[Al_U_Card]

Skeptical Science .... the reference of choice ...

[hrothgar]

Al_U_Card, on 2013-March-11, 18:41, said:

Skeptical Science .... the reference of choice ...

In an amazing development, Al has actually responded to a critique of crap he posts.
Maybe, in a year or two, he might even rise to the level of informed response.

For now, we'll just need to accept that he prefers his own set of "facts"...

BTW, if you don't like Skeptical Science, maybe you prefer the New York Times
They raise the same set of critiques

http://dotearth.blog...limate-and-co2/

or Hot Topic

http://hot-topic.co....ks-wrong-again/

[Al_U_Card]

PassedOut, on 2013-March-08, 07:21, said:

Global Temperatures Highest in 4,000 Years


And then some...

Oh those hockey-stick proxies that rely on spliced, different resolution, time series...

To quote Steve McIntyre on this paper and its statistical manipulations:

While the article has so many problems that it’s hard to know where to start, it doesn’t actually use “Mike’s Nature trick” (as properly defined at Climate Audit,) Mike’s Nature trick (as UC dissected) was the splicing of temperature data with proxy data for smoothing, with the smooth chopped back to the end of the proxy data. It’s tricky, so to speak.

The Marcott study conspicuously doesn’t show temperature data, spliced or unspliced. One reason may be a rather severe divergence problem. Their SH extratropics reconstruction maxes out at 1.22 deg C in AD1900, declining to the reference period 0 in 1961-90 (not shown in the article.) This dramatic decrease in SHX temperatures in the 20th century will doubtless come as a surprise to many.

Similarly their NHX temperature increases all comes between 1920 and 1940. If Marcott is right, the ability of early 20th century Northern Hemisphere societies to cope with the 1.9 deg C increase between 1920 and 1940 bodes well in my opinion for the prospects of adapting to the lesser temperature increases projected in the next 60 years in most climate models. Of course, it is also possible that the 20th century portion of the Marcott reconstruction is completely worthless.

[Al_U_Card]

More perspective crap ( that would be peer-reviewed crap, however valid that may make it since Mann's hockeystick was pal...er peer-reviewed too... )

[hrothgar]

Al_U_Card, on 2013-March-11, 20:20, said:

More perspective crap ( that would be peer-reviewed crap, however valid that may make it since Mann's hockeystick was pal...er peer-reviewed too... )

And we're back tot he normal state of affairs.

Rather that addressing the critiques of the crap that he posts, Al responds by changing the subject and posting a whole new graph.

BTW, do you need to send any royalties to Watt's Up with That?
You're entire "contribution" seems to be linking to graphics on their web site.

[PassedOut]

hrothgar, on 2013-March-12, 07:23, said:

And we're back to the normal state of affairs.

Rather that addressing the critiques of the crap that he posts, Al responds by changing the subject and posting a whole new graph.

On the other hand, what could he say that would counter Richard Alley's own assessment of the fools who misuse his GISP2 data?

Reality Check on Old Ice, Climate and CO2

Quote

So, using GISP2 data to argue against global warming is, well, stupid, or misguided, or misled, or something, but surely not scientifically sensible. And, using GISP2 data within the larger picture of climate science demonstrates that our scientific understanding is good, supports our expectation of global warming, but raises the small-chance-of-big-problem issue that in turn influences the discussion of optimal human response.

So it is not surprising that Al squirms away again.

The argument now is not whether global warming is real, but whether we should do something now to mitigate the damage for future generations. It comes down to character. The "it's all about me" crowd says no.

[Daniel1960]

hrothgar, on 2013-March-11, 11:29, said:

Mike, what happens if you cherry pick different dates?
Do you still see no long term trend?

What happens if you measure water temperature rather than air temperature?
Do you still see no long term trend?

You might find the following graph of interest

http://www.skeptical...aphics.php?g=47

Interesting graph, but not very informative. Try the following graph, as opposed to either a linear or step-wise function:

http://troyca.files....nario2basic.png

Additional analyses can be found here:

http://troyca.wordpress.com/

[Winstonm]

Quoting Dr. Alley from above link:

Quote

So, using GISP2 data to argue against global warming is, well, stupid, or misguided, or misled, or something, but surely not scientifically sensible....

I would only ask that Dr. Alley tell us what he really thinks and not sugarcoat it.

[Daniel1960]

hrothgar, on 2013-March-11, 18:49, said:

In an amazing development, Al has actually responded to a critique of crap he posts.
Maybe, in a year or two, he might even rise to the level of informed response.

For now, we'll just need to accept that he prefers his own set of "facts"...

BTW, if you don't like Skeptical Science, maybe you prefer the New York Times
They raise the same set of critiques

http://dotearth.blog...limate-and-co2/

or Hot Topic

http://hot-topic.co....ks-wrong-again/

Neither the NY Times nor skeptical science is a good source of information. They both have their own biases, which appear readily in their posts. Best to stick with scientific paper, although some have countered that not all peer-reviewed work is worthy of scientific presentation. We get what we get. C'est la vie.

[hrothgar]

Daniel1960, on 2013-March-12, 09:16, said:

Neither the NY Times nor skeptical science is a good source of information. They both have their own biases, which appear readily in their posts. Best to stick with scientific paper, although some have countered that not all peer-reviewed work is worthy of scientific presentation. We get what we get. C'est la vie.

So, how do you feel Watt's Up with That which is the source for (almost) all of Al's postings?

[Al_U_Card]

Winstonm, on 2013-March-12, 09:00, said:

Quoting Dr. Alley from above link:
]

I would only ask that Dr. Alley tell us what he really thinks and not sugarcoat it.

The "argument" has never been about global warming (except initially when it was deemed to be anthropogenic, incontrovertible and catastrophic) but rather that there was a consensus and a settled science concerning the amount and causes of that warming.
The "argument" is really about the role of CO2 in the control of planetary climate and how we can affect our production of that molecule such that we can overcome natural climatic forces.
The "problem" concerns misplaced altruism, misguided philanthropy and agendized alarmism used to manipulate and monetize our humanitarian efforts around the planet. If you watched the Allan Savoury Ted Talk, you will see a perfect example of this.
Every attempt to "green" our energy production tends to increase CO2 and costs more as well as draining funds from tax-payers to subsidized industrialists. It also drives us closer to the third world (some here would find that acceptable, no doubt) when we could be using the moneys wasted on this shell-game to develop abundant energy that does not diminish food resources or oblige us to return to the stone-age.

[Daniel1960]

hrothgar, on 2013-March-12, 09:27, said:

So, how do you feel Watt's Up with That which is the source for (almost) all of Al's postings?

About the same as NY Times and skeptical science.

[hrothgar]

Daniel1960, on 2013-March-12, 11:25, said:

> So, how do you feel Watt's Up with That which is the source for (almost) all of Al's postings?
About the same as NY Times and skeptical science.

Skeptical Science is an advocacy site. I don't think its unreasonable to lump them into the same bucket as WUWT

It's ridiculous to treat the New York times in the same category...

[Daniel1960]

hrothgar, on 2013-March-12, 11:49, said:

Skeptical Science is an advocacy site. I don't think its unreasonable to lump them into the same bucket as WUWT

It's ridiculous to treat the New York times in the same category...

Is it so ridiculous, when the Tiems frequently enlists commentary from environmental activists regarding climate? They have recently stated that all of the following are a result of climate change: higher temperatures, lower temperatures, drought, floods, snow, etc. The Times is also pushing the claim that polar bear could be endangered by mid-century, despite their growing numbers. The science page prints articles summarizes publications which promote CO2-based warming, while nothing can be found with regards to other warming forces. Maybe this is a reason that they dismantled their environmental desk.

[Al_U_Card]

Daniel1960, on 2013-March-12, 12:30, said:

Is it so ridiculous, when the Times frequently enlists commentary from environmental activists regarding climate? They have recently stated that all of the following are a result of climate change: higher temperatures, lower temperatures, drought, floods, snow, etc. The Times is also pushing the claim that polar bears could be endangered by mid-century, despite their growing numbers. The science page prints articles summarizing publications which promote CO2-based warming, while nothing can be found with regards to other warming forces. Maybe this is a reason that they dismantled their environmental desk.

That is because AGCC (Anthropogenic Global Climate Change) is a belief system and is neither a theory (To be posited and disproved scientifically, with a testable null-hypothesis.) nor free from constant and continuous manipulation, mis-representation and malfeasance regarding the promotion of the "ideal".
The religion that has grown around this project is an offshoot of the environmental movement and prays on the guilt and future anxieties of its adherents. Daily, the tenets of this faith-based construct are refuted or otherwise invalidated yet, the faithful bear witness to the righteousness and rightness of their creed.
It makes no sense but, other than the well-meaningness of the manipulated masses, what religion does?

[mike777]

Al can we at least agree that fossil fuels are harmful in a nonlinear way. The harm is concave. A little bit of it is devoid of harm, a lot can cause climatic disturbances.

We do not need to believe in anthropogenic climate change(caused by humans), though I do, in order to be ecologically conservative.

Why not use convexity effects to use in producing a risk management rule for pollution. Split your sources of pollution among many natural sources. The harm from polluting with ten different sources is smaller than the equivalent pollution from a single source.

When deciding on one source of fuel against another, or similar comparisons, we do not realize that model error may hit one side more than the other.
For example nuclear energy in France was thought of as clean and cheap and optimal. After Fukushima they needed additional safety features, quickly and at any cost.

[Al_U_Card]

mike777, on 2013-March-12, 13:58, said:

Al can we at least agree that fossil fuels are harmful in a nonlinear way. The harm is concave. A little bit of it is devoid of harm, a lot can cause climatic disturbances.

We do not need to believe in anthropogenic climate change(caused by humans), though I do, in order to be ecologically conservative.

Why not use convexity effects to use in producing a risk management rule for pollution. Split your sources of pollution among many natural sources. The harm from polluting with ten different sources is smaller than the equivalent pollution from a single source.

Indeed, all sources of energy have their drawbacks. The problem resides in the availability of reasonably-priced energy.
The answer of the alarmists is not a solution, it is a punishment for most and a reward for some. Using your belief as a crutch is your answer and it, too, is not a solution.
Either way, watch out for those that want your money so that they can tell you what to do. It has never worked and it never will.

[mike777]

Al_U_Card, on 2013-March-12, 14:11, said:

Indeed, all sources of energy have their drawbacks. The problem resides in the availability of reasonably-priced energy.
The answer of the alarmists is not a solution, it is a punishment for most and a reward for some. Using your belief as a crutch is your answer and it, too, is not a solution.
Either way, watch out for those that want your money so that they can tell you what to do. It has never worked and it never will.

Ok AL, if I follow you, your main point is availability of reasonably-priced energy. You are against govt policies that punish most and reward a few.


The side discussion of man made climate change, melting ice caps and rising seas is not really your main discussion point. Again your main point is you advocate govt policies that encourage the availability of reasonably priced energy.

Please suggest a few that you advocate.

[hrothgar]

Daniel1960, on 2013-March-12, 12:30, said:

They have recently stated that all of the following are a result of climate change: higher temperatures, lower temperatures, drought, floods, snow, etc.

Just to be clear, you are asserting that the effects of global climate change are uniform across the globe.

If average temperatures go up in one place, during one season of the year, it holds true that the average temperatures will increase uniformly across the entire world, across all seasons?

[hrothgar]

Daniel1960, on 2013-March-12, 12:30, said:

The Times is also pushing the claim that polar bear could be endangered by mid-century, despite their growing numbers.

Please provide your reference that polar bear numbers are increasing