Science Has Spoken On MMGW, And It Says To Hide The Data

[RJLeeb]

anyone else notice hb727 is back after 6 months of silence?

I did.  Welcome back HB727!

/party

[Silk_Hope]

Welcome back HB727,how is life in the air?

[cccoach]

hmmmm.... funny you arguing but never mind. The word "largely" that I used was directly from the University of Illinois study, not from the 2nd hand press-release you referenced. Regardless the sentiment would be the same in either case.  While I appreciate your chart it has two problems. The first is that it is directly from Joanne Nova's blog. Joanne Nova is not, nor never has been a scientist. She is a television host and public speaker. She is entertaining but what she does is not science, it is entertainment. Second the thesis that your presenting has some gaping flaws, You are correct in that causation and correlation are different, the problem is that current evidence suggests that there is causation. Your graph shows an interesting problem, the issue with global warming and C02 emmissions is that increases in C02 increase global temperature which increase C02 levels and on and on.... Your graph while interesting neither supports nor negates global climate change. Another interesting point about the graph is the metrics. Whoever created this graph knowingly exaggerated the scale to make between C02 and temperature more pronounced. For example, another graph showing exactly the same data looks completely different and suggest that C02 emissions and climate change are related. If fairness, opponents are the only one that do this and tends to be a slightly misleading common practice.



Also, in some ways I agree with your point. I agree that science is not a democracy and there will never be 100% agreement but the preponderance of scientists believe that it is real and accelerated my human decisions. I'm not sure who you suggest is saying "irrefutable" but I certainly haven't heard that in the scientific community.I don't think we should base economic policy entirely on climate change. I'm not a fatalist but I do believe that we need to make decisions as a society. I also believe that a smarter energy policy is an important aspect of national defense. Possible the most important. We certainly could drill Anwar, flatten every mountain in West Virginia and drain every drop of coastal oil but eventually we are going to end up in the same place, dependent on high volumes of fossil fuels with no where to go but overseas.

Finally,

Provable - fine in the English language, be not in science, because there can be no control group there can be no proof. Even if there was a control group it is not proof.

Is this akin to asking if 100% of the jurors found OJ Simpson not guilty of murder would you argue that he was guilty?

Absolutely. In a criminal court of law OJ Simpson was not guilty. That doesn't mean he didn't do it, it simply meant that there was not conclusive proof. Thankfully science and the law function in very different ways. Law demands a final decision where science demands constant investigation.

[hb727]

hmmmm.... funny you arguing but never mind. The word "largely" that I used was directly from the University of Illinois study, not from the 2nd hand press-release you referenced. Regardless the sentiment would be the same in either case.  While I appreciate your chart it has two problems. The first is that it is directly from Joanne Nova's blog. Joanne Nova is not, nor never has been a scientist. She is a television host and public speaker. She is entertaining but what she does is not science, it is entertainment. Second the thesis that your presenting has some gaping flaws, You are correct in that causation and correlation are different, the problem is that current evidence suggests that there is causation. Your graph shows an interesting problem, the issue with global warming and C02 emmissions is that increases in C02 increase global temperature which increase C02 levels and on and on.... Your graph while interesting neither supports nor negates global climate change. Another interesting point about the graph is the metrics. Whoever created this graph knowingly exaggerated the scale to make between C02 and temperature more pronounced. For example, another graph showing exactly the same data looks completely different and suggest that C02 emissions and climate change are related. If fairness, opponents are the only one that do this and tends to be a slightly misleading common practice.



Also, in some ways I agree with your point. I agree that science is not a democracy and there will never be 100% agreement but the preponderance of scientists believe that it is real and accelerated my human decisions. I'm not sure who you suggest is saying "irrefutable" but I certainly haven't heard that in the scientific community.I don't think we should base economic policy entirely on climate change. I'm not a fatalist but I do believe that we need to make decisions as a society. I also believe that a smarter energy policy is an important aspect of national defense. Possible the most important. We certainly could drill Anwar, flatten every mountain in West Virginia and drain every drop of coastal oil but eventually we are going to end up in the same place, dependent on high volumes of fossil fuels with no where to go but overseas.

Finally,

Provable - fine in the English language, be not in science, because there can be no control group there can be no proof. Even if there was a control group it is not proof.

Is this akin to asking if 100% of the jurors found OJ Simpson not guilty of murder would you argue that he was guilty?

Absolutely. In a criminal court of law OJ Simpson was not guilty. That doesn't mean he didn't do it, it simply meant that there was not conclusive proof. Thankfully science and the law function in very different ways. Law demands a final decision where science demands constant investigation.

CCoach,

If this is the survey that you're referring to with the 97% of climatologists agreeing that human activity is a significant contributing factor to global warming is there any criteria on how the 3,146 were selected from the 10,200 experts who were contacted. It also states that only those invited could participate. Do you know if there is any criteria in the survey that states how many of 3,146 were climatologists. In other words, I'm trying to ascertain if it is possible that many climatologists might not have been invited (of the 10,200 experts) and what the invitations were based upon. If this is not what you were referring to, then disregard.



A group of 3,146 earth scientists surveyed around the world overwhelmingly agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising, and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.

Peter Doran, University of Illinois at Chicago associate professor of earth and environmental sciences, along with former graduate student Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, conducted the survey late last year.

The findings appear today in the publication Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union.

In trying to overcome criticism of earlier attempts to gauge the view of earth scientists on global warming and the human impact factor, Doran and Kendall Zimmerman sought the opinion of the most complete list of earth scientists they could find, contacting more than 10,200 experts around the world listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments.

Experts in academia and government research centers were e-mailed invitations to participate in the on-line poll conducted by the website questionpro.com. Only those invited could participate and computer IP addresses of participants were recorded and used to prevent repeat voting. Questions used were reviewed by a polling expert who checked for bias in phrasing, such as suggesting an answer by the way a question was worded. The nine-question survey was short, taking just a few minutes to complete.

Hey folks, thanks for the "welcome back". SH, my days in the air are a thing of the past and mostly good memories.

[cccoach]

It's a good question but I believe the answer is in the question. The researchers sent out the invitation to all 10,200 members of American Institute directly, it would be interesting to see which approx. 3,200 responded. I've have the same problem in some research studies, 25% response is often consider excellent response but is frustrating. I would not suggest that study is perfect but even with a 10% margin (a margin generally considered way outside acceptable parameters) it suggest that at least 90% of climatologists believe that climate change is real and caused or accelerated by human action. 

In trying to overcome criticism of earlier attempts to gauge the view of earth scientists on global warming and the human impact factor, Doran and Kendall Zimmerman sought the opinion of the most complete list of earth scientists they could find, contacting more than 10,200 experts around the world listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments.

[wolfpat]

97% of the jury is in and the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence suggest that climate change is real, accelerating and driven by  humans.

The only evidence I've seen supporting this contention are computer simulations with fudged data, that ignore the #1 greenhouse gas.

[RJLeeb]

hmmmm.... funny you arguing but never mind. The word "largely" that I used was directly from the University of Illinois study, not from the 2nd hand press-release you referenced. Regardless the sentiment would be the same in either case.  While I appreciate your chart it has two problems. The first is that it is directly from Joanne Nova's blog. Joanne Nova is not, nor never has been a scientist. She is a television host and public speaker. She is entertaining but what she does is not science, it is entertainment. Second the thesis that your presenting has some gaping flaws, You are correct in that causation and correlation are different, the problem is that current evidence suggests that there is causation. Your graph shows an interesting problem, the issue with global warming and C02 emmissions is that increases in C02 increase global temperature which increase C02 levels and on and on.... Your graph while interesting neither supports nor negates global climate change. Another interesting point about the graph is the metrics. Whoever created this graph knowingly exaggerated the scale to make between C02 and temperature more pronounced. For example, another graph showing exactly the same data looks completely different and suggest that C02 emissions and climate change are related. If fairness, opponents are the only one that do this and tends to be a slightly misleading common practice.



Also, in some ways I agree with your point. I agree that science is not a democracy and there will never be 100% agreement but the preponderance of scientists believe that it is real and accelerated my human decisions. I'm not sure who you suggest is saying "irrefutable" but I certainly haven't heard that in the scientific community.I don't think we should base economic policy entirely on climate change. I'm not a fatalist but I do believe that we need to make decisions as a society. I also believe that a smarter energy policy is an important aspect of national defense. Possible the most important. We certainly could drill Anwar, flatten every mountain in West Virginia and drain every drop of coastal oil but eventually we are going to end up in the same place, dependent on high volumes of fossil fuels with no where to go but overseas.

Finally,

Provable - fine in the English language, be not in science, because there can be no control group there can be no proof. Even if there was a control group it is not proof.

Is this akin to asking if 100% of the jurors found OJ Simpson not guilty of murder would you argue that he was guilty?

Absolutely. In a criminal court of law OJ Simpson was not guilty. That doesn't mean he didn't do it, it simply meant that there was not conclusive proof. Thankfully science and the law function in very different ways. Law demands a final decision where science demands constant investigation.

I suppose I could point you to the sources directly, or the other scientists, but I don't know if it would make much of a difference after you made this comment:

If fairness, opponents are the only one that do this and tends to be a slightly misleading common practice.

That assertion is patently false as evidenced by the recent debunking of the hockey stick graph bandied about by the MMGW crowd.

When it comes to understanding graphs, scale is key.  The graph you show is so large that only the macro trends are shown.  It is when we change the scale for smaller increments of time that we can actually see what came first: temperature or CO2 levels.

As I said before, there's a correlation there, but in order for us to make determinations on whether or not something is causal...it kind of has to come before.

Let me put it to you another way.  If science suggests that a rise in CO2 causes temperature, then the horse pulls the cart.  However, the most recent data actually shows this:


So let me ask you a question.  IF scientists are right, and CO2 levels cause temperature to rise, show me the data that supports it.  In other words, show me which graphs (in increments we can actually see) support that theory.

Also, please look into the hockey stick graph issue I alluded to earlier.
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba478/

Now...outside of that...we agree on something.  You don't believe we should make policy entirely based upon climate change.  That's good to hear.  I'm hoping that means you aren't in favor of things like "cap and trade".

It concerns me that government has taken such an interest in this issue.  The laws they intend to pass seem to be more about control than saving the environment.  It strikes me as a contradiction that some liberals are for cap and trade while also claiming to be on the side of the average worker.  Considering that some countries may resist it and not cooperate (think China and India), we might have a situation where U.S. made products become even more expensive, driving consumers to choose foreign made goods more often.

It seems to me that the last thing we want to do is make U.S. industry less competitive against China or India.

That's the biggest problem I have with the MMGW alarmists.  They often push for policy changes that cause more harm than good.

[hb727]

It's a good question but I believe the answer is in the question. The researchers sent out the invitation to all 10,200 members of American Institute directly, it would be interesting to see which approx. 3,200 responded. I've have the same problem in some research studies, 25% response is often consider excellent response but is frustrating. I would not suggest that study is perfect but even with a 10% margin (a margin generally considered way outside acceptable parameters) it suggest that at least 90% of climatologists believe that climate change is real and caused or accelerated by human action. 

In trying to overcome criticism of earlier attempts to gauge the view of earth scientists on global warming and the human impact factor, Doran and Kendall Zimmerman sought the opinion of the most complete list of earth scientists they could find, contacting more than 10,200 experts around the world listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments.

I don't quite see the answer in the question. I'm interpreting the article as 10,200 experts were "contacted" and then there were 3,146 who were "invited" to participate in the nine question survey. How were the 3,146 selected to receive invitations? Were they selected randomly to be invited? Were they selected based on some review of their work? Could there be a case made that those selected to participate were "cherry picked"? Maybe I'm interpreting the article incorrectly or perhaps there's more information elsewhere that explains the selection process. If all 10,200 were sent invitations and only 3,146 returned the survey, then the article should state that.

[cccoach]

If fairness, opponents are the only one that do this and tends to be a slightly misleading common practice.

You are absolutely correct and is the result of the omission of a "not" between the "are" and "the". my intention was not to suggest that one side or the other is innocent of graph exaggeration but to emphasize that both sides are guilty of it.

When it comes to understanding graphs, scale is key.  The graph you show is so large that only the macro trends are shown.  It is when we change the scale for smaller increments of time that we can actually see what came first: temperature or CO2 levels.

Yes, but you see the irony that your graph does exactly the opposite. It shows minuet detail to try and create the illusion that the effect is much greater than it actually is?  

Also, please look into the hockey stick graph issue I alluded to earlier.

NCPA? Seriosly? I could pull graphs from Greenpeace or Earth Liberation Front but they have same level of bias.

So let me ask you a question.  IF scientists are right, and CO2 levels cause temperature to rise, show me the data that supports it.  In other words, show me which graphs (in increments we can actually see) support that theory.

It's not difficult. Start with NASA's website on global change, it contains the information that the Bush administration fought to suppress for 8 long years.

Now...outside of that...we agree on something.  You don't believe we should make policy entirely based upon climate change.  That's good to hear.  I'm hoping that means you aren't in favor of things like "cap and trade".

It concerns me that government has taken such an interest in this issue.  The laws they intend to pass seem to be more about control than saving the environment.  It strikes me as a contradiction that some liberals are for cap and trade while also claiming to be on the side of the average worker.

It's probably not going to shock you that I have no problem with cap and trade. It is a less than ideal action but it is an action.  Most certainly opposite of you the environment is exactly where I want the government. To counter your point. What should we do? What actions do you propose we take to slow climate change?  I understand that you may think it doesn't exists but at what point do you think we take action? Do we need 100% consensus before we take any action?  Do you simply let the free market regulate everything? We'll have to agree to disagree on whether policies do more harm than good but I'm curious on what you would do? Do you propose we do nothing and hope for the best on the assumption that the minority may be right? If not, what changes would you make?  No sarcasm, just genuinely curious.

[cccoach]

If all 10,200 were sent invitations and only 3,146 returned the survey, then the article should state that.

It does, the article is press release. I never quoted the press release Leeb quoted the press release. I quoted the study which I got directly from Lexis-Nexis, an academic subscription service. I've included a pdf of the abstract that clarifies the "invitations".  There was no cherry-picking all 10,200 were invited and only 3,146 respond. As I stated that's actually a respectable response when 25% is considered an excellent response rate.

[RJLeeb]

Cccoach,

Thanks for the clarification on that comment.

In response to the discussion of scale, one has to look at short intervals in order to see what is going on.  I'm not saying there isn't a correlation.  There clearly is.  What I'm saying is that the cart is before the horse.

Let me rephrase:

In order for CO2 levels to cause temperature to rise, it needs to come first.  Order is the key here more so than scale.  Do you see what I'm getting at here?  The whole thing about scale doesn't change the order in which those things happened.

As far as NCPA is concerned, let's look at the facts shall we?  If you look at the data, it seems to be that the hockey stick graph has been debunked.  The reason for that is because the publishers of that infamous graph threw out the data that didn't uphold their theory.

If you ask me, that's a huge issue.  And there has been much ado about that particular graph and it has been something alarmists have been pointing to ever since it was published.  If you don't like the NCPA that's fine.  They are a non-profit, nonpartisan public policy research organization.  In other words, they are a think tank; a bit like Brookings, Heritage or maybe even realclimate.org. 

That doesn't mean they aren't biased, but it also isn't fair to put them in the same category as Greenpeace or the ELF.  Isn't ELF into environmental terrorism?

As far as sending me on an Easter egg hunt on NASA's website...well, I could have done that myself.  In fact, I already have.  Thousand pardons, but I can't find anything on that site that specifically says that CO2 causes temperature to rise and includes the latest ice core data.  Since you are obviously familiar with the site and find it simple, would you mind helping me out and showing me an article from there that specifically addresses the causal relationship between CO2 and temperature?

In regards to your questions:

I don't agree with the practice of passing legislation just for the sake of "doing something".  There are those on the left that don't agree that cap and trade is a good idea, namely environmental groups.  NPR had a good discussion a few weeks ago about this.

If it adversely affects U.S. industry as I think it would, it isn't a good idea.  I could see us taking a bit of a hit, economically speaking, if times were good.  And if the benefits could be clearly demonstrated...and they're not.  But times aren't good and unemployment is already high.

Proponents of climate change legislation often say that it costs us relatively little to enact such legislation.  In reality, it is more of a tax scheme than anything else and the actual effect on the environment is ambiguous at best.

I'm not asking for 100 percent consensus.  That's not all that meaningful, as we've already discussed.

My contention is that there are things that are more harmful to the environment that climate change.  The sheer amount of plastic, foam and other materials we're filling our landfills with is of more concern than some global warming boogeyman.  So is the amount of trash on our highways, streams and lakes.

At this time, I wouldn't enact any legislation that put us at an economic advantage.  I certainly wouldn't do so considering that the jury is still out, despite the protestations of people like Al Gore who certainly do have a financial stake in these kinds of things.

[wolfpat]

That the climate is changing is a given. It always has and it always will. The data are clear on that.

I still haven't seen the verifiable data that strongly suggest that man has anything to do with it.

[cccoach]

Wolfpat - agreed, it is the rate of acceleration that is worrisome, not whether climate changes or not. As I stated I'm not a fatalist. I don't think climate will be the end of humanity but I do think that no action will be far costlier than immediate action. I was reminded of this when I saw a headline in CNN today. I think this something of a fatalist view but it does emphasize that inaction has as great, or greater a cost as action.

Sea level rise could cost port cities $28 trillion
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/11/23/climate.report.wwf.allianz/index.html

Leeb -

That doesn't mean they aren't biased, but it also isn't fair to put them in the same category as Greenpeace or the ELF.  Isn't ELF into environmental terrorism?

You're probably right, but my point is that they have an agenda and that agenda directly influences how they present information. Some more so than others. NCPA certainly has a history of believing that the free market will sort everything including the current economic debacle that they said would be solved by the free market.

In order for CO2 levels to cause temperature to rise, it needs to come first.  Order is the key here more so than scale.  Do you see what I'm getting at here?  The whole thing about scale doesn't change the order in which those things happened.

I see your point and had hoped that my earlier post would cleared it up a little better. Logic would suggest that CO2 levels should increase before temperature increase but science sometimes defies logic. CO2 has been in close correlation but there is substantial evidence that CO2 is a causation factor. To complicate matters evidence suggests that increased temperatures also cause increased CO2, creating the pendulum effect that your graph shows. This is the tipping point that so many scientists are currently discussing.

As far as sending me on an Easter egg hunt on NASA's website...well, I could have done that myself.  In fact, I already have.  Thousand pardons, but I can't find anything on that site that specifically says that CO2 causes temperature to rise and includes the latest ice core data.  Since you are obviously familiar with the site and find it simple, would you mind helping me out and showing me an article from there that specifically addresses the causal relationship between CO2 and temperature?

Fair - The best summation of several peer-reviewed studies can be found in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change climate change 2007 report: synthesis.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_synthesis_report.htm

I don't agree with the practice of passing legislation just for the sake of "doing something".  There are those on the left that don't agree that cap and trade is a good idea, namely environmental groups.  NPR had a good discussion a few weeks ago about this.

If it adversely affects U.S. industry as I think it would, it isn't a good idea.  I could see us taking a bit of a hit, economically speaking, if times were good.  And if the benefits could be clearly demonstrated...and they're not.  But times aren't good and unemployment is already high.

I actually agree with you here. I think that full implementation may need to wait for a while but I think it should be viewed as part of our plan for future growth not as a hindrance to future growth. The point is to implement CO2 reduction through the next few years.  I think the benefits of reduced carbon footprint and decreased dependence on fossil based fuels is easy to demonstrate and more importantly is now an issue of national security.

My contention is that there are things that are more harmful to the environment that climate change.  The sheer amount of plastic, foam and other materials we're filling our landfills with is of more concern than some global warming boogeyman.  So is the amount of trash on our highways, streams and lakes.

At this time, I wouldn't enact any legislation that put us at an economic advantage.  I certainly wouldn't do so considering that the jury is still out, despite the protestations of people like Al Gore who certainly do have a financial stake in these kinds of things.

I agree, there are a lot of factors in the environment that should be considered. Many of them would directly help the emissions of CO2 and greenhouse gases. I believe that many of environmental problems we have could be best addressed at the local level, which is why I support buying locally grown produce, public transportation and driving vehicles that have reduced emissions. I respectfully disagree about the jury being out, from my perspective and the growing perspective of the majority of scientists and citizens of our fair planet climate change is real and is being accelerated by our actions. I think dissent is important but don't want dissent driving our policy, I can see where implementation of some environmental policies is going to cause problems but I think that ignoring the issue will eventually be much more detrimenta

[RJLeeb]

Cccoach,

I acknowledge the fact that NCPA was bias.  Are we then to ignore the issues with the data selection when it comes to the famous "hockey stick" graph?

Here's another source for you regarding that:
http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&catid=14:text&id=232:rossmckitrick-02-10-09

Here's the actual graphs in question:



Do you have some data, post 2003, that takes the latest ice core data into account, that shows a causal relationship between CO2 and temperature?  That's the smoking gun I'm looking for and not finding.

[RJLeeb]

Now on to the IPCC.

Read here please concerning allegations of bias within the IPCC:
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/23694/IPCC_Author_Selection_Process_Plagued_by_Bias_Cronyism_Study.html

That is just one of many articles.  If you doubt NCPA's word that it is "non-partisan" why am I to blindly believe what the IPCC says?  Isn't it a lot more likely that both are biased?

We can play the bias game all day long.  But I prefer to discuss the actual data itself.

This is an article from Monckton, who some might recognize as a "denier".  It is a very interesting article.  The data, logical and mathematical support for the following conclusion is located at: http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm

I've just posted the conclusion for the purposes of brevity.

Conclusion

Even if temperature had risen above natural variability, the recent solar Grand Maximum may have been chiefly responsible. Even if the sun were not chiefly to blame for the past half-century’s warming, the IPCC has not demonstrated that, since CO2 occupies only one-ten-thousandth part more of the atmosphere that it did in 1750, it has contributed more than a small fraction of the warming. Even if carbon dioxide were chiefly responsible for the warming that ceased in 1998 and may not resume until 2015, the distinctive, projected fingerprint of anthropogenic “greenhouse-gas” warming is entirely absent from the observed record. Even if the fingerprint were present, computer models are long proven to be inherently incapable of providing projections of the future state of the climate that are sound enough for policymaking. Even if per impossibilethe models could ever become reliable, the present paper demonstrates that it is not at all likely that the world will warm as much as the IPCC imagines. Even if the world were to warm that much, the overwhelming majority of the scientific, peer-reviewed literature does not predict that catastrophe would ensue. Even if catastrophe might ensue, even the most drastic proposals to mitigate future climate change by reducing emissions of carbon dioxide would make very little difference to the climate. Even if mitigation were likely to be effective, it would do more harm than good: already millions face starvation as the dash for biofuels takes agricultural land out of essential food production: a warning that taking precautions, “just in case”, can do untold harm unless there is a sound, scientific basis for them. Finally, even if mitigation might do more good than harm, adaptation as (and if) necessary would be far more cost-effective and less likely to be harmful.

In short, we must get the science right, or we shall get the policy wrong. If the concluding equation in this analysis (Eqn. 30) is correct, the IPCC’s estimates of climate sensitivity must have been very much exaggerated. There may, therefore, be a good reason why, contrary to the projections of the models on which the IPCC relies, temperatures have not risen for a decade and have been falling since the phase-transition in global temperature trends that occurred in late 2001. Perhaps real-world climate sensitivity is very much below the IPCC’s estimates. Perhaps, therefore, there is no “climate crisis” at all. At present, then, in policy terms there is no case for doing anything. The correct policy approach to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing.

[Tags:]

Jump to: Please select a destination: ----------------------------- Chatham County Online ----------------------------- => Chatham County Online => Chatham County Schools => Chatham County Food & Drink => Chatham County Music & Arts => Chatham Community Calendar => Free Classifieds & Help Wanted Ads => Noah's Ark - All Creatures Great & Small. => Neighbor to Neighbor => Gardening and Agriculture => Chatham County Real Estate => North Carolina => This, That and Everything Else