Page 1 of 36 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 1065

Thread: Global Warming: "Pseudoscientific Fraud"

  1. #1
    Heartless Bastard Indy Coug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Living Large inside the 5th Circle
    Posts
    18,799

    Default Global Warming: "Pseudoscientific Fraud"


  2. #2

    Default

    doesn't anyone have anything to say about this? I find it quite fascinating.
    Dio perdona tante cose per un’opera di misericordia
    God forgives many things for an act of mercy
    Alessandro Manzoni

    Knock it off. This board has enough problems without a dose of middle-age lechery.

    pelagius

  3. #3
    It is NOT a monkey! creekster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The Creek
    Posts
    22,112

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pellegrino View Post
    doesn't anyone have anything to say about this? I find it quite fascinating.
    I am inclined to support the view point underlying this letter. OTOH, and being honest, I find the letter itself presents the same problems I see in much of what is written about climate change; it is short on detail and long on generalities. That the climate debate is politicized and undermined by monied interests is not new. What that actually means in terms of the science is no clearer to me now than before I read the letter. Of course, as usual here, I was skimming, so maybe I should read it again.
    PLesa excuse the tpyos.

  4. #4
    Rabblerouser statman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Lehi
    Posts
    2,798

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by creekster View Post
    I am inclined to support the view point underlying this letter. OTOH, and being honest, I find the letter itself presents the same problems I see in much of what is written about climate change; it is short on detail and long on generalities. That the climate debate is politicized and undermined by monied interests is not new. What that actually means in terms of the science is no clearer to me now than before I read the letter. Of course, as usual here, I was skimming, so maybe I should read it again.
    It's a resignation letter with the author assuming you know the details. The group he's writing to certainly do...

  5. #5

    Default

    I don't know anything about anything, but I do know that there is a huge consensus in the scientific community that global warming is happening. I am also uncomfortable taking a position that requires me to believe in massive conspiracies of any kind.

  6. #6
    The dude abides Jeff Lebowski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The heart of the UC
    Posts
    49,244

    Default

    Sounds like a nut to me.
    "There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
    "It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
    "Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster

  7. #7
    Dolphins Rape Hipsters oxcoug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Split time between SF and NYC
    Posts
    5,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EuropeanFootballMale View Post
    I don't know anything about anything, but I do know that there is a huge consensus in the scientific community that global warming is happening. I am also uncomfortable taking a position that requires me to believe in massive conspiracies of any kind.
    EFM -

    The notion of "consensus" on "global warming" is very consciously manufactured. There are hundreds of established scientists at Princeton, MIT, Harvard and around the world not only question but flatly deny the basic tenets of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

    There are some pretty crafty ways they've gone about engineering the appearance of "consensus." I was at COP 15 - the climate conference in Copenhagen primarily drive by the UN's IPCC - and I was amazed at how often the media trumpeted the claims of the IPCC report confirming the human role in global warming (while assuming as FACT but without demonstration, that global warming is occurring) and the regular media citation of the report being endorsed by 4,000 scientists. In reality there were fewer than 3,000 scientists involved in the report, but the real mindblower is even funnier - there were fewer than 60 scientists involved with reviewing the one chapter of the report that dealt with "attribution" for climate change - i.e. the part that tells you who/what is responsible. Those 50-some scientists were hand-selected by the three lead authors of the chapter and there was no independence in the review process - none of the usual checks and balances of peer review were in play.

    Those sorts of shenanigans have become the norm.

    There are really three questions in play:
    1. Is the earth's atmosphere warming? And (1a) if it's warming are people primarily responsible because of the carbon they're pushing into the atmosphere?
    2. If so, is it a problem?
    3. If it's a problem, can anything meaningful and sure be done about it?

    The case can be convincingly made that the answer to all three of those questions is no.

    1. No system of atmospheric measurement shows any warming in the earth's atmosphere since the late 90s. Emphasis here is on ATMOSPHERIC warming - the alarmists will trot out plenty of data showing that the earth has warmed, but all of it will rely heavily on land-based measurements, which is demonstrably distorted by local factors. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm

    1a. If it's warming - are people responsible? There is NOTHING but circumstantial evidence to suggest that they would be - what was thought to be evidence (i.e. ice cores suggesting that warming has historically followed carbon spikes in the atmosphere) is now debunked, bringing warmists back entirely theoretical computer models.

    2. If it IS warming, how do we know it's a problem? We know with a fair degree of certainty that the earth has been warmer than it is now for long stretches twice in the last 2,000 years and that in the more recent medieval warm period farmers produced wine grapes in the English Midlands and Vikings thrived in places like Greenland that now struggle to support larger communities. The climate has been changing throughout human history and people have always adapted - so why wouldn't they now?

    3. In my view the most egregious aspect of the warming lobby has been its ability to make it seem like being concerned about the environment and buying into global warming hype are part of the same package. They want people to believe that either (a) you are a concerned citizen who hates global warming and trusts their computer models or (b) you drive a hummer and want to kill polar bears for fun.

    There is plenty that can and SHOULD be done to make the human footprint on the world less damaging and to make us better stewards - and none of it requires us to buy into unsubstantiated claims about the climate, or to ritually slaughter the global economy on the altar climate change.
    Ute-ī sunt fīmī differtī

    It can't all be wedding cake.

  8. #8

    Default

    That was a fascinating. I'd be very interested to read the response, if there is one.

  9. #9
    Semper infra dignitatem PaloAltoCougar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Pleasanton, CA
    Posts
    12,287

    Default

    I don't have a dog in this fight, and I'd love for the anthropogenic climate change apologists to be wrong, but I'm inclined to believe them, in part because of this website. I'm very open to counterarguments, though.

  10. #10
    Heartless Bastard Indy Coug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Living Large inside the 5th Circle
    Posts
    18,799

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PaloAltoCougar View Post
    I don't have a dog in this fight, and I'd love for the anthropogenic climate change apologists to be wrong, but I'm inclined to believe them, in part because of this website. I'm very open to counterarguments, though.
    The overwhelming majority of the 125 points have absolutely nothing to do with anthropogenesis.

  11. #11
    Dolphins Rape Hipsters oxcoug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Split time between SF and NYC
    Posts
    5,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PaloAltoCougar View Post
    I don't have a dog in this fight, and I'd love for the anthropogenic climate change apologists to be wrong, but I'm inclined to believe them, in part because of this website. I'm very open to counterarguments, though.
    PAC that 97% claim that they have as #3 is extremely dubious - it comes from a non peer reviewed article (but watch them stir up an absolute scheitstorm if anyone else quotes anything that's not peer reviewed) out of a sample of 79 self-selected climate scientists.

    But like the phantom "4,000 scientists" claim this one is trumpeted far and wide.
    Ute-ī sunt fīmī differtī

    It can't all be wedding cake.

  12. #12
    Ragnar Lodbrok Descendant SoCalCoug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Orange County, California
    Posts
    5,203

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Indy Coug View Post
    The overwhelming majority of the 125 points have absolutely nothing to do with anthropogenesis.
    Yeah, many seem to be addressing the argument that there is no global warming at all. Was this just a random factoid you're dropping here, or are you trying to imply something?
    If we disagree on something, it's because you're wrong.

    "Somebody needs to kill my trial attorney." — Last words of George Harris, executed in Missouri on Sept. 13, 2000.

    "Nothing is too good to be true, nothing is too good to last, nothing is too wonderful to happen." - Florence Scoville Shinn

  13. #13
    Heartless Bastard Indy Coug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Living Large inside the 5th Circle
    Posts
    18,799

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SoCalCoug View Post
    Yeah, many seem to be addressing the argument that there is no global warming at all.
    Many who? The real argument is about AGW. If AGW doesn't exist, then mankind is just along for the ride while Mother Nature does WTF it wants.

  14. #14
    Ragnar Lodbrok Descendant SoCalCoug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Orange County, California
    Posts
    5,203

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Indy Coug View Post
    Many who? The real argument is about AGW. If AGW doesn't exist, then mankind is just along for the ride while Mother Nature does WTF it wants.
    Many of the 125 points. Keep up. Many other (of the 125 points) are addressing details relating to the "AGW" debate.

    I would agree with your last sentence. Very astute.
    If we disagree on something, it's because you're wrong.

    "Somebody needs to kill my trial attorney." — Last words of George Harris, executed in Missouri on Sept. 13, 2000.

    "Nothing is too good to be true, nothing is too good to last, nothing is too wonderful to happen." - Florence Scoville Shinn

  15. #15
    Ragnar Lodbrok Descendant SoCalCoug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Orange County, California
    Posts
    5,203

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oxcoug View Post
    PAC that 97% claim that they have as #3 is extremely dubious - it comes from a non peer reviewed article (but watch them stir up an absolute scheitstorm if anyone else quotes anything that's not peer reviewed) out of a sample of 79 self-selected climate scientists.

    But like the phantom "4,000 scientists" claim this one is trumpeted far and wide.
    When you click on the link and click the "Intermediate" tab, it refers to a survey of 3,146 earth scientists (not 79 self-selected climate scientists - I'm not sure where you got that from).

    Also, on a survey, rather than an actual study, do you really need the peer review - it seems it's a different sort of thing to me (assuming you're correct it was not in a peer-reviewed journal - I can't confirm or deny that).

    Is there any other survey you know of that casts doubt on the claim?
    If we disagree on something, it's because you're wrong.

    "Somebody needs to kill my trial attorney." — Last words of George Harris, executed in Missouri on Sept. 13, 2000.

    "Nothing is too good to be true, nothing is too good to last, nothing is too wonderful to happen." - Florence Scoville Shinn

  16. #16
    Heartless Bastard Indy Coug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Living Large inside the 5th Circle
    Posts
    18,799

    Default

    http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news...te-change?lite

    He previously painted some of the direst visions of the effects of climate change. In 2006, in an article in the U.K.’s Independent newspaper, he wrote that “before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.”

    However, the professor admitted in a telephone interview with msnbc.com that he now thinks he had been “extrapolating too far."
    Good ol' extrapolation.
    Everything in life is an approximation.

    http://twitter.com/CougarStats

  17. #17
    Heartless Bastard Indy Coug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Living Large inside the 5th Circle
    Posts
    18,799
    Everything in life is an approximation.

    http://twitter.com/CougarStats

  18. #18
    Rabblerouser statman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Lehi
    Posts
    2,798

    Default

    This whole mess is what happens when you have models driving theory, and not vice versa.

    Yes, there is a strong theoretical background for CO2 as a greenhouse gas - in a lab. Given a restricted timeline, it was easy to show that from the 1940s to the 1970s, there was a very strong correlation between CO2 and temperature. Looking at a broader time horizon, and the correlation is much more tenuous. So "scientific consensus" decided not to use a broader time horizon when the models were built. The theoretical underpinnings as CO2 as a (laboratory) greenhouse gas, and the strong correlation in the reduced dataset guaranteed CO2 as the primary driver of the models - and that role as primary driver wasn't changed, even as data from the early 90's showed that it might not be right - atmospheric CO2 was growing really fast, but global temps, while still increasing, were being significantly outpaced by CO2. The correlation was getting weaker over time, indicating that they didn't understand the relationship as well as they thought they did. And then, by the late 90s, temperatures stopped increasing. They hid this fact for several years, by adding 'correction factors' to the original data, and reducing the number of reporting stations to a smaller number of increasingly handpicked sites. Then it got to the point where NASA was recording the most accurate global temperatures, and when THEY had to use correction factors, the rat had been smelled. The whole Climate Gate fiasco of a couple years ago verified what a lot of people had been questioning - emails that showed the roles of "scientists" in creating misinformation, submarining research, stacking policy and academic review boards, etc. And then there was my personal favorite "we lost the original uncorrected data. All of it. and nope - no backups, so don't even bother asking."

    Now we're to the point that even with handpicked temperature data and all other manipulations, even the keepers of the flame have to admit what the "deniers" have been saying for 15 years - the impact of atmospheric CO2 on temperature is nowhere near as strong as the models suggest. Co2 likely has a slight moderating effect on temperature, but it certainly doesn't belong in place #1 in the predictive models. It probably belongs at about place #10, explaining a tiny fraction of the annual variance in global temperature. What's funny is by forcing CO2 to be the big explainer of variance in the initial models, it all-but-eliminated the impact of the biggest greenhouse gas on the planet (by far) water, in the form of clouds and water vapor. But atmospheric water can hardly be taxed or otherwise regulated, so why would you want something as unsexy and as uninteresting as H20 as a headliner in the Greenhouse Gas Wars. CO2 has a much nicer ring to it - and a much bigger price tag. Which is of course why it's inability to accurately predict global temperatures for the last 16 years has been completely ignored. $$$.

  19. #19
    The dude abides Jeff Lebowski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The heart of the UC
    Posts
    49,244

    Default

    Hogwash.
    "There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
    "It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
    "Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster

  20. #20
    Rabblerouser statman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Lehi
    Posts
    2,798

    Default

    My argument is the one that we deniers have been making for over a decade. And the data fits our arguments, and not the infallible models. Being wrong for 16 years in a row SHOULD turn people to question their assumptions. Atmospheric CO2 has increased every year for the last 16, while global temperature has not increased significantly in a single one of those years. The CO2-temperature relationship as assumed by the scientists is broken. The models are now running outside of the lower confidence intervals of the predictions used to already inflict hundreds of billions of dollars in costs to Western taxpayers. Who are the REAL deniers? Those most likely to benefit from inflicting a couple trillion more in damage to economies that can't afford it.

    So besides saying what I wrote was "hogwash" what explanation do you have for the inability of the models to predict global temperature? The data is on the deniers side.

  21. #21

    Default

    I don't buy into the whole Global Warming thing. But what concerns me is all the air pollution. I'm just glad Geneva Steel finally went away.

  22. #22
    The dude abides Jeff Lebowski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The heart of the UC
    Posts
    49,244

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by statman View Post
    My argument is the one that we deniers have been making for over a decade. And the data fits our arguments, and not the infallible models. Being wrong for 16 years in a row SHOULD turn people to question their assumptions. Atmospheric CO2 has increased every year for the last 16, while global temperature has not increased significantly in a single one of those years. The CO2-temperature relationship as assumed by the scientists is broken. The models are now running outside of the lower confidence intervals of the predictions used to already inflict hundreds of billions of dollars in costs to Western taxpayers. Who are the REAL deniers? Those most likely to benefit from inflicting a couple trillion more in damage to economies that can't afford it.

    So besides saying what I wrote was "hogwash" what explanation do you have for the inability of the models to predict global temperature? The data is on the deniers side.
    The Daily Mail = Fox New of the UK. That article is a classic example of cherry picking by an author with an axe to grind. The graph is incredibly deceptive. There are several ways to compute average earth temperature as described here:

    https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/wh...emperature-now

    Check out the graphs in the various links. We are still in a warming trend.

    It is pretty simple mathematically to show that without a baseline of CO2, the earth would be a deep freeze. It absolutely has an effect on the earth's temperature. And just in my lifetime, CO2 has gone from 315 to 390. In my LIFETIME.

    In the second paragraph of your earlier post, you imply that all of the world's scientists are complicit in a global conspiracy to falsify data and waste money. Bullshit. That is about as likely as Bigfoot being the mastermind behind a 9-11 conspiracy.
    "There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
    "It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
    "Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster

  23. #23
    Princeps Inter Pares
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    11,510

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski View Post
    It absolutely has an effect on the earth's temperature. And just in my lifetime, CO2 has gone from 315 to 390. In my LIFETIME. .
    τὸν ἥλιον ἀνατέλλοντα πλείονες ἢ δυόμενον προσκυνοῦσιν

  24. #24
    Huge Member BigPiney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    6,054

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by All-American View Post


    that is so awesome

  25. #25
    The dude abides Jeff Lebowski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The heart of the UC
    Posts
    49,244

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigPiney View Post


    that is so awesome
    Yes it is.
    "There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
    "It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
    "Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster

  26. #26
    𐐐𐐄𐐢𐐆𐐤𐐝 𐐓𐐅 𐐜 𐐢𐐃𐐡𐐔 Uncle Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Where ∑ ★ = 1
    Posts
    20,808

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski View Post
    The Daily Mail = Fox New of the UK.
    I guess that makes it better than the MSNBC of the UK...




    http://www.businessinsider.com/msnbc...esearch-2013-3
    "If there is one thing I am, it's always right." -Ted Nugent.
    "I honestly believe saying someone is a smart lawyer is damning with faint praise. The smartest people become engineers and scientists." -SU.
    "Yet I still see wisdom in that which Uncle Ted posts." -creek.
    GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

  27. #27
    Senior Member il Padrino Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Murray, Utah
    Posts
    19,204

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski View Post
    The Daily Mail = Fox New of the UK. That article is a classic example of cherry picking by an author with an axe to grind. The graph is incredibly deceptive. There are several ways to compute average earth temperature as described here:

    https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/wh...emperature-now

    Check out the graphs in the various links. We are still in a warming trend.

    It is pretty simple mathematically to show that without a baseline of CO2, the earth would be a deep freeze. It absolutely has an effect on the earth's temperature. And just in my lifetime, CO2 has gone from 315 to 390. In my LIFETIME.

    In the second paragraph of your earlier post, you imply that all of the world's scientists are complicit in a global conspiracy to falsify data and waste money. Bullshit. That is about as likely as Bigfoot being the mastermind behind a 9-11 conspiracy.
    Please explain how the earth came out of the ice age. It seems that that was a much more dramatic rise in temperature than what is alleged is happening now.
    "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy; its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill


    "I only know what I hear on the news." - Dear Leader

  28. #28
    Resident Science Cop woot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    5,538

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute View Post
    Please explain how the earth came out of the ice age. It seems that that was a much more dramatic rise in temperature than what is alleged is happening now.
    I'm not really interested in debating global warming, but if you are actually asking, the climate varies cyclically according to a number of factors. These factors comprise what are called "Milankovitch cycles"

    The science most certainly doesn't say that the climate doesn't change dramatically. During the Miocene (the period from about 23-5 million years ago), for instance, the world got a lot colder and a lot drier, causing the forests to recede and leading to the evolution of tropical grasses. This is a pretty big event in my field, as is the last ice age when neanderthals were still around.

    The thing that's weird about the current warming trend is that it seems to be occurring when it shouldn't be, and is doing so more rapidly than it should even if we were supposed to be in a warming period. That's as far as I'll go on that, but regardless of which side of the debate you're on, the issue is not that anybody thinks the climate isn't supposed to ever change.

  29. #29
    Senior Member il Padrino Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Murray, Utah
    Posts
    19,204

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woot View Post
    I'm not really interested in debating global warming, but if you are actually asking, the climate varies cyclically according to a number of factors. These factors comprise what are called "Milankovitch cycles"

    The science most certainly doesn't say that the climate doesn't change dramatically. During the Miocene (the period from about 23-5 million years ago), for instance, the world got a lot colder and a lot drier, causing the forests to recede and leading to the evolution of tropical grasses. This is a pretty big event in my field, as is the last ice age when neanderthals were still around.

    The thing that's weird about the current warming trend is that it seems to be occurring when it shouldn't be, and is doing so more rapidly than it should even if we were supposed to be in a warming period. That's as far as I'll go on that, but regardless of which side of the debate you're on, the issue is not that anybody thinks the climate isn't supposed to ever change.
    My point is that the earth does what it wants to do regardless if man exists or not. That's all I'm saying.

    And to be clear, I never said that the climate doesn't change dramatically. I said that it seemed that the earth got a lot warmer to get out of the Ice Age than whatever change is happening now.
    Last edited by il Padrino Ute; 03-19-2013 at 07:36 PM.
    "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy; its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill


    "I only know what I hear on the news." - Dear Leader

  30. #30
    Princeps Inter Pares
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    11,510

    Default

    I am able to report that the Chicagoland area has opted out of global warming. Brr.
    τὸν ἥλιον ἀνατέλλοντα πλείονες ἢ δυόμενον προσκυνοῦσιν

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •