On 1/18/07, Fivefree@aol.com <Fivefree@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> In a message dated 1/15/2007 11:17:10 P.M. Mountain Standard Time,
> pvm.pandas@gmail.com writes:
>
> On 1/15/07, Fivefree@aol.com <Fivefree@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Apologies for answering so late. This is of minor interest to me.
> >
> > By the way. You never did respond to my NASA quote about global warming on
> Mars or the McCarthyism-like hysteria attributed to a scientist of
> impeccable credentials in the Wall Street Journal piece.
>
>
> Please do remind me.
> Ok, I'm reminding you.
I was hoping for a reference that would remind me.
> > I have some other data not found at the left wing URLS you prefer. My
> personal observation is that left wing groups skew data to further their
> ideology and viciously attack those that disagree. Whether they be
> scientific or political.
> Interesting suggestion. Is this unique to liberal sites or typical for any
> political ideology as I have found?
> Left wing more so than conservative, in my experience.
Hmm, would you agree that such experience can be biased? Is there any
hard data available on this topic?
> Cool, the question of course is: what caused the shift in wind patterns in
> the first place? I am not familiar with the Planck study. Is it related to
> this news article?
>
> No. Separate sources. Try the Max Planck Institute website.
> http://www.mps.mpg.de/projects/sun-climate/glchange.html
> certainly a cause for caution.
Caution yes, but that's a far cry from assigning it a significant
component. As i believe I showed, the solar component is quite a bit
smaller than the human component and as you say, it should not be
ignored, nor is it being ignored.
> > and given the strong evidence
> > correlating CO2 and temperatures, it seems that the case is already
> > quite strong from the start.
> > Incorrect. See below. Their are many, many correlations such as this that
> NEVER brought into discussion. Wouldn't you agree? Or are you not familiar
> with this chart?
I am pointing out that correlation does not mean causation, nor does
it mean that such correlation means that it contributes in a real
manner. In fact, as I have shown, the contribution seems to be 'real'
but not that large.
> The chart did not make it. The correlation between CO2 and temperature
> however is quite strong. Combine this with a causal explanation and you have
> a very strong case.
> snip Rush Limbaugh...
>
> snip graph that did not copy...
No response to the correlation and causation part of CO2?
> > ...Perhaps once we can resolve your confusion
> > about the heating of the atmosphere we can pursue some of your other
> > 'objections'...
> Again, after correcting from some of the measurement problems these data do
> seem to fall in line with other data. When most data agree, one should first
> look for biases before concluding that the vaste amount of data must be
> wrong.
>
> Not must be wrong. Might be wrong. You don't get my point here. You ignored
> the WSJ essay I referenced. I take it you didn't read it.
I ignored it in the sense that I did not read it. Hence my request for
a reminder.
> Data quite
> possibly has been manipulated, skewed and/or faked. When a contemporary asks
> for a published authors data to confirm his research and gets an email
> response reminiscent of a middle finger, something stinks.
Does it? And what may we infer from this?
> > These satellites are "a very blunt probe for observing climate
> > change," said Graeme Stephens at Colorado State University. "It is
> > like looking for the SARS virus in a microscope that is totally out of
> > focus. You can see a little something, but that is all you can really
> > say."
> >
> > Stephens is a flaming global warming nut. I heard of his shouting match
> with Gray (the dean of Hurricane forecasters) in Boulder, CO when Gray
> challenged his data and conclusions. I've also heard him interviewed on the
> radio. A partisan, not a neutral scientist going where the data leads him.
> His reputation is now at stake.
> Not a very good rebuttal. Perhaps you could focus on less ad hominem
> approaches?
> He is a nut. I've heard him. Past being a scientist to partisan activist.
> What about the statements of Gray? You seem to push your results but do not
> discuss the very real arguments against your conclusions. Just a few
> sentences above you talk about bias.
I am talking about bias, ad hominems versus well supported arguments.
If you want to reject Stephens as a flaming nut, fine with me.
> > The satellites weren't designed to find global warming, but for daily
> > weather forecasting.
> >
> >
> > You mean they don't measure temperatures?
>
>
> Missing the point
> No, I'm not. I see it from a different perspective than you do.
That may very well be the case, so I encourage you to make your case.
Your response suggested that you were missing the point. If you want
to revise or clarify your remarks, feel free to do so
snip
> What part of a 'closer match do you not understand. Was it not that people
> rejected global warming because of satellites failing to support the data?
> I understand what you are saying. But don't you see a 0.16 increase is
> within a 0.2 margin of error?
Sure, what I see however is that these data brought the satellite data
more in line with the many other data sources.
> As far as your CO2 facts are concerned, they are interesting but irrelevant.
> The doubling of CO2 concentrations has been mostly linked to anthropogenic
> sources.
> Now that is a term that is also misleading. You are saying that the total
> global CO2 emitted into the atmosphere has doubled. Is that right?
What part of the term concentrations confuses you? CO2 concentrations
in the atmosphere have almost doubled. Is that term misleading? Or is
it factual? I'd say the latter.
> Total CO2
> emissions? You should know that is not true. The Pinnatubo eruption several
> years ago put how much CO2 into the atmosphere? How far down the list of
> global CO2 emissions are anthropogenic?
Again irrelevant as I have explained elsewhere. Most of the doubling
of atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have been shown to be
anthropogenic. This has NOTHING to do with their relative sizes.
snip
> See these URLS below about the integrity of a few of the pro warming crowd.
> I'm sure you will disregard these and confidently state the unanimity of the
> profession for your conclusions.
I do not care about the integrity of a few of the pro warming crowd. I
care about the integrity of the science.
Not much here other than a controversy over why Science rejected a
letter. Seems to me that this opportunity has not gone unnoticed to
some.
<quote>Dr Philip Campbell, the editor-in-chief of Nature, said that
the journal was always happy to publish papers that go against
perceived wisdom, as long as they are of acceptable scientific
quality.
"The idea that we would conspire to suppress science that undermines
the idea of anthropogenic climate change is both false and utterly
naive about what makes journals thrive," he said.</quote>
As to Peiser's claims, Deltoid has some interesting angles here. Tim
Lambert reports that "Peiser admits he was 97% wrong"
"http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/10/peiser_admits_he_was_97_wrong.php"
Aha the infamous error by Carter ( There IS a problem with global
warming... it stopped in 1998)
Really fivefree, if you want to rebut science you should rebut it with
accurate science.
Tim Lambert to the rescue
http://timlambert.org/category/science/bobcarter/
> These a few of many I could Google. But this issue isn't as emotional to me
> as it is to you. I didn't like your smugness with this thread.
Aha.... I see. I understand that your abilities to google are well
established but there is more to research here and I hope I have
provided you a glimpse of how the hype in these media articles do not
stand up to scrutiny. May I suggest that scientific papers provide a
much better source for arguments?
> AND WHAT ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING ON MARS? VERY REAL. WHERE IS YOUR EXPLANATION? GEE, STILL CAN'T BE SOLAR PROBLEM, HUH?
Non sequitur. But if you want me to help you research this topic, I
will be glad to provide you some assistance. Let me start by pointing
out that there is a real effect of variations in solar output on the
temperature, however for the earth that component is relatively
small. However this does not mean that such effects can be more
catastrophic for other planets.
Luckily the weather on Mars does not yet affect us.
Let's start with an overview which provides useful links to primary sources
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192
See also its articles on solar heating
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=180 and
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=171
i appreciate your interests in these matters and look forward to
discuss with you in more details these data.
Was this the article you thought I ignored? Hope this clarifies...
That some see objections to their claims as McCarthyism (even mild)
seems more rhetoric than fact. Nevertheless, I have no doubt that
scientists whose research has been rejected will continue to claim
that their science has been silenced. After all history does repeat
itself.
> Regards,
> Jack Jackson
>
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Jan 19 13:51:31 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Jan 19 2007 - 13:51:31 EST