| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Environment Forum » Gore's Glory Days Are Numbered
Page 2 of 3 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next
|
| Author |
Message |
| Ouroboros_Rex |
 Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 10:01 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| James |
| Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 10:15 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Roger Coppock" <rcoppock@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:2b87154e-0507-497a-8045-19ef8b5bea45@r9g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
The reason the carbon industry propaganda
Bonzo and other fossil fools post comes
from minor publications is that larger
newspapers and magazines do check their
facts before publishing.
With AL Gore no less. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| V-for-Vendicar |
| Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 1:40 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
<neutralino@gmail.com> wrote
Quote: The parallels between this group and talk.origins is frankly amazing.
Ignorant KKKonservative Dogma against Science in both cases. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| V-for-Vendicar |
| Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 1:42 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"matt_sykes" <zzebowa@hotmail.com> wrote
Quote: Chery picked data leaving out the temperature drop from 1940 and 2007.
What temperature drop in 2007? MMMMOOOOOORRRRRRRRROOOOOOONNNNN
2007 Tied for Earth's Second Warmest Year Andrea Thompson
LiveScience Staff Writer
January 16, 2008
The year 2007 has tied 1998 for the Earth’s second warmest this century,
NASA
scientists announced today.
Climatologists at the agency's Goddard Institute for Space Sciences (GISS)
in
New York used temperature data from weather stations on land, satellite
measurements of sea ice temperature since 1982 and data from ships for
earlier
years to construct a record of global average temperatures going back for
over a
century.
The GISS analysis has 1934, 1998 and 2005 tied as the warmest years in the
United States (with 2005 being the warmest globally).
The eight warmest years globally in the past century have all occurred since
1998, and the 14 warmest years have all occurred since 1990.
The greatest observed warming in 2007 occurred in the Arctic, which
experienced
a record sea ice melt this summer, opening up the fabled Northwest Passage
for
the first time.
"As we predicted last year, 2007 was warmer than 2006, continuing the strong
warming trend of the past 30 years that has been confidently attributed to
the
effect of increasing human-made greenhouse gases," said NASA GISS Director
James
E. Hansen.
A minor flaw in the GISS record discovered last year did not affect this
analysis, the scientists noted.
Hansen says that warming can be expected to continue, with another record
warm
year coming soon, though it is unlikely to be 2008.
"Barring a large volcanic eruption, a record global temperature clearly
exceeding that of 2005 can be expected within the next few years, at the
time of
the next El Nino , because of the background warming trend attributable to
continuing increases of greenhouse gases," Hansen said.
El Nino tends to have a warming effect on temperatures in many areas, while
the
volcanic ash that an eruption spews into the air has a cooling effect.
While most scientists agree the planet is warming, the trend does not
proceed
constantly upward year-by-year. Other factors cause hikes and dips in the
generally trajectory of the global temperature chart, which has been mostly
trending upward since the beginning of the 20th century. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| V-for-Vendicar |
| Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 1:44 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Quote: "Roger Coppock" <rcoppock@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:2b87154e-0507-497a-8045-19ef8b5bea45@r9g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
The reason the carbon industry propaganda
Bonzo and other fossil fools post comes
from minor publications is that larger
newspapers and magazines do check their
facts before publishing.
"James" <kingkongg@iglou.com> wrote
Quote: With AL Gore no less.
Why not? Gore gets all of the Science right.
Scientists OK Gore's Movie for Accuracy
By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
(06-27) 18:15 PDT WASHINGTON, (AP) --
The nation's top climate scientists are giving "An Inconvenient Truth," Al
Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy.
The former vice president's movie - replete with the prospect of a flooded
New York City, an inundated Florida, more and nastier hurricanes, worsening
droughts, retreating glaciers and disappearing ice sheets - mostly got the
science right, said all 19 climate scientists who had seen the movie or read
the book and answered questions from The Associated Press.
The AP contacted more than 100 top climate researchers by e-mail and phone
for their opinion. Among those contacted were vocal skeptics of climate
change theory. Most scientists had not seen the movie, which is in limited
release, or read the book.
But those who have seen it had the same general impression: Gore conveyed
the science correctly; the world is getting hotter and it is a manmade
catastrophe-in-the-making caused by the burning of fossil fuels.
"Excellent," said William Schlesinger, dean of the Nicholas School of
Environment and Earth Sciences at Duke University. "He got all the important
material and got it right."
Robert Corell, chairman of the worldwide Arctic Climate Impact Assessment
group of scientists, read the book and saw Gore give the slideshow
presentation that is woven throughout the documentary.
"I sat there and I'm amazed at how thorough and accurate," Corell said.
"After the presentation I said, `Al, I'm absolutely blown away. There's a
lot of details you could get wrong.' ... I could find no error."
Gore, in an interview with the AP, said he wasn't surprised "because I took
a lot of care to try to make sure the science was right."
The tiny errors scientists found weren't a big deal, "far, far fewer and
less significant than the shortcoming in speeches by the typical politician
explaining an issue," said Michael MacCracken, who used to be in charge of
the nation's global warming effects program and is now chief scientist at
the Climate Institute in Washington.
One concern was about the connection between hurricanes and global warming.
That is a subject of a heated debate in the science community. Gore cited
five recent scientific studies to support his view.
"I thought the use of imagery from Hurricane Katrina was inappropriate and
unnecessary in this regard, as there are plenty of disturbing impacts
associated with global warming for which there is much greater scientific
consensus," said Brian Soden, a University of Miami professor of meteorology
and oceanography.
Some scientists said Gore confused his ice sheets when he said the effect of
the Clean Air Act is noticeable in the Antarctic ice core; it is the
Greenland ice core. Others thought Gore oversimplified the causal-link
between the key greenhouse gas carbon dioxide and rising temperatures.
While some nonscientists could be depressed by the dire disaster-laden
warmer world scenario that Gore laid out, one top researcher thought it was
too optimistic. Tom Wigley, senior scientist at the National Center for
Atmospheric Research, thought the former vice president sugarcoated the
problem by saying that with already-available technologies and changes in
habit - such as changing light bulbs - the world could help slow or stop
global warming.
While more than 1 million people have seen the movie since it opened in May,
that does not include Washington's top science decision makers. President
Bush said he won't see it. The heads of the Environmental Protection Agency
and NASA haven't seen it, and the president's science adviser said the movie
is on his to-see list.
"They are quite literally afraid to know the truth," Gore said. "Because if
you accept the truth of what the scientific community is saying, it gives
you a moral imperative to start to rein in the 70 million tons of global
warming pollution that human civilization is putting into the atmosphere
every day."
As far as the movie's entertainment value, Scripps Institution geosciences
professor Jeff Severinghaus summed it up: "My wife fell asleep. Of course, I
was on the edge of my chair." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 7:35 am |
|
|
|
|
On Apr 24, 11:40 pm, "V-for-Vendicar"
<Just...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
Quote: neutral...@gmail.com> wrote
The parallels between this group and talk.origins is frankly amazing.
Ignorant KKKonservative Dogma against Science in both cases.
Yes and no...a hell of an overlap though. Must have something to do
with the appallingly low scientific literacy rate in the US. I read a
study making the claim that the scientific literacy rate in the US was
too low to have a well functioning democracy. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 9:05 am |
|
|
|
|
On Apr 25, 11:51 am, Poetic Justice <@http://Poetic-Justice.Talk-n-
Dog.com> wrote:
Quote: neutral...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 24, 11:40 pm, "V-for-Vendicar"
Just...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
neutral...@gmail.com> wrote
The parallels between this group and talk.origins is frankly amazing.
Ignorant KKKonservative Dogma against Science in both cases.
Yes and no...a hell of an overlap though. Must have something to do
with the appallingly low scientific literacy rate in the US. I read a
study making the claim that the scientific literacy rate in the US was
too low to have a well functioning democracy.
That's why Global warming is so easily pushed on the Liberal citizens.
So, you are claiming that the entire scientific community is
scientifically illiterate? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Ouroboros_Rex |
| Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 9:35 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"James" <kingkongg@iglou.com> wrote in message
news:48114e7b$0$19830$d94e5ade@news.iglou.com...
Quote:
"Roger Coppock" <rcoppock@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:2b87154e-0507-497a-8045-19ef8b5bea45@r9g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
The reason the carbon industry propaganda
Bonzo and other fossil fools post comes
from minor publications is that larger
newspapers and magazines do check their
facts before publishing.
With AL Gore no less.
A ridiculous lie. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Poetic Justice |
| Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 1:51 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
neutralino@gmail.com wrote:
Quote: On Apr 24, 11:40 pm, "V-for-Vendicar"
Just...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
neutral...@gmail.com> wrote
The parallels between this group and talk.origins is frankly amazing.
Ignorant KKKonservative Dogma against Science in both cases.
Yes and no...a hell of an overlap though. Must have something to do
with the appallingly low scientific literacy rate in the US. I read a
study making the claim that the scientific literacy rate in the US was
too low to have a well functioning democracy.
That's why Global warming is so easily pushed on the Liberal citizens. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Poetic Justice |
| Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 2:57 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
neutralino@gmail.com wrote:
Quote: On Apr 25, 11:51 am, Poetic Justice <@http://Poetic-Justice.Talk-n-
Dog.com> wrote:
neutral...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 24, 11:40 pm, "V-for-Vendicar"
Just...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
neutral...@gmail.com> wrote
The parallels between this group and talk.origins is frankly amazing.
Ignorant KKKonservative Dogma against Science in both cases.
Yes and no...a hell of an overlap though. Must have something to do
with the appallingly low scientific literacy rate in the US. I read a
study making the claim that the scientific literacy rate in the US was
too low to have a well functioning democracy.
That's why Global warming is so easily pushed on the Liberal citizens.
So, you are claiming that the entire scientific community is
scientifically illiterate?
That political manipulation, among them is prevalent.
And that you suggest that people are scientifically stupid, and that if
the people are Scientifically stupid the "scientists" happen to part of
the people? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Ouroboros_Rex |
| Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 3:07 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Poetic Justice" <@http://Poetic-Justice.Talk-n-Dog.com> wrote in message
news:IHqQj.58765$vr3.56193@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
Quote: neutralino@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 25, 11:51 am, Poetic Justice <@http://Poetic-Justice.Talk-n-
Dog.com> wrote:
neutral...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 24, 11:40 pm, "V-for-Vendicar"
Just...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
neutral...@gmail.com> wrote
The parallels between this group and talk.origins is frankly amazing.
Ignorant KKKonservative Dogma against Science in both cases.
Yes and no...a hell of an overlap though. Must have something to do
with the appallingly low scientific literacy rate in the US. I read a
study making the claim that the scientific literacy rate in the US was
too low to have a well functioning democracy.
That's why Global warming is so easily pushed on the Liberal citizens.
So, you are claiming that the entire scientific community is
scientifically illiterate?
That political manipulation, among them is prevalent.
lol
Quote:
And that you suggest that people are scientifically stupid, and that if
the people are Scientifically stupid the "scientists" happen to part of
the people?
rofl |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| V-for-Vendicar |
| Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2008 11:58 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"0NBZ0" <0NBZ0@doooooooooooooooodoooooooooo.com> wrote
Quote: Yes professor, I'm sure we all believe you .... NOT!
Scientists OK Gore's Movie for Accuracy
By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
(06-27) 18:15 PDT WASHINGTON, (AP) --
The nation's top climate scientists are giving "An Inconvenient Truth," Al
Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy.
The former vice president's movie - replete with the prospect of a flooded
New York City, an inundated Florida, more and nastier hurricanes, worsening
droughts, retreating glaciers and disappearing ice sheets - mostly got the
science right, said all 19 climate scientists who had seen the movie or read
the book and answered questions from The Associated Press.
The AP contacted more than 100 top climate researchers by e-mail and phone
for their opinion. Among those contacted were vocal skeptics of climate
change theory. Most scientists had not seen the movie, which is in limited
release, or read the book.
But those who have seen it had the same general impression: Gore conveyed
the science correctly; the world is getting hotter and it is a manmade
catastrophe-in-the-making caused by the burning of fossil fuels.
"Excellent," said William Schlesinger, dean of the Nicholas School of
Environment and Earth Sciences at Duke University. "He got all the important
material and got it right."
Robert Corell, chairman of the worldwide Arctic Climate Impact Assessment
group of scientists, read the book and saw Gore give the slideshow
presentation that is woven throughout the documentary.
"I sat there and I'm amazed at how thorough and accurate," Corell said.
"After the presentation I said, `Al, I'm absolutely blown away. There's a
lot of details you could get wrong.' ... I could find no error."
Gore, in an interview with the AP, said he wasn't surprised "because I took
a lot of care to try to make sure the science was right."
The tiny errors scientists found weren't a big deal, "far, far fewer and
less significant than the shortcoming in speeches by the typical politician
explaining an issue," said Michael MacCracken, who used to be in charge of
the nation's global warming effects program and is now chief scientist at
the Climate Institute in Washington.
One concern was about the connection between hurricanes and global warming.
That is a subject of a heated debate in the science community. Gore cited
five recent scientific studies to support his view.
"I thought the use of imagery from Hurricane Katrina was inappropriate and
unnecessary in this regard, as there are plenty of disturbing impacts
associated with global warming for which there is much greater scientific
consensus," said Brian Soden, a University of Miami professor of meteorology
and oceanography.
Some scientists said Gore confused his ice sheets when he said the effect of
the Clean Air Act is noticeable in the Antarctic ice core; it is the
Greenland ice core. Others thought Gore oversimplified the causal-link
between the key greenhouse gas carbon dioxide and rising temperatures.
While some nonscientists could be depressed by the dire disaster-laden
warmer world scenario that Gore laid out, one top researcher thought it was
too optimistic. Tom Wigley, senior scientist at the National Center for
Atmospheric Research, thought the former vice president sugarcoated the
problem by saying that with already-available technologies and changes in
habit - such as changing light bulbs - the world could help slow or stop
global warming.
While more than 1 million people have seen the movie since it opened in May,
that does not include Washington's top science decision makers. President
Bush said he won't see it. The heads of the Environmental Protection Agency
and NASA haven't seen it, and the president's science adviser said the movie
is on his to-see list.
"They are quite literally afraid to know the truth," Gore said. "Because if
you accept the truth of what the scientific community is saying, it gives
you a moral imperative to start to rein in the 70 million tons of global
warming pollution that human civilization is putting into the atmosphere
every day."
As far as the movie's entertainment value, Scripps Institution geosciences
professor Jeff Severinghaus summed it up: "My wife fell asleep. Of course, I
was on the edge of my chair." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| V-for-Vendicar |
| Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 12:00 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
<neutralino@gmail.com> wrote
Quote: Yes and no...a hell of an overlap though. Must have something to do
with the appallingly low scientific literacy rate in the US. I read a
study making the claim that the scientific literacy rate in the US was
too low to have a well functioning democracy.
Yes, certianly a modern democracy.
The writing has been on the wall for decades, as science literacy
continued to fall though the floor in the U.S.
And things have just gotten worse - much worse - since this study was
published.
Study: Science Literacy Poor in US
By Paul Recer
Associated Press
posted: 10:37 am ET
01 May 2002
WASHINGTON (AP) _ Few Americans understand the scientific process and many
believe in mysterious psychic powers and may be quick to accept phony
science reports, according to a national survey.
The survey, part of the National Science Foundation's biennial report on the
state of science understanding, research, education and investment, found
that the belief in ``pseudoscience'' is common in America. The study found
that science literacy has improved only slightly since the previous survey
and that 70 percent of American adults do not understand the scientific
process.
America continues to lead the world, the study found, in scientific
investment, in research and development and in technology advances. But it
found weakness in some levels of scientific education and noted that the
U.S. continues to depend heavily on foreign-born scientists and now faces
increased competition from steadily improving scientific enterprises abroad.
In the survey of American attitudes toward science, the study found that
doctors and scientists were the most respected of the professions, but it
also found that ``belief in pseudoscience is relatively widespread and
growing.''
A survey of 1,574 adults found that 60 percent agreed or strongly agreed
that some people possess psychic powers or extrasensory perception, a
premise that is generally discarded as unproven by most scientists.
Although 57 percent of those surveyed disagreed that UFOs came to Earth
bearing aliens, about 30 percent believe that some reported objects in the
sky are really space vehicles from other civilizations.
The scientific validity of astrology _ the belief that an alignment of the
planets can affect events on Earth _ is rejected by 60 percent of Americans,
as is the idea that some numbers are lucky while others are not. But 43
percent say they still read the astrology charts at least occasionally in
the newspaper.
Seventy-seven percent of those surveyed believe in the theory of global
warming, that the planet is being heated by an excess of carbon dioxide in
the atmosphere. In response to a separate questions, 86 percent said global
warming is a serious or ``somewhat serious'' problem.
Americans were almost evenly divided about genetic engineering _ the
modifying of life forms by manipulating the genes. Forty percent thought the
science would produce more good than bad effects, but 33 percent feared that
there would be more harm than benefit.
About 48 percent of those surveyed said they were moderately or strongly
opposed to the cloning of barnyard animals, even if the technique was used
to make drugs to treat humans. The new science was supported by 47 percent,
making opinions almost evenly divided.
Most Americans, about 59 percent, were comfortable with using mice in
laboratory experiments, but the opinions shifted dramatically when the
question was using dogs or chimpanzees in the scientific research instead of
mice. About 53 percent of those surveyed disagreed with allowing scientists
to experiment with dogs or chimps in medical research, while 44 percent said
it was OK.
In an effort to assess the level of general scientific knowledge, the NSF
survey asked a series of basic true-false or multiple-choice science
questions.
In contrast to two years ago, when half of those surveyed were wrong, a
majority, 54 percent, answered correctly when asked how long it takes the
Earth to orbit the sun. (One year.)
Some of the other questions, with the right answers and the percent
answering correctly:
Lasers work by focusing sound waves. (False. Lasers focus light.) 45
percent.
Antibiotics kill viruses as well as bacteria. (False) 51 percent.
The universe began with a huge explosion. (True, according to the ``Big
Bang'' theory widely accepted by scientists, but dismissed by some religious
leaders.) 33 percent.
The earliest humans lived at the same time as the dinosaurs. (False.
Dinosaurs died off millions of years before humans appeared.) 48 percent.
Human beings developed from earlier species of animals. (True, according to
the theory of evolution, which is accepted by the majority of scientists,
but not by many religious leaders.) 53 percent.
Among other findings of the report:
a.. Federal research dollars increased by about 50 percent for life
sciences, such as medicine, but declined by about 25 percent for the
physical sciences.
b.. Other nations are beginning to train more of their homegrown
scientists, but the United States remains a major destination for academics
seeking advanced scientific or engineering degrees.
c.. The percentage of foreign-born scientists and engineers is growing at
all degree levels in America, with the highest ratio, 45 percent, in
engineering. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| 0NBZ0 |
| Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 7:59 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Roger Coppock" <rcoppock@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:83685e4a-31f8-4d4e-924c-68846a0b3c14@w8g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 24, 1:39 am, chemist <tom-bol...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
[ . . . ]
Quote: Roger you know that you cannot prove anything with this
argument.You have not included the other natural processes
that affect Global temperature.
LOL! Well, why don't you show us how then, Tom?
Another Tom Bollger fantasy. ROTFLMSAO!
(Why is it that fossil fools challenge my both
data and statistics, but never show anything
of their own?)
******************
Your statistical wanking can prove just about anything one can think of!
One could properly say - Statistics, the last refuge of scoundrels.
What To Do If Your Climate Model Predictions Are Wrong
28 Jan 2008
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/2008/01/28/is-climatology-a-pseudoscience/
QUOTE: (In honour of our friend Coppcock)
"Since we haven't detected the predicted warming, it must be masked or
otherwise held up by something. Aerosols are one source, but an
inadequate one, so another is needed. What will this source be? Of
course, we cannot know for certain, but I can guess, though I blush when
I do so: I predict it will be STATISTICS."
Something has gone wrong. The actual temperature, predicted to go up and
up, has not cooperated and has instead stayed the same and even has gone
down. What do to? Let's take a "What would a scientist do" quiz and find
out.
Your model has predicted that temperatures will go up because CO2 has,
but unfortunately temperatures have gone down. Do you:
1. Abandon the model and seek a new career
2. Discover where the model went wrong; publish results admitting why
and how you were wrong
3. Sit and wait: after all, the temperature is bound to increase sooner
or later, hence validating your model
4. Believe that the model cannot be wrong, else so many people wouldn't
believe it, and so posit some new source that is "holding back" warming,
and only if that new source weren't there, your model would be perfect.
The correct answer, it should go without saying, is (2), though (1) is
not a horrible option for the shy, but it is really only open to
beginning graduate students or professors reaching emeritus status. And
if you do go for (2), as you should, option (1) naturally follows from
it. (I must remind you here that significant man-made global influence
is an impossibility by assumption.)
Would anybody opt for (3)? Certainly, because it's the easiest thing to
do, though not as many as you would think will go this route mostly
because it would be too difficult to answer critics with a "Just wait
and see!"
The slide begins with choosing (4). Nobody would, or should, abandon a
well-developed model because an observation or two is not consonant with
that model. Some time has to pass for enough failed predictions to mount
up. How much time? That's always difficult to tell. If the best climate
models over-predict global temperature for a year, this is not cause for
concern. For two years, no big deal. Even three to five years would not
cause undue suspicion. But more than that, then something has gone
wrong.
That is the state of the art today: climate models regularly
over-predict temperatures; certainly the IPCC "scenarios" are too high,
and they have been for more than five years. No climate scientist yet
has gone to the quiz and opted for answers (1) or (2); several, of
course, have opted for (3), saying five to ten years isn't enough and
that "more time" is needed. Nobody, that I know of, has said how much
more time.
Has anybody gone for answer (4)? Yes. Already we are seeing
papers-peer-reviewed, to be sure-that posit sources that are "masking"
the true warming. So far, these papers are concentrate on aerosols,
which are particles, caused by mankind naturally, that can, through
various mechanisms, block incoming solar radiation and lead to cooling.
Aerosol cooling only gets you so far, however, because aerosols are
heavy, short-lived particles whose effects are actually easy to measure.
So if models continue to over-predict, even after accounting for
aerosols, some other source that "masks true warming" will have to be
found.
Bob Park, physicist and resident curmudgeon at the American Physical
Society, writes regularly on pseudo-science, and has identified "The
Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Science." Not all of these signs now apply
to climatology, but number [3], "The scientific effect involved is
always at the very limit of detection" is most relevant.
Since we haven't detected the predicted warming, it must be masked or
otherwise held up by something. Aerosols are one source, but an
inadequate one, so another is needed. What will this source be? Of
course, we cannot know for certain, but I can guess, though I blush when
I do so: I predict it will be statistics.
Yes, it will not be long before we begin to hear arguments like the
following: "The predicted warming cannot, of course, be detected with
the naked eye. You have to use our extra-special statistical model which
accounts for various factors and which shows a statistically significant
warming has indeed taken place, thus our models are accurate. Oh, yes,
we have a low p-value, too." These models will, in the course of things,
be criticized, then modified to become more complex and opaque, but they
will always lead to the same conclusion: the models, though they appear
wrong, are actually right.
Not all climatologists will fall prey to these temptations; many or most
will modify their models, will see that mankind is not in as much
trouble as originally thought, and move on to do work on, for example,
the Indian monsoon. But others, because they cannot admit to being wrong
or because they want it to be true, will stay the course and claim that
only they and their models can detect the true warming. Here is where
Park's six other signs will be found. These scientists will [1] pitch
their "claim directly to the media" and say [2] "that a powerful
establishment [big oil] is trying to suppress his or her work." They
will [6] work "in isolation", and offer [4] "anecdotal evidence" in the
form of temperature anomalies from select locations. They will claim
that it was [5] always known that mankind has a harmful effect on the
environment and they will propose [7] ever more complicated "new laws of
nature to explain" the apparent lack of warming. And it will be at that
point that climatology becomes a pseudo-science.
Don't laugh, because this sort of thing happens all the time. Some
readers will be old enough to remember when paranormal research was the
rage in the early 1970s. Peer-reviewed papers appeared on the subject,
even in prestigious journals like Science. Just around the corner,
mankind would be able harness untold power by just using his mind.
Goats, for example, could be killed just by staring at them (yes,
really). It was an exciting time. Early on in the work, it was obvious
that man only used 10% of his brain, and that psychic events were real.
Experiments were run, but most failed. New experiments, toning down the
original claims were run, but these failed too. Various physical and
biological mechanisms to explain psychic abilities were proposed, but
none could be validated.
Test after test failed, until the number of failures was so huge that,
by the mid-1980s, most people wised up and left the field. But not all
did. Some claimed, through the use of "sophisticated" statistics, to
find the signal that nobody else could see. Most of these statistical
methods were poorly or improperly executed, and to those of us who know
something about these statistical models, it was obvious that paranormal
researchers were just fooling themselves (I wrote a book on this topic).
So did the parapsychologists take the scientist quiz and opt for number
(2), admit they were wrong, say so, and then move on? Do I even need to
answer? The idea, the allure and promise of paranormal powers are just
too powerful for some people to fight against, and so they seek patches
to the theory instead of pitching it. Psychic abilities just have to be
real, and it is this desire instead of empirical observations that
drives current research (such as it is).
We are only just starting to see parallels with parapsychology and
climatology, the most prominent now is model patching. Of course, it
might turn out mankind really does significantly influence climate, so
the fact the we now see model patching is not proof that mankind has no
influence. But it should give us pause and should lead us to examine, in
a systematic way, the deviation of model forecasts from actual
observations. And remember the old saying, there's nobody so easy to
fool as yourself.
--
Regards
Bonzo
"If scientists say they are 100% sure, or that they are absolutely
certain about the cause and effect and ignore variables which might show
that they could be wrong, they are practicing junk science. Junk science
happens when scientists believe something based on just some of what
they see." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| 0NBZ0 |
| Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 8:06 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Roger Coppock" <rcoppock@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:6c325679-1553-4b29-9e71-ba70f30c1760@k10g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 24, 1:43 am, Steven <> wrote:
[ . . . ]
Quote: Are you still banging on about this?
Get used to it Steven, the fossil fools
on this forum repeat the same old obvious
lies for years.
***************
The obvious lies come from you and your nefarious bedfellows, Gorbachev,
Ghadafi et al!!
Only fools could fall for such junk science chicanery.
A few more years of global cooling will put you liars in your proper
place.
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
".it should not be surprising to see hordes of former Reds, or of those
who otherwise would have become Reds, turning from Marxism and becoming
the Greens of the ecology movement. It is the same fundamental
philosophy in a different guise, ready as ever to wage war on the
freedom and well-being of the individual." Dr. George Reisman's book
Capitalism |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 2 of 3 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Wed Jul 09, 2008 3:57 am
|
|
