Author Topic: Climate Warming a hoax?  (Read 199620 times)

mobile_bob

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2940
    • View Profile
Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
« Reply #210 on: January 18, 2010, 07:05:35 PM »
here is the latest unraveling of one of the "glaciers are melting" scares

Stan: i would be interested in your take on this report?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece


bob g
otherpower.com, microcogen.info, practicalmachinist.com
(useful forums), utterpower.com for all sorts of diy info

Stan

  • Guest
Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
« Reply #211 on: January 18, 2010, 10:33:55 PM »
OK Bob....My take on newspaper reports like this are as follows. 

1.) newspaper reporters are not scientists, they only report what they think they hear.

2.) Typically, they start with an idea, and then go out and try to find data to prove it.  This means that anything they find that might disagree with their idea they simply don't include it in their artical.

3.) They never include data in their stories.  Data is critical in proving or disproving a statement.  When I wrote my thesis, I was told over and over again, "if you have data which proves or disproves what you are saying, you either have to provide the data yourself if you gathered it yourself, OR you have to footnote the source of the data so it can be researched.

This article reports on an IPCC report which is NOT quoted.  Words are used such as "benchmark report", "most detailed" and "central claim" which are never used in a scientific paper.  How does this reporter know that this report is "benchmark".  Maybe it's just an idea paper published to attract dissenting opinion (a common tool for researchers).  How does he know it's a "most detailed" report?  Has he read ALL the other reports which are "not the most detailed"???  He asserts the glacier portion is a "central claim", but doesn't tell us what all the other "claims" are.

Lots of clues that this is a hack piece of reporting by a reporter that doesn't have a clue what he is talking about , and the ironic thing is he is simply passing along unverified data which is what he asserts was done by the scientists he is reporting about!   Kind of ironic no?
Stan

Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world's glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.

mobile_bob

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2940
    • View Profile
Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
« Reply #212 on: January 19, 2010, 08:13:20 AM »
ok Stan, fair enough, now then

perhaps you could share what type of report or article you would find as being troubling to the AGW claim?

we can't use newspaper articles, because obviously they are all "rags"

we can't use reports from other scientists because they are "hacks"

we can't use data that doesn't originate with those that support AGW

so what can we use?

is scientific american a suitable source? if not why not?

what publication would you find acceptable?

i am curious, perhaps you can enlighten me?

the thing is you see, is that you are more than capable of critical thinking skills in analyzing any reports that are anti AGW
but "seem" to lack the same when it comes to those that support AGW. that i find most curious and quite frankly beyond my
understanding.

good science is always met with opposition and skepticism even in the face of broad acceptance, there was a time when the popular
belief was that the world was flat, or the center of the universe, and all that...

one man stood out and said, no this isn't right, the world is not flat and it is not the center of the universe.  he was ridiculed as being
a heretic and/or a lunatic. it took a while for everyone else to come to the light, but one has to wonder how long it might have taken
had he not taken a stand and asserted his claim?

i remember reading in scientific american about the approx 3k floating ocean temperature monitors that measure the oceans of the worlds
temperatures at various depths, they had data going back 20 years

the first 18 years iirc the oceans temps rose something on the order of 2 degree's C which is an alarming amount and i would bet we both could agree to that, however

the 19th year there was a slight decline followed by something like another decline of 1.8 degree's in the last year, which basically wiped out
the prior gains in average temperatures,

what concerns me is those researchers that as you say about reporters, form a theory or hypothesis then go out and try to find all the data they
can that supports their assertion but conveniently leave out any that might refute or mitigate their claims. we are starting to see this sort of thing reported on, and i for one find it criminal.

as i would expect that you too would take strong issue to any report that was based on the numbers of the first 18 years and excluded the last 2 years, that made a strong assertion that AGW is a fact and we need to alter our lifestyle now! pay out billions of dollars to various companies and countries for all sorts of reasons and damage our economies and way of life so that a hand full of elite's can make billions of dollars in profits.

i don't understand what is so difficult to grasp as being possible, we all know that the oil companies in the past, just as the tobacco and asbestos
etc companies twisted reports and data to make themselves filthy rich, why is it so difficult to accept the possibility that perhaps this AGW thing is
just another example using a different twist by many of the same people?

in fairness and trying to back off and not be so abrasive, i understand that this is your belief, but
from a background such as yours, shouldn't you be more critical of these reports and perhaps even allow more thought into the possibility
that this is just another cherade' much like the 70's iceage, Y2K, cold fusion etc.?

as they say "the best mark for a salesman is another salesman"

i truely hope this is not the case with you Stan.

in closing,
Stan you have your belief and I have mine, and that ought to be fair enough

all i am saying is this,

if we are to be forced to alter our way of life dramatically, suffer increased taxes and regulation, pay out billions if not trillions of dollars
and all that, would it not seem prudent to establish a commission to go back over all the data, all the computer modeling,  statistics
reports, and other documents and check each and every facet for accuracy and statistical variance, while also taking a hard look
at any other possible explanations for any results before we turn over control to any group?

should be not check out the credibility of each of the researchers/scientists? and as we do in a court of law summarily dismiss those that have cooked the data, altered or hidden data, fudged computer models, are proven to have conspired to coverup decenting opinion or research via emails and the like?

this is not chump change we are talking about here, this is very serious amounts of money and power being turned over by we the people
to those that look to gain huge amounts of power, influence and wealth.

does this seem unreasonable?
if so maybe you have deeper pockets than i do? or maybe you like huge government control?
i don't know?

thanks
bob g
« Last Edit: January 19, 2010, 08:25:09 AM by mobile_bob »
otherpower.com, microcogen.info, practicalmachinist.com
(useful forums), utterpower.com for all sorts of diy info

Stan

  • Guest
Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
« Reply #213 on: January 19, 2010, 05:06:39 PM »
Ok Bob, to answer your question, the only articals that are accepted as bonifide "worldwide" are those that are subjected to peer review.  I don't know how many people reading this will know the steps to peer review but here's how it happens.

Step 1.  A scientist gets an idea and sets out to find out if its true or not true.  this is important because it looks at both sides, it doesn't try to prove a point.

Step 2.  the scientist gathers data, preferably "primary data" that is facts they have recorded themselves.  If their idea still looks OK, then go on to step 3

Step 3.  the scientist writes a preliminary paper and publishes it stating his/her idea and the facts that support it.  This paper is just preliminary, and these are the papers that a lot of other scientists either support (with facts) or don't support (again with facts) AGAIN with published papers.   Here's where the rag reporters jump in and cite "this scientist refutes the law of gravity" or some such thing.


Step 4. The original scientist reviews all the published responses to their paper and either gives up because they have been proven wrong, or refutes the negative published papers with more data and more experimentation.

Step 5. A final paper is written and submitted to a panel of other scientists in the same field, who judge it as bonifide or not bonifide.  It is then submitted to many "real " journals and won't even be published unless it is accepted by the panel.

This is where the public is constantly being misled by the rag reporters.  They hear about these preliminary papers which are just "sounding boards" for scientific thought and never have been and never will be accepted as "peer review" articals.

As a general rule, you shouldn't accept as truth, any artical that hasn't been "peer reviewed" and that you haven't read yourself.  If every third sentence isn't footnoted, don't accept it as truth.
Stan

I forgot to mention this is exactly the same process I went through to get my thesis accepted.  It took 2 years.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2010, 05:08:43 PM by Stan »

mike90045

  • Mendocino Metro
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1594
  • Mmmm BBQ
    • View Profile
    • Mikes Solar PV page
Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
« Reply #214 on: January 19, 2010, 07:26:40 PM »
Ok Bob, to answer your question, the only articals that are accepted as bonifide "worldwide" are those that are subjected to peer review.  I don't know how many people reading this will know the steps to peer review but here's how it happens.

And from where I sit, the peer review process for GW at least, has become broken.    It's taken on a cult feeling, with only the "right thinking" articles appearing, and the wrong thinking ones are blocked.  There should be a balance of pro and con articles appearing.  They aren't and so there can only be 2 reasons.

1) Forbidden thinking (anti-GW thoughts) and will be blocked from publication
2) there is no objection, and GW is a Truth.

The Climategate data release  seems to suggest ( 1 ) has occurred, but has not been peer reviewed, so we can't have further discussion about it.

It's hard to look at the players to sort this one out, you have the Carbon Taxers on one hand, and the Oil Burners on the other.
   I can't decide, so I'm going solar and bio diesel ASAP

Stan

  • Guest
Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
« Reply #215 on: January 19, 2010, 08:04:37 PM »
The whole peer review process has indeed slowed down.  As Lovelock states in "the revenge of Gaia", most of the papers on the is subject that have been peer reviewed and therefore trustworthy, are at least 4 years old.  There is so much controversy on this subject that peer reviewing is taking much longer than it traditionally has.  I take that to mean that scientists are examining the data much more carefully before lending their support to one side or the other, and that makes it more effective, rather than breaking down.

One thing that you have to realize is that most independent scientists don't have an opinion on climate change.  They have nothing to gain or lose either way.  They only report the facts, just the facts, (like a hollywood private eye used to say).  When those facts point to a trend, you report that trend.  Just like lines on a graph like the famous hockey stick graph.  That's not anyone's opinion, that's figures on a chart that go in one direction, in two different slopes.  People have criticized the way he gathered his data, but in the years that have ensued since he reported it, virtually all studies have confirmed his results.

It's only when you are employed by a private, for profit corporation that you have to report opinions based upon your bosses wishes.
Stan

mobile_bob

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2940
    • View Profile
Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
« Reply #216 on: January 19, 2010, 09:43:09 PM »
Facts? hmmmm

ok, review the following shall we

2 + 3 = 5

if the peer group reviews this simple equation all would concur that the finding of "5" is correct and irrefutable, however

both pieces of data "2" and "3" might not have been thoroughly vetted, most especially if the underlying data is buried deeply
such that

(1/2 + 3.5/2) + ((12/2)/2) = 5

now if the first finding (1/2) was from some dude in india, the second from a guy from england, the factor from some  pofessor in the US
etc etc, it all becomes too easy to skew the data, and still make the outcome painfully obvious (5) so much so that no one would think to
question it, after all everyone knows that 2+3=5 right.

it is so easy to skew results to produce any result you want, and if you are crafty enough you can do it in such a way that it is buried very deeply
within the calculations so as not to be easy to ferret it out unless you are so motivated to spend a huge amount of time and money checking for the problem.

how do i know this? because i used to make sport of instructors that were so cocksure that they could not be fooled.

when one is so focused on what he wants to see, he often misses the obvious and most likely explanation for any problem
there is a premise that when faced with a problem the simplest solution is usually the correct one.

i just think there was a rush to judgement based on enormous amounts of money and power at stake, without taking a hard look at what other possible explanation there might be for any global warming (again assuming there has been that isn't cyclic in nature anyway).

i am reasonably sure that when the chips are down and this has been all sorted out, which it might be now that the copenhagen thing resulted in
basically no action,, that it will be proven that there is some AGW, just no where near the scale that is reported, and
it is on the decline. certainly there ought to be a case for smokestack pollution of the first half of the industrial revolution might well have had some effect, but certainly the last quarter is far less than during any point in the first half.

it just amazes me that it can take decades to prove out a theory even when scientists can setup experiments in a lab and observe what is reported, but takes less than a decade to come to hard fast conclusions of fact on something that cannot be proven in the lab and will take a hundred years to determine one way or the other?

bob g
otherpower.com, microcogen.info, practicalmachinist.com
(useful forums), utterpower.com for all sorts of diy info


Stan

  • Guest
Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
« Reply #218 on: January 20, 2010, 04:00:21 AM »
Bob, to use your example, the "2" and the "3" would both be thoroughly documented, with footnotes to other scientists examination of  both "2" and "3" and those scientists data would be readily available for others to test and verify. That's the basis for the whole scientific method, "testability" and "repeatability".  Do you remember the infamous "cold fusion" fiasco of a few years ago.  The guys who published the first report on their success in creating cold fusion (now there's an energy source that could revolutionize the world) let their report get out to the press, who ran with it, and didn't bother to find out if the process had been subjected to peer review. 

The world gasped collectively and no matter how many times the original guys shouted "wait, wait this hasn't been peer reviewed yet" no one listened.  When the peer review was eventually completed, it was reported that no one could replicate the process successfully.  The original guys were ridiculed and ruined.

That's why the peer review process MUST run it's course and everything must be verified and confirmed by many many people BEFORE the distinguished and respected hack reporters of the world publish their own distorted and erroneous crap!  You'll notice I don't have much respect for reporters.

A little anecdote.....I was once given the task of finding out if it was too dangerous for school children to cross at a specific cross walk before and after school.  I spent a couple of days observing the cross walk and wrote up the report.  I detailed 9 specific and very clear reasons why it was dangerous.  I wrote everything down and gave a copy of the report to every school board trustee, and the reporter for the local paper.  The next day the paper published a story on my presentation and of the 9 points I gave them IN WRITING, they got 7 of them wrong.  Just my own little experience with the press.  >:(

Yes, even the Scientific American sometimes publishes reports that aren't verified, because they are only popular press, not scientific journals.  You might as well read the articles in Popular Mechanics, interesting, but hardly scientific (despite the name).

Stan

mobile_bob

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2940
    • View Profile
Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
« Reply #219 on: January 20, 2010, 12:21:12 PM »
Stan:

thanks for the unneeded lesson in scientific method and peer review 101, but you are missing my point

my point is this,

anytime you have something that is very complex and multifactored, and that is not replicable by anyone else
you have a problem

the AGW thing is not replicable by anyone under any circumstances, it is based on computer models alone.

the only way it can be proven is to compare the model against the measured realities over the next 100 years.

that is a huge problem that likely would not have become such an issue had idiots like michael moore, and algore
not latched onto it and made themselves piles of money in the process.  its after such takes place that AGW began
a life of its own, and began to be supported by those that would and could either cut off your funding, discredit your contributions
or in some manner make life miserable for those that have opposing views.

those of course are the ones that have the time, money, and other resources to try and at least do some checking of the processes used
to arrive at this AGW theory.

to think that peer review is infallible is laughable in my thinking.

it is so easy to steer the review process, most especially when you get politics involved, and as you and i both know politics
is an ugly dirty business.

what peer is going to step up and say bullshit, if he is faced with being ridiculed? cutoff? defunded?  far easier to sign off on some aspect
of the equation than to make waves.

and it is even easier to sign off on large blocks of the equation, if there is a promise of more grant money being piped into either your pocket directly or into the institution you work for.

do you not see any of the revelations of late, as being troublesome?

how do you prove AGW independently? if this is good science and not just a theory, it has to be proven independently does it not?

bob g
otherpower.com, microcogen.info, practicalmachinist.com
(useful forums), utterpower.com for all sorts of diy info

Stan

  • Guest
Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
« Reply #220 on: January 20, 2010, 03:25:47 PM »


the AGW thing is not replicable by anyone under any circumstances, it is based on computer models alone.

the only way it can be proven is to compare the model against the measured realities over the next 100 years.


Not true.  There are many forms of data that have been gathered for many years that have proven the world is heating up dramatically.  One such that you can find for your self is the ice core work being done by several countries scientists in both Greenland and Antarctica.  There is no computer modeling involved, it is pure numbers that anyone can see leads to an inevitable conclusion.  The earth is warming up.
Stan

mike90045

  • Mendocino Metro
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1594
  • Mmmm BBQ
    • View Profile
    • Mikes Solar PV page
Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
« Reply #221 on: January 20, 2010, 04:13:17 PM »
Quote
There is no computer modeling involved, it is pure numbers that anyone can see leads to an inevitable conclusion.  The earth is warming up.
Stan 

True enough .  Ever since the last ice age. 

 Before that, there was a warm age, before that, a different ice age.    And so on, several many times, warm cold warm cold.  Something other than mankind drove those.  But according to Al Gore and the GW/Climate Change industry, mankind, introducing 0.01% more Co2, is going to kill the planet and the polar bears. But none of the contrail clouds from jets or cosmic ray induced cloud cover has any effect ?   There are problems in both camps, but nobody addresses the historic changes.   Climate is never stable, it's always changes. Just not always the way we like it to.  Cow farts - what of the herds of buffalo that covered the plains states of the US? Cows as far as the eye could see, like a blanket over the land.

So what do we do?  Do we go out of our way a little bit, glue PV on our roofs, and eat tofu?  Ban cement production & live in mud huts? Burn trees in power plants instead of coal? California has passed laws, and they are starting to be implemented, at HUGE expense to the state, to reduce global Co2 by less than 1%, and China is mining more coal for power plants, yet attends the GW talks as if they will really do something.   It's all a sham.

Stan

  • Guest
Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
« Reply #222 on: January 20, 2010, 09:41:57 PM »
Yes Mike, I agree with you on the China thing, however China is getting scared (the olympics smog fiasco was one wake up call) and the people of China are starting to grumble, not a good thing for a dictatorship.

I just wonder if in 30 years when my great grandchildren ask me, "what did you do to try to avoid the mess we're in now" that I can have an answer for them that will allow them to respect me.

Stan

mobile_bob

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2940
    • View Profile
Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
« Reply #223 on: January 20, 2010, 11:16:09 PM »
Stan:

you can tell your grandkids it is all bob's fault!

:)

(cuz you can bet i will be telling my grandkids it is all YOUR fault)

lmao

bob g

ps, looks like there might be some problems with the peer review process?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/20/AR2010012004123.html
« Last Edit: January 20, 2010, 11:20:52 PM by mobile_bob »
otherpower.com, microcogen.info, practicalmachinist.com
(useful forums), utterpower.com for all sorts of diy info

Stan

  • Guest
Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
« Reply #224 on: January 21, 2010, 01:51:20 AM »
Not at all Bob....This proves my point precisely.  As he said "The procedures (meaning only quoting published work that has been peer reviewed) have been violated in this case."

There's no peer reviewed publication in the world that would have published a report saying "I talked to a guy who said he thinks the glaciers will all have gone by 2035".

If the IPCC (which I don't read anyway because they are politicized) quotes reports like that, it's no wonder they are being laughed at.

To get the real data, (not opinions of non-scientific persons) you have to read articles like these.   http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/search/publications/

Stan