Global Warming: "Pseudoscientific Fraud"

[Jeff Lebowski]

http://www.latimes.com/science/la-sc...923-story.html

"Naturally occurring changes in winds, not human-caused climate change, are responsible for most of the warming on land and in the sea along the West Coast of North America over the last century, a study has found."

Hacks

You (like some of our other CS illuminati) are misreading the article. It is talking about a specific phenomenon related to regional fluctuations. From the last paragraph of the article (my emphasis):

"There is no doubt that regionally, the changes in temperature are dominated by changes in the atmospheric circulation that likely have little or nothing to do with climate change," Trenberth said. But, he added, "this does not call into question the concept of global warming."

[byu71]

You (like some of our other CS illuminati) are misreading the article. It is talking about a specific phenomenon related to regional fluctuations. From the last paragraph of the article (my emphasis):

How would you define Global Warming. so that some of us can have a measure and look and say, yes there is global warming that is abnormal from temperature changes that have occured through millions of years.

Is there a world temperature taken every day that is the average of everywhere?

Do you need 20, 30, 40 straight years of the average going up or just 9 out of 10, 8 out of 10, 7 out of 10?

At least then we could discuss the relevance of the standard or definition.

[Jeff Lebowski]

How would you define Global Warming. so that some of us can have a measure and look and say, yes there is global warming that is abnormal from temperature changes that have occured through millions of years.

Is there a world temperature taken every day that is the average of everywhere?

Do you need 20, 30, 40 straight years of the average going up or just 9 out of 10, 8 out of 10, 7 out of 10?

At least then we could discuss the relevance of the standard or definition.

That is such a broad, open-ended question that I am just going to refer you to google and let you research it yourself.

[Shaka]

You (like some of our other CS illuminati) are misreading the article. It is talking about a specific phenomenon related to regional fluctuations. From the last paragraph of the article (my emphasis):

I'm fully capable or reading and understanding Trenberth's quote. Interestingly I think Al Gore would say the same thing.

I posted to keep the debate balanced.

[creekster]

That is such a broad, open-ended question that I am just going to refer you to google and let you research it yourself.

It may not call the 'concept' of global warming into question, but it does implicitly call into question attribution of these fluctuations to that specific cause and also highlights the difficulty of crafting policy solutions to address the concept in a reasonable manner.

[byu71]

That is such a broad, open-ended question that I am just going to refer you to google and let you research it yourself.

Yes it is and that is why the subject is so broad and open ended that the definition could be about anything you want it to be.

It is like, prove God exists, no you prove he doesn't. Both are a choice and not a definitive known fact.

[Jeff Lebowski]

It may not call the 'concept' of global warming into question, but it does implicitly call into question attribution of these fluctuations to that specific cause and also highlights the difficulty of crafting policy solutions to address the concept in a reasonable manner.

Straw man. Good scientists do not look at every small scale or regional fluctuation and attribute it to AGW. There are lots of reasons the policy solutions are difficult. This should not be one of them.

[creekster]

Straw man. Good scientists do not look at every small scale or regional fluctuation and attribute it to AGW. There are lots of reasons the policy solutions are difficult. This should not be one of them.

That's very conclusory and not very helpful. I don't know enough about this nor have enough time to try to get you to explain, but it seems to me that the distinction between local fluctuation and global climate change is potentially very significant. Of course, this cuts both ways as the article doesn't really explain (based on my quick perusal) what is the source of the change in the wind either.

[Jeff Lebowski]

That's very conclusory and not very helpful. I don't know enough about this nor have enough time to try to get you to explain, but it seems to me that the distinction between local fluctuation and global climate change is potentially very significant. Of course, this cuts both ways as the article doesn't really explain (based on my quick perusal) what is the source of the change in the wind either.

The issue of local (both in terms of time and space) fluctuations explained here:

http://www.cougarstadium.com/showthread.php?32585-Global-Warming-quot-Pseudoscientific-Fraud-quot&p=1097980#post1097980

and here (see item 2):

http://billmoyers.com/2014/05/16/eight-pseudo-scientific-climate-claims-debunked-by-real-scientists/

[Jeff Lebowski]

Yes it is and that is why the subject is so broad and open ended that the definition could be about anything you want it to be.

It is like, prove God exists, no you prove he doesn't. Both are a choice and not a definitive known fact.

This issue is absolutely nothing like proving God exists or not. Global warming is a scientific issue that can be repeatedly tested and validated using hard data.

[byu71]

This issue is absolutely nothing like proving God exists or not. Global warming is a scientific issue that can be repeatedly tested and validated using hard data.

It can if you can define it. However if the definition is an ever changing event or circumstance, the testing and validation is what you are proving. You come to the conclusion, then define what you are testing.

So yes it is like proving God's existence or not. An answer to a prayer is proof he exists. An non answer to a prayer is also proof he exists because God didn't want you to know.

Temperatures go up is proof of global warming, temperatures go down is proof of global warming now known as climate change. Hurricanes increase proof of global warming, the predicated increase doesn't come and that is also proof of global warming, climate change or whatever you choose to call it next year.

Bottom line man is screwing up, right?

[Jeff Lebowski]

It can if you can define it. However if the definition is an ever changing event or circumstance, the testing and validation is what you are proving. You come to the conclusion, then define what you are testing.

So yes it is like proving God's existence or not. An answer to a prayer is proof he exists. An non answer to a prayer is also proof he exists because God didn't want you to know.

Temperatures go up is proof of global warming, temperatures go down is proof of global warming now known as climate change. Hurricanes increase proof of global warming, the predicated increase doesn't come and that is also proof of global warming, climate change or whatever you choose to call it next year.

Bottom line man is screwing up, right?

You have mangled both the religious and scientific questions. And then declared victory. Congrats!

[byu71]

You have mangled both the religious and scientific questions. And then declared victory. Congrats!

Wahooo. A congrats from you is quite an accomplishment for me. Thanks.

[PaloAltoCougar]

It's been mentioned before (and probably criticized by some), but I like the Skeptical Science website because of its detail and clear explanations. My biggest doubts or concerns relating to global warming are (i) whether even the most ambitious, but still realistic, steps we can take to counter the trend will truly make a significant difference, and (ii) whether a lot of the resources being spent to counter the trend might not be better used in developing adaptive technologies.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

The biggest jerk in this circle jerk, RFK, Jr. says that deniers should be jailed.

This is not the first time this has been espoused. So when faced with either crushing the deniers with what is irrefutable evidence or threatening the forcible taking of liberty and property by the government for having the wrong opinion, for some reason they choose the latter.