@TMTisFree

Quote:

It comes from no surprise you are amazed that some scientists disagree with other scientists

It comes from no suprise you misconstrued a statement and used it to build a fallacious arguement. That of the ad hominem.


Quote:

The study by Oreskes is such a piece of flawed analysis that it is more a political statement than a scientific essay.

Your statement is true that this more a political statement then scientific essay. (But, she does use math which is, as you've defined, scientific so certainly in some aspects it is scientific.) None-the-less no one here took the position it was scientific, well besides you in the sentence. You then argued against the position. A good demonstration of the strawman fallacy. Then you follow up the fallacy with another one, ad hominem.

@Plaz

Quote:

And those samples were captured and preserved in a pristine state over the past 2.1 million years without influence from the rest of the ever changing atmosphere just waiting for today's scientist to crack open the seals and reveal the true findings. These type of studies seem to always speak as if some one was there, witnessed and recorded the event instead of being honest and saying "this is our best theory so far."

You are right, this problem exists with all proxies: they are indirect (past) data that have to be confirmed with other independent proxy(ies) before relying on them seriously.

Quote:

Personally I beleive the Sun is larger factor than any thing. Sure man is mucking things up with polution and bad resoure management and that needs to be handled. But hit the off switch on the Sun and see how fast the debate over the influence of the Sun on the climate change dies as this place turns into a cold dead rock. And just as equally turn up it's brightness by a constant 3% over decades and see how fast those little planktons (and a lot of other things) fizzle.

Interestingly, diurnal mean temperature on Moon (same distance from Sun as Earth) is above 100°C (up to 120°C) while night mean temperature is below -200°C (down to 230°C): it is easy to understand the damper/buffer role of the atmosphere on Earth.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@Tomas

Here is another one:


Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@BrianK

I suggest you get a good Latin dictionary and search for the definition of ad hominem: your very first sentence ("Especially the criticisms page. It's amazing to see denialists, such as Roy Spencer, standing up against this postulate as bunk.") is a typical one. My comment on your 'amazement' was to underline this fact. It is probably easier for you than discussing the scientific arguments.

Quote:

no one here took the position it was scientific

The author (you link to) herself disagrees.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

it is easy to understand the damper/buffer role of the atmosphere on Earth.

I'm sure we agree that we are seeing the atmosphere in action, aka Greenhouse Effect.

Quote:

("Especially the criticisms page. It's amazing to see denialists, such as Roy Spencer, standing up against this postulate as bunk.") is a typical one

If Roy Spencer's work does not deny the AGW then please show us how he supports AGW. If you can do this then certainly I'll admit to mine. Now can you admit to your own fallacies here?

Quote:

The author (you link to) herself disagrees.

That might be. But you didn't demonstrate she believes her work to be scientific? It might help in your post if you used 'she' instead of 'one' as the pronoun. 'One' describes some uncertain person or group. A bit confusing. But, if I recall you're German right? English isn't your native tongue?

@Thomas,

It was noted previously in the threads that Scotose, and is the case with Berner, doesn't have anything other than a gross resolution. So while we see CO2 dropping and spiking prior to temperature several times I think we have to dig deeper in the data. What these graphs do demonstrate is the planet has multiple inputs to temperature. The system appears to be varied over the life of the planet. CO2 relationship is definitely not easily related without understanding these other factors. GW, says CO2 is the present predominate condition. This doesn't mean this always was the case. There's been work demonstrating other factors, tilt of the planet towards the sun, have for periods of time been the leading effect. But, those items presently aren't the leading condition.

Last edited by BrianK on 27-Jun-2009 at 12:17 AM.

@TMTisFree

Quote:

Interestingly, diurnal mean temperature on Moon (same distance from Sun as Earth) is above 100°C (up to 120°C) while night mean temperature is below -200°C (down to 230°C): it is easy to understand the damper/buffer role of the atmosphere on Earth.

True enough. We live in an ocean that exist in a blessed narrow ballance of diverse compounds and life. A wonder it exists at all. But the atmosphere is but a play thing dancing at the whim of the solar breeze.

There are no long term meaningful measurements of this monster which I see as the largest variable in the global equation. It's a mistake to treat it instead as a constant. One belch from or malevolent benifactor and we're no different than the moon no matter what the amount of CO2 currently in your pockets.

Plaz

Last edited by Plaz on 27-Jun-2009 at 12:25 AM.
Last edited by Plaz on 27-Jun-2009 at 12:23 AM.

@TMTisFree

The politicians approach to our non-problems:"tax the shirt right off your back".

@Tomas

Quote:

Tomas wrote: @Dandy You are wrong.

No, I'm not.
If at all, the report I quoted is wrong - not me.
I just wanted to hear your opinions on that.

Quote:

Tomas wrote: The co2 has varied between 250ppm-thousands of ppm many times and this will most likely happen again. The reason why co2 is currently low is because we are in a interglacial period in middle of deep ice age. Last 2 million years mean nothing anyways. The current ice age started a few million years ago anyways. ...

I think that's exactly why they wrote:

"...The authors show that peak CO2 levels over the last 2.1 million years averaged only 280 parts per million; but today, CO2 is at 385 parts per million, or 38% higher. This finding means that researchers will need to look back further in time for an analog to modern day climate change. ..."

Last edited by Dandy on 30-Jun-2009 at 05:59 AM.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@BigC

Quote:

The politicians approach to our non-problems:"tax the shirt right off your back".

And they will supress anything that may stop them from getting those taxes.

_________________
Dammy

@BrianK

Quote:

'm sure we agree that we are seeing the atmosphere in action, aka Greenhouse Effect.

No. I agree there exists an atmospheric effect as a process at work in the atmosphere and think its importance has been grossly exaggerated (as the main assumption of climate models for example).

Quote:

If Roy Spencer's work does not deny the AGW then please show us how he supports AGW. If you can do this then certainly I'll admit to mine. Now can you admit to your own fallacies here?

You are playing low level alone here.

Quote:

That might be. But you didn't demonstrate she believes her work to be scientific?

Well I don't need to: she has a scientific background, works as a scientist, publishes what she believes be scientific papers in scientific journals: common sense suggests her work should be scientific. That she published a letter in Nature about which my opinion is that it is more a political statement than a scientific paper does not imply she has to believe herself her work to be not scientific. So I don't know where you want to go (a wall probably, head first).

Quote:

'One' describes some uncertain person or group.

What I intended to say, exactly. Put it in the context and perhaps you will get the meaning.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@BigC

Quote:

The politicians approach to our non-problems:"tax the shirt right off your back".

I don't know where you live, but here the carbon tax is for 2011. Petrol is already taxed up to 70%, so we are used to pay. Poor people will be impacted first by this scam.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@Plaz

Quote:

There are no long term meaningful measurements of this monster which I see as the largest variable in the global equation. It's a mistake to treat it instead as a constant. One belch from or malevolent benifactor and we're no different than the moon no matter what the amount of CO2 currently in your pockets.

I see the atmosphere as a rapid (day-year) response system to external (Sun, cosmic rays) and internal factors (called forcings in climate research) while oceans work as long term buffer (year-decade): they exhibit a more delayed response but imprint on the whole system their constrains as the main sink of heat on Earth (driven by Sun which is a variable star). Land is at the interface of the two others and responds to their variations accordingly. The whole system appears negatively regulated via the H²O cycle (clouds production), the main gas in the atmosphere (excluding the homodimeric gasses N²/O²). CO² is an ε player at its current level. Here we have a saying: if you want to kill the dog, pretend the dog has rabies.

Edit: just in time, there is a very interesting new review on solar irradiance variation entitled "Global dimming and brightening: A review" and available here (Wild, M. (2009) J. Geophys. Res., 114). From WUWT.

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 27-Jun-2009 at 11:02 PM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@damocles

Quote:

And they will supress anything that may stop them from getting those taxes.

Not a surprise when you know that EPA is not able to follow its own elaborated quality guidelines.

The climate science has been taken over by traffic lighters: greens ideologists who are yellow enough to be red.

Edit: typos

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 27-Jun-2009 at 09:46 PM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

I agree there exists an atmospheric effect as a process at work in the atmosphere and think its importance has been grossly exaggerated

As I can read this it's not a disagreement on the planet's Greenhouse. It's a disagreement to the degree which Greenhouse plays in the conditions of the planet.

Quote:

Well I don't need to: she has a scientific background, works as a scientist, publishes what she believes be scientific papers in scientific journals: common sense suggests her work should be scientific.

Does Oreskes work as a scientist? It depends on what one means by science. Her field is the history of science, a humanities role not a scientific role. Oreskes works at understanding science itself and its role in society. If one visits her Wikipedia page you'll find awards not in science but humanities and philosophy. Where does she work? 6th College in California whose charter is to explore the history and philosophical connections of culture, art, and technology. She's definitely not a hard scientist, such as Climatologist, that would work to understand the underpinnings of climate change. If one wants to claim humanities is a soft science. Sure then she's a scientist and her paper falls in her realm of science, humanitites.

Here is the the paper:LINK While in a scientific mag it's under Essays not under Reports. Reports are where things such as scientific papers exist. Here's the expanded and updated paper : LINK

Peisner was one leading critique of Oreskes. He's now withdrawn his paper. Peisner writes :Only [a] few abstracts explicitly reject or doubt the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) consensus which is why I have publicly withdrawn this point of my critique. [snip] I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact."

Last edited by BrianK on 27-Jun-2009 at 10:30 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

Does Oreskes work as a scientist?

You respond yourself: she is a scientist (that her field is soft or hard or does not fit in your flawed definition of Science is irrelevant).

Quote:

Peisner was one leading critique of Oreskes. He's now withdrawn his paper...

Incorrect, unfair, invented and cherry-picking of incomplete quotes (funnily found all over the alarmist sites btw). Here is the complete EMail from B. Peisner to Sarah Curnow from ABC, which meaning does not support the one you have attempted to attribute to him by your partial and cherry-picked quote. In particular:
1/ nowhere is found the quote "Only [a] few abstracts explicitly reject or doubt the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) consensus which is why I have publicly withdrawn this point of my critique" in the EMail (or in his website) despite what claims the MediaWatch article. So with no link to confirm proper attribution, this quote is mere invention ;
2/ the methodology used by Oreskes was not known at the time Peisner tried to replicate her work (hence Peisner's claim "I only found out after Oreskes confirmed that she had used a different search strategy [...]. Which is why I no longer maintain this particular criticism." ;
3/ he also adds: Quote:

Please note that the whole ISI data set includes just 13 abstracts (less than 2%) that *explicitly* endorse what [Oreskes] has called the 'consensus view.' The vast majority of abstracts do not deal with or mention anthropogenic global warming whatsoever. I also maintain that she ignored a few abstracts that explicitly reject what she calls the consensus view. You can check for yourself at http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Oreskes-abstracts.htm

4/ the complete quote after the 'snip' is: Quote:

I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact. However, this majority consensus is far from unanimous. Despite all claims to the contrary, there is a small community of sceptical researchers that remains extremely active. Hardly a week goes by without a new research paper that questions part or even some basics of climate change theory. [...] Undoubtedly, sceptical scientists are a small minority. But as long as the possible impacts of global warming remain uncertain, the public is justified to keep an open mind. How decision-makers deal with these scientific uncertainties is another matter. But it is vital for the health and integrity of science that critical evaluation and scepticism are not scorned or curbed for political reasons.

A little bit different now with the whole picture. Ironically, his last sentence depicts what you tried to achieve with you partial quoting. Rough and incomplete cut&pasting from misinformed alarmist website (I select this bad one at random) is a superficial and incorrect behaviour that just reveals support of a political agenda instead of quest of truth.

Your whole little drama refuted in 7 minutes.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

You respond yourself: she is a scientist

Great. And well her paper fits her area of science and is scientific.

Quote:

Incorrect, unfair, invented ..

Even if your claims are true it doesn't change the truism that Peisner recinded his paper.

(1) the site claims they were told the quote and within the quote itself the email is referenced. Definitely a problem here. The question that needs to be figured out is the issue due to an incorrect quote or an incorrect citing. You have assumed, not proven, the problem lies with an incorrect quote.

(2/3) I dont see being worth discussing at this point the paper is recinded.

(4) Whole clip is nice. It increased the point of AGW is the present day consensus. Peiser reaffirms that AGW is the current consensus within science. He reaffirms that a consensus is not a unanimous stance. He reiterates that the denilism of AGW is "a small minority" of scientific work. And of course restates something I've stated many a time. Even though this consensus exists scientists are still working towards a better understanding and should continue their work.

@TMTisFree

]Quote:

"Global dimming and brightening: A review" and available here (Wild, M. (2009) J. Geophys. Res., 114). From WUWT.

Nice, thanks for the link. 30 pages, whew. You excuse me if I take a couple of days to digest it.

In just the first few pages though I already appreciate it's honesty....

Quote:

However, the quality of the measurements, performed predominantly under the auspices of the National Weather Services, is highly variable and not always well established. Consequently, in the late 1980s the necessity for a reference network of surface radiation measurements with improved and defined accuracy has been recognized. As a result, the Baseline Surface Radiation Network (BSRN) has been established [Ohmura et al., 1998]. First BSRN sites, equipped with instruments of highest possible accuracy, became operational in the early 1990s.

Plaz

@Plaz

I am digging through the new Wild M article. As I read this it seems to me the work is semi-related to that done in http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2008/Lean_Rind.html

That may be of intrest to you too.

@BrianK

Quote:

Great. And well her paper fits her area of science and is scientific.

In her view probably. In my opinion, no. That why her whole thesis was so easily refuted with a simple ISI search (and also later by Dr Shultze).

Quote:

Even if your claims are true it doesn't change the truism that Peisner recinded his paper.

I am not sure what you mean by 'recinded'. The Email I link to makes it clear that Peisner did not withdrawn his work at all contrary to what claims your unconfirmed quote. As for your (1), I took the time to show you the quote you provided has its first part not referenced in the EMail. You were the one providing it, so it is your responsibility to demonstrate the quote was from Peisner, not mine. My 2/ seems to be the original claim by Peisner and which meaning is completely different of the meaning you have attempted to attribute. My 3/ underlines the fact that Peisner showed that the 'consensus' claim by Oreskes is not supported by a simple search in the ISI database.

Quote:

Even though this consensus exists scientists are still working towards a better understanding and should continue their work.

Marvellous, but why then slander them and other people with negative words like 'deniers', 'contrarians', 'skeptics' if this is the normal curse of Science? Isn't it you who shouted repeatedly ad hominem or is it once again double standard? What fallacy will you intent this time to escape the cruel face of the reality (non-existence of 'consensus' because in the normal state of Science there can not exists such political definition) (straw man?)?

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".