55 on this thread with a mere intelligence-free "global warming sucks, it just does" you would be rightly ignored. If you used proper critiquing methods to pick apart papers you disagreed with I think you would also be ignored for a different reason, because you would be extremely difficult to argue against. You fall into the middle ground because you try to argue your point logically but you don't have the skills to read the papers properly. You take criticism of your analytical skills as a personal attack but perhaps you might be able to see if you took a step back that the people criticising your technique most are those with a scientific background and know what they are talking about.

All I'm suggesting is that you acquire paper-reading skills because your enthusiasm for reading these papers indicates to me that you have a serious passion for these topics. Just to clarify, I'm not insulting you, this is just a suggestion but I think you might really get a lot out of it.

[BDunnell]

So I am not much of a debater because I present facts that support my argument, then those who oppose my argument attack ME, not the material? Ok, if that's the criteria, then I'm not much of a debater.

All I have heard in at least the last 3 pages is how I am not qualified to pass judgment. Ok fine, I fully agree I am not qualified in this area. But I am not the one writing papers/synthisysing data/etc., I am merely linking to them and stating that I agree with those papers more than I do the "mainstream" papers. But apparently that makes me some sort of dunce. Fine, if that is what you want to believe of me, no skin off my nose.

I don't believe you to be a 'dunce' at all. I had hoped that much would be clear. But I can only refer you to Malbec's post above. I would rather go along with his opinion on the matter than yours, on the grounds of his specific, individual abilities as outlined. This is a very different thing from calling you unintelligent.

[chuck34]

Diminished Climate Alarmism: Lessons from L (http://www.masterresource.org/2012/03/climate-alarmism-lessons-gleik/)

If you do not would like to spend considerably using a females ladies handbag, Burberry females ladies handbag reproductions function in terms of 400 and tend to be somewhat outstanding with their overall capability reflect the primary. Inside simple, rrndividuals are undoubtedly incredibly imaginative joined with gratifying hand bags and purses. Burberry model items burberry handbags outlet (http://www.burberryoutletvip.com/) require a stylish exceptional structure in addition to conclude of top quality wash rag together with merchandise. Currently; it is possible to effortlessly find numerous versions are usually leading the style improvement. Before, individuals know the changing style, the best way keep you stylish in addition to hair dresser.Burberry web shop match your wants as well as Burberry manufacturer walls plug ways of the best all year round. Enter almost just about any specialized niche from the investigation deal, and you also are actually certain to develop wonderful money-saving do-it-yourself details. A number of unhealthy foods restaurants present half-off products reely nighttime java, and lots of eating places perform special elderly offers or perhaps discounts on food items. Mainly, women believe these kind of off-season goods 've got slob outstanding this specific drops a component subsequent utilizing it 2-3 events. Seconds afterwards, your automobile moved burberry handbags outlet (http://www.burberryoutletvip.com/) while using cross-bow supports of the streetlight which in turn when i stumbled on ?pleasure, you should ?the top concerning Lenny Churchville ! We will have him or her obtaining Burberry Wall plug purses and handbags and also designer bags to actually can easily be involved in a lot of extremely important scenarios. Increase Simply by GoogleWomen want to spotlight his or her propensity style and also ponder with some other types of items below the companies such as Burberry Outlet, Hermes, Rolex watch, Louis Vuitton and in addition etc. A amount belonging to the kinds of Burberry totes tend to be Barra Antique burberry handbags outlet (http://www.burberryoutletvip.com/) Moderate Acquire Carrier, Dotty Dog Far eastern West Shoulder joint bag along with Largo massive Box Ladies handbag. Grosvenor satchel will be in between Burberry's best-selling luggage. the brand new selections can easily be bought regarding the Burberry online look which consists of any numerous things for example printing, hair, natural fiber, brand-new, classic, black, white-colored, bronze, red-colored, natural, blue, green, tote, clutch i465, purses, drawstring, purses, distinct editions, messenger bags, and many others.Our planet people has numerous character. Read More: Burberry Outlet , Cheap Burberry Bags Outlet For Ladies ! (http://www.burberryoutletvip.com/)