Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
Climate Expert Demands: "Prove Us Wrong or Stand Down"
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next  
This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
McGruff
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 147

PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2012 9:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I give you pearls pat, and you give me clowns.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1563
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 1:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mcgruff wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
everybody could easily the plateau is real, that you didin't know about it


I think what happened was that you were butthurt at being repeatedly corrected and so you tried to hit back by inventing some spurious line of attack, namely that I didn't know about glacial temperature trends (which you had just discovered on wikipedia). It's what you do. However, if you're going to wave your supposedly superior grasp of temperature in my face, it would help if you actually looked at the graphs you provide as evidence for your feeble-minded claims. If you remember, you were arguing about the imminent end of the current interglacial, but were not aware of research carried out using Dome C data which suggests that this will last longer than previous episodes. That's all perfectly good science, but you would rather put all your efforts into attacking a made-up caricature of your opponent rather than doing the hard work of actually learning something. Classic avoidance tactic.

More strawmen from the strawman king. I've talked about that plateau many times before. Frankly, I'm amazed that you weren't aware of it, and it boggles the mind that you could throw that other graph up (in which it is even more apparent), in refutation. The data you showed does not refute what I said, and neither does that write-up, because you don't even understand what they're talking about. They were talking about the overall length of an interglacial, which is not the same thing as the duration of the peak conditions. Your ignorant, mindless babble, based on citing things you don't even begin to comprehend, makes me feel embarrassed for you. It's like watching a 10-year-old Special Olympics kid shit his pants and run around not even aware of it.
_________________
True Liberals are individualists. Democrats, on the other hand, are authoritarian collectivists.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
McGruff
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 147

PostPosted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 2:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is what you said:

Quote:
Look at the graph. Look at it. See how all of the warm periods in this ice age have been characterized by a sharp peak (rapid warming followed by rapid cooling), but the present warm period reached a peak about 10,000 years ago and then stabilized (making a series of comparatively rapid and minor warm-cold cycles)? That's the plateau I'm talking about, and it has lasted 10,000 years, and it is unique. Even an complete fucking DUNCE can see that


It isn't unique though, is it? There's another one on the right.

You were trying to claim I said something I didn't, and you couldn't even get that right.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1563
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 2:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

You're dead set on convincing everyone you should be a prime candidate to the receive the first brain available for transplantation.
_________________
True Liberals are individualists. Democrats, on the other hand, are authoritarian collectivists.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
McGruff
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 147

PostPosted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 2:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

See that peak on the right of your Vostok graph?

Eight glacial cycles from an Antarctic ice core

Quote:
The Antarctic Vostok ice core provided compelling evidence of the nature of climate, and of climate feedbacks, over the past 420,000 years. Marine records suggest that the amplitude of climate variability was smaller before that time, but such records are often poorly resolved. Moreover, it is not possible to infer the abundance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere from marine records. Here we report the recovery of a deep ice core from Dome C, Antarctica, that provides a climate record for the past 740,000 years. For the four most recent glacial cycles, the data agree well with the record from Vostok. The earlier period, between 740,000 and 430,000 years ago, was characterized by less pronounced warmth in interglacial periods in Antarctica, but a higher proportion of each cycle was spent in the warm mode. The transition from glacial to interglacial conditions about 430,000 years ago (Termination V) resembles the transition into the present interglacial period in terms of the magnitude of change in temperatures and greenhouse gases, but there are significant differences in the patterns of change. The interglacial stage following Termination V was exceptionally long—28,000 years compared to, for example, the 12,000 years recorded so far in the present interglacial period. Given the similarities between this earlier warm period and today, our results may imply that without human intervention, a climate similar to the present one would extend well into the future.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1563
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Sun Jul 01, 2012 8:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There are no similar plateaus. You are talking about something entirely different, Captain Strawman.
_________________
True Liberals are individualists. Democrats, on the other hand, are authoritarian collectivists.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
McGruff
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 147

PostPosted: Sun Jul 01, 2012 9:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In your own words, even a "complete fucking dunce" can see it. One dunce even wrote a paper about it.

Anyway, the argument which started this - that warming is good because it will stave off another glacial - is stupidly superficial because it's not going to happen any time soon. You're just trying to justify a mad carbon binge after the fact.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1563
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 5:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

More strawmen from Captain Strawman. :roll:

That's not what I said at all.
_________________
True Liberals are individualists. Democrats, on the other hand, are authoritarian collectivists.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Poptech
n00b
n00b


Joined: 24 Jul 2012
Posts: 0
Location: U.S.

PostPosted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 8:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I realize this replay is to an older post but it is filled with misinformation that needs to be addressed,

mcgruff wrote:
patrix_neo wrote:
Here is a major rebuttal

The list of "scientific" journals in which the papers were published is interesting. Waste Management (!) for example.

This paper is no longer listed since it was later learned that it was a reprint from the journal Environmental Engineering and not peer-reviewed in Waste Management. Regardless Waste Management is a legitimate peer-reviewed journal,

Waste Management is a peer-reviewed science journal (ISSN: 0956-053X)
- EBSCO lists Waste Management as a peer-reviewed science journal (PDF)
- Thompson Reuters (ISI) Science Citation Index lists Waste Management as a peer-reviewed science journal
- "All manuscripts are sent to at least two independent referees to ensure both accuracy and relevance to the journal." - Waste Management

mcgruff wrote:
I also noticed about 125 papers from Energy & Environment, a publication notorious for giving an easy ride to bad science which aligns with the editor's political aims.

This is incorrect there are only 116 papers on the list from the scholarly peer-reviewed journal Energy & Environment, which has a rigorous peer-review process,

Energy & Environment is a peer-reviewed interdisciplinary scholarly journal (ISSN: 0958-305X)
- Indexed in Compendex, EBSCO, Environment Abstracts, Google Scholar, JournalSeek, Scopus and Thompson Reuters (ISI)
- Found at 181 libraries and universities worldwide in print and electronic form. These include; Cambridge University, Cornell University, British Library, Dartmouth College, Library of Congress, National Library of Australia, Ohio University, Pennsylvania State University, Rutgers University, University of California, University of Delaware, University of Oxford, University of Virginia, and MIT.
- Thompson Reuters (ISI) Social Sciences Citation Index lists Energy & Environment as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal
- EBSCO lists Energy & Environment as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal (PDF)
- Scopus lists Energy & Environment as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal
- Elsevier lists Energy & Environment as a scholarly peer-reviewed journal on their internal master list. (Source: Email Correspondence)
- The IPCC cites Energy & Environment multiple times
- "E&E, by the way, is peer reviewed" - Tom Wigley, Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
- "I have published a few papers in E&E. All were peer-reviewed as usual. I have reviewed a few more for the journal." - Richard Tol Ph.D. Professor of the Economics of Climate Change, Vrije Universiteit, Netherlands
- "All Multi-Sciences primary journals are fully refereed" - Multi-Science Publishing
- "Regular issues include submitted and invited papers that are rigorously peer reviewed" - E&E Mission Statement

Energy & Environment only represents 10% of the list. There are over 1000 papers from over 300 other journals on the list.

Quote:
Gavin Schmidt, a climate modeller and Real Climate member based at Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, has claimed that Energy & Environment (E&E) has "effectively dispensed with substantive peer review for any papers that follow the editor's political line."

"This is an insult, and what's more it's not true," says Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, the editor of E&E and an emeritus reader at the University of Hull's department of geography. Every paper that is submitted to the journal is vetted by a number of experts, she said. But she did not deny that she allows her political agenda to influence which papers are published in the journal. "I'm not ashamed to say that I deliberately encourage the publication of papers that are sceptical of climate change," said Boehmer-Christiansen, who does not believe in man-made climate change.

This is not a correct interpretation of her "political agenda" which is not party politics,

Misinterpreted Quote: "Political Agenda"
Quote:
"My political agenda is simple and open; it concerns the role of research ambitions in the making of policy.

I concluded from a research project about the IPCC - funded by the UK government during the mid 1990s - that this body was set up to support, initially, climate change research projects supported by the WMO and hence the rapidly evolving art and science of climate modeling. A little later the IPCC came to serve an intergovernmental treaty, the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. This enshrines in law that future climate change would be warming caused by greenhouse gases (this remains debated), is man-made (to what an extend remains debated) as well as dangerous (remains debated). It became a task of the IPCC government selected and government funded, to support the theory that this man-made warming would be dangerous rather than beneficial, as some argue.

The solutions to this assumed problem were worked out by IPCC working group three, which worked largely independently of the science working group one and consisted primarily of parties interested in a 'green' energy agenda, including people from environment agencies, NGOs and environmental economics. This group supplied the science group with emission scenarios that have been widely criticized and which certainly enhanced the 'danger'. From interviews and my own reading I concluded that the climate science debate WAS BY NO MEANS OVER AND SHOULD CONTINUE. However, when I noticed that scientific critics of the IPCC science working group were increasingly side-lined and had difficulties being published - when offered the editorship of E&E, I decided to continue publishing 'climate skeptics' and document the politics associated with the science debate. The implications for energy policy and technology are obvious.

I myself have argued the cause of climate 'realism' - I am a geomorphologist by academic training before switching to environmental international relations - but do so on more the basis of political rather than science-based arguments. As far as the science of climate change is concerned, I would describe myself as agnostic.

In my opinion the global climate research enterprise must be considered as an independent political actor in environmental politics. I have widely published on this subject myself, and my own research conclusions have influenced my editorial policy. I also rely on an excellent and most helpful editorial board which includes a number of experienced scientists. Several of the most respected 'climate skeptics' regularly peer-review IPCC critical papers I publish."

- Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Editor, Energy & Environment

Source: Email Correspondence


mcgruff wrote:
Quote:
As an example, Schmidt points to an E&E paper that claimed that the Sun is made of iron. "The editor sent it out for review, where it got trashed (as it should have been), and [Boehmer-Christiansen] published it anyway," he says.

The sun is made of iron... I actually burst out laughing, again, when I read that. It gets me every time.

This is a complete distortion of the publication of this paper,

Earth's Heat Source - The Sun
Quote:
This paper was submitted but failed peer-review and could only be published as a viewpoint (opinion piece),
Quote:
"Just for info, the people i asked did not think much of Oliver's ideas and complained that he has no evidence and mainly cites himself. Hence his paper could not be published as peer reviewed, but as a viewpoint." - Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Editor, Energy & Environment

Which are not considered to have passed peer-review in E&E,
Quote:
"Regular issues include submitted and invited papers that are rigorously peer reviewed, as well as shorter personal viewpoints and technical communications that are not peer reviewed and often give controversial voices a platform." - Energy & Environment Mission Statement

Dr. Manuel's theory while controversial was published in the peer-review literature and widely reported on in the media,

Superfluidity in the Solar Interior: Implications for Solar Eruptions and Climate
(Journal of Fusion Energy, Volume 21, Numbers 3-4, pp. 193-198, December 2002)
- Oliver K. Manuel et al.


Sun Is Mostly Iron, Not Hydrogen, Professor Says (Science Daily, January 9, 2002)
Scientist Claims Sun Is Already An Iron Monger (Space Daily, January 11, 2002)
An iron Sun: Groundbreaking or cracked? (UPI, July 17, 2002)
The Sun: A Great Ball Of Iron? (Science Daily, July 17, 2002)
Scientist: Sun composed mostly of iron (CNN, July 23, 2002)
Is The Sun An Iron-Rich Powerhouse (Space Daily, November 18, 2003)


Quote:
The journal also published a much-maligned analysis suggesting that levels of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide could go up and down by 100 parts per million in a year or two, prompting marine biologist Ralph Keeling at the Scripps Institute of Oceanography in La Jolla, California to write a response to the journal, in which he asked: "Is it really the intent of E&E to provide a forum for laundering pseudo-science?"

This paper was more rigorously peer-reviewed than normal due to it's controversial subject matter,

180 years of atmospheric CO2 gas analysis by chemical methods
Quote:
"First of all, before the Beck paper was submitted to the journal, its manuscript had been circulated for more than a year for comments among a wide number of people. Among the papers that are published after 'peer review' it is probably the most strongly 'peer reviewed' one over the last 10 years. It was controversial and the appointed official referees by E&E knew about the criticism. That was insufficient reason for them to prevent the publication. The official referees were convinced of the quality of the primarily analyses of Beck of the old data. It does not mean that they unconditioned also supported all his conclusions. These were considered to be the sole responsibility of the author. According to an old tradition in scientific disputes, as performed in scientific journals." - Arthur Rorsch, Ph.D. Chemical Engineering

Dr. Keeling submitted a comment which was published along side the rebuttal by the author, which is standard procedure in scholarly peer-reviewed journals.

mcgruff wrote:
Let's look at some of the papers in the list. What about Michaels & McKitrick 2004 arguing that temperature data was not reliable. [...]

Quote:
Perhaps even more troubling, it has been noted elsewhere that MM04 confused “degrees” and “radians” in their calculations of areal weighting factors, rendering all of their calculations incorrect, and their conclusions presumably entirely invalid.

The only published criticism (RealClimate.org is not a peer-reviewed journal) was rebutted,

* Are temperature trends affected by economic activity? Reply to Benestad (2004) (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 27, Number 2, pp. 175–176, October 2004)
- Ross McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels


As is normal procedure in all scholarly peer-reviewed journals they published a correction to a legitimate error that did not effect their conclusions,

* A test of corrections for extraneous signals in gridded surface temperature data: Erratum (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 27, Number 3, pp. 265-268, December 2004)
- Ross McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels


Quote:
There was a mistake in the command file used to compute the results in our paper (McKitrick & Michaels 2004). The formula for computing cosine of absolute latitude (COSABLAT) takes the angle in radians but our data were entered in degrees. We have corrected this and produced new versions of the affected tables. [...] Because the main patterns of results persist across the revised tables, the original discussions as worded in our paper need only minor modification, and our overall conclusion, re-stated here, is unaffected: Overall, the results of this study support the hypothesis that published temperature data are contaminated with nonclimatic influences that add up to a net warming bias, and that efforts should be made to properly quantify these effects.

This rebuttal and correction is included on the list following the original paper. Publishing corrections to papers is a standard procedue in scholarly peer-reviewed journals and unless the original paper is retracted it will not be removed from the list.

mcgruff wrote:
Then there's McIntyre & McKitrick trying, and failing, to attack Mann's famous hockey stick. [...] Note that their junk science was rejected by Nature so, like others of their kind, they had to find a junk "journal" in which to publish - Energy & Environment.

Nature frequently rejects papers of very high quality, "...each Nature journal has to decline many papers of very high quality". Therefore a rejection of publication by them is meaningless.

McIntyre & McKitrick not only published criticisms of Mann's fraudulent Hockey Stick in the scholarly peer-reviewed journal E&E but also in GRL,

Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 32, Number 3, February 2005)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick


Mann's paper has since been brutally torn to shreds by professional statisticians (something Mann is not),

A statistical analysis of multiple temperature proxies: Are reconstructions of surface temperatures over the last 1000 years reliable? (PDF)
(Annals of Applied Statistics, Volume 5, Number 1, pp. 5-44, March 2011)
- Blakeley B. McShane, Abraham J. Wyner


Quote:
...we conclude unequivocally that the evidence for a “longhandled” hockey stick (where the shaft of the hockey stick extends to the year 1000 AD) is lacking in the data. The fundamental problem is that there is a limited amount of proxy data which dates back to 1000 AD; what is available is weakly predictive of global annual temperature. Our backcasting methods, which track quite closely the methods applied most recently in Mann (2008) to the same data, are unable to catch the sharp run up in temperatures recorded in the 1990s, even in-sample. As can be seen in Figure 15, our estimate of the run up in temperature in the 1990s has a much smaller slope than the actual temperature series. Furthermore, the lower frame of Figure 18 clearly reveals that the proxy model is not at all able to track the high gradient segment. Consequently, the long flat handle of the hockey stick is best understood to be a feature of regression and less a reflection of our knowledge of the truth. [...]

Climate scientists have greatly underestimated the uncertainty of proxybased reconstructions and hence have been overconfident in their models. We have shown that time dependence in the temperature series is suffi-ciently strong to permit complex sequences of random numbers to forecast out-of-sample reasonably well fairly frequently (see Figures 9 and 10). Furthermore, even proxy-based models with approximately the same amount of reconstructive skill (Figures 11–13), produce strikingly dissimilar historical backcasts (Figure 14); some of these look like hockey sticks but most do not. Natural climate variability is not well understood and is probably quite large. It is not clear that the proxies currently used to predict temperature are even predictive of it at the scale of several decades let alone over many centuries.


Dr. McKitrick has impeccable credentials,

Ross McKitrick, B.A. (Hons) Economics, Queen's University, Canada (1988); M.A. Economics, University of British Columbia, Canada (1990); Ph.D. Environmental Economics, University of British Columbia, Canada (1996); Assistant Professor of Economics, University of Guelph, Canada (1996-2001); Associate Professor of Economics, University of Guelph, Canada (2001-2008); Member, Academic Advisory Board, John Deutsch Institute, Queen's University, Canada; Professor of Environmental Economics, University of Guelph, Canada (2008-Present); Expert Reviewer, IPCC (2007)


Last edited by Poptech on Tue Jul 24, 2012 10:21 pm; edited 3 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
McGruff
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 147

PostPosted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 8:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Poptech wrote:
Dr. McKitrick has impeccable credentials,

Ross McKitrick, B.A. (Hons) Economics, Queen's University, Canada (1988); M.A. Economics, University of British Columbia, Canada (1990); Ph.D. Environmental Economics, University of British Columbia, Canada (1996); Assistant Professor of Economics, University of Guelph, Canada (1996-2001); Associate Professor of Economics, University of Guelph, Canada (2001-2008); Member, Academic Advisory Board, John Deutsch Institute, Queen's University, Canada; Professor of Environmental Economics, University of Guelph, Canada (2008-Present); Expert Reviewer, IPCC (2007)


Impressive. All he needs to complete that list is a high-school course in trigonometry.

The hockey stick has been corroborated by multiple independent studies as I'm sure you are aware. You want Mann? You can have him. We've still got a mountain of other evidence so that gets you precisely nowhere. Your persecution of individual scientists is not only reprehensible but also futile.

Poptech wrote:
I realize this replay is to an older post but it is filled with misinformation that needs to be addressed


Orly? Cheats and liars remain cheats and liars no matter how many times blowhards with anti-scientific blogs try to claim they're not. It's not hard to figure out the difference between science and propaganda. We're sick of all the deliberate falsehoods and malicious pursuit of honest scientists so go back to whichever stone you crawled out from under and don't waste my time.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Poptech
n00b
n00b


Joined: 24 Jul 2012
Posts: 0
Location: U.S.

PostPosted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 9:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mcgruff wrote:
Poptech wrote:
Dr. McKitrick has impeccable credentials,

Ross McKitrick, B.A. (Hons) Economics, Queen's University, Canada (1988); M.A. Economics, University of British Columbia, Canada (1990); Ph.D. Environmental Economics, University of British Columbia, Canada (1996); Assistant Professor of Economics, University of Guelph, Canada (1996-2001); Associate Professor of Economics, University of Guelph, Canada (2001-2008); Member, Academic Advisory Board, John Deutsch Institute, Queen's University, Canada; Professor of Environmental Economics, University of Guelph, Canada (2008-Present); Expert Reviewer, IPCC (2007)

Impressive. All he needs to complete that list is a high-school course in trigonometry.

Restating you ad hominem does not change the fact that the error has been corrected and does not affect their conclusions.

mcgruff wrote:
The hockey stick has been corroborated by multiple independent studies as I'm sure you are aware. You want Mann? You can have him.

I am aware multiple independent studies used the same flawed tree ring proxies that either used trees susceptible to rainfall patterns or do not meet accepted scientific practices for sample sizes. None of this changes the statistical methods that were refuted by McShane & Wyner (professional statisticians).

mcgruff wrote:
We've still got a mountain of other evidence so that gets you precisely nowhere. Your persecution of individual scientists is not only reprehensible but also futile.

All of your so called "evidence" has been extensively challenged. I am not persecuting anyone.

mcgruff wrote:
Poptech wrote:
I realize this replay is to an older post but it is filled with misinformation that needs to be addressed

Orly? Cheats and liars remain cheats and liars no matter how many times blowhards with anti-scientific blogs try to claim they're not. It's not hard to figure out the difference between science and propaganda. We're sick of all the deliberate falsehoods and malicious pursuit of honest scientists so go back to whichever stone you crawled out from under and don't waste my time.

Just because someone disagrees with you scientifically does not make them a cheat or a liar. It is easy to figure out the difference between ad hominem and valid arguments. If you think Mann's work is honest then you really do not understand any of this and I suggest reading, The Hockey Stick Illusion.

I will always correct misinformation when people such as yourself present it as truth.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16102
Location: Colorado

PostPosted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 10:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mcgruff wrote:
go back to whichever stone you crawled out from under and don't waste my time.
You first! :P

With that out of the way, please try keep some civility? Thanks.
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.

In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
aidanjt
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 20 Feb 2005
Posts: 1101
Location: Rep. of Ireland

PostPosted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 10:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Poptech wrote:
Dr. McKitrick has impeccable credentials,

Ross McKitrick, B.A. (Hons) Economics, Queen's University, Canada (1988); M.A. Economics, University of British Columbia, Canada (1990); Ph.D. Environmental Economics, University of British Columbia, Canada (1996); Assistant Professor of Economics, University of Guelph, Canada (1996-2001); Associate Professor of Economics, University of Guelph, Canada (2001-2008); Member, Academic Advisory Board, John Deutsch Institute, Queen's University, Canada; Professor of Environmental Economics, University of Guelph, Canada (2008-Present); Expert Reviewer, IPCC (2007)

Oh wow, he has a bunch of economics credentials, he's definitely a fully qualified expert in the natural sciences such as physics, chemistry, and climatology, then. Maybe next we can hear all about his thoughts about M-theory. He is an expert, after all, right?
_________________
juniper wrote:
you experience political reality dilation when travelling at american political speeds. it's in einstein's formulas. it's not their fault.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
aidanjt
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 20 Feb 2005
Posts: 1101
Location: Rep. of Ireland

PostPosted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 10:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oh, and by the way, pretty much the entirety of Greenland is melting now: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/greenland-melt.html
_________________
juniper wrote:
you experience political reality dilation when travelling at american political speeds. it's in einstein's formulas. it's not their fault.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Poptech
n00b
n00b


Joined: 24 Jul 2012
Posts: 0
Location: U.S.

PostPosted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 10:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

aidanjt wrote:
Poptech wrote:
Dr. McKitrick has impeccable credentials,

Ross McKitrick, B.A. (Hons) Economics, Queen's University, Canada (1988); M.A. Economics, University of British Columbia, Canada (1990); Ph.D. Environmental Economics, University of British Columbia, Canada (1996); Assistant Professor of Economics, University of Guelph, Canada (1996-2001); Associate Professor of Economics, University of Guelph, Canada (2001-2008); Member, Academic Advisory Board, John Deutsch Institute, Queen's University, Canada; Professor of Environmental Economics, University of Guelph, Canada (2008-Present); Expert Reviewer, IPCC (2007)

Oh wow, he has a bunch of economics credentials, he's definitely a fully qualified expert in the natural sciences such as physics, chemistry, and climatology, then. Maybe next we can hear all about his thoughts about M-theory. He is an expert, after all, right?

He is an expert in Environmental Economics and has an extensive publication history of papers relating to climate change. His co-author Dr. Michaels is a highly credentialed climatologist,

Patrick J. Michaels, A.B. Biological Sciences, University of Chicago (1971); S.M. Biology, University of Chicago (1975); Ph.D. Ecological Climatology, University of Wisconsin-Madison (1979); Research and Project Assistant, Center for Climatic Research, University of Wisconsin (1976-1979); Assistant Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1980-1986); Virginia State Climatologist (1980-2007); President, Central Virginia Chapter, American Meteorological Society (1986-1987); Executive Board, American Association of State Climatologists (1986-1989); Associate Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1986-1995); President, American Association of State Climatologists (1987-1988); Chair, Committee on Applied Climatology, American Meteorological Society (1988-1999); Member, American Association for the Advancement of Science; Member, Association of American Geographers; Member, Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society; Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1996-Present); Contributor and Expert Reviewer, IPCC (1990, 1992, 1995, 2001, 2007)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
McGruff
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 147

PostPosted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 10:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You're full of shit Pop, just like creationists, 9/11 truthers, scientologists, and everyone else who tries to invent their own alternative, pseudo-scientific reality. We do not have a scientific disagreement. We don't because you do not have any science to disagree with. People like you are like travelling salesmen with a foot stuck in the door of honest science; peddlars of tricks and lies whose purpose is to prey upon the anti-scientific bigotry of gullible people who know nothing about the practice or achievements of real climate science. A blowhard with a blog offers little challenge to the findings of a broad community of scientists, endorsed by all the major scientific institutions on the planet.

Nice choice of names by the way: Doug, Mike, and Karl. Computer scientists and engineers. They sound like the kind of plain-speaking, no-nonsense guys you can trust to get the skinny on these wacky scientists. Average joes in average jobs just like you and me.

I wouldn't argue with you about climate science any more than I'd argue with a scientologist about pharmacology. You are not an honest party. The only reason people like you get a toe in the door is because we're addicted to oil like crack cocaine. As with all addictions, this ultimately leads to some dark and sinister places, an exploitative world of pimps, johns and other pond slime, a lawless, violent place where money means everything and the currency of truth has no value.

PS: Steve McUntyre's Hocky Stick Illusion, and its author, sucks donkey balls. You know it. I know it. Everybody knows it. So cut the crap.

PPS: what on earth are you doing here anyway? Do tell how you found us.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
McGruff
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 147

PostPosted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 11:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

pjp wrote:
With that out of the way, please try keep some civility? Thanks.


I promise to be fair. I can't promise to be civil.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
aidanjt
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 20 Feb 2005
Posts: 1101
Location: Rep. of Ireland

PostPosted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 11:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Poptech wrote:
He is an expert in Environmental Economics and has an extensive publication history of papers relating to climate change.

Which means he can tell us all about how expensive climate change will be. Awesome. But entirely irrelevant to the universe.

Poptech wrote:
His co-author Dr. Michaels is a highly credentialed climatologist,

Patrick J. Michaels, A.B. Biological Sciences, University of Chicago (1971); S.M. Biology, University of Chicago (1975); Ph.D. Ecological Climatology, University of Wisconsin-Madison (1979); Research and Project Assistant, Center for Climatic Research, University of Wisconsin (1976-1979); Assistant Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1980-1986); Virginia State Climatologist (1980-2007); President, Central Virginia Chapter, American Meteorological Society (1986-1987); Executive Board, American Association of State Climatologists (1986-1989); Associate Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1986-1995); President, American Association of State Climatologists (1987-1988); Chair, Committee on Applied Climatology, American Meteorological Society (1988-1999); Member, American Association for the Advancement of Science; Member, Association of American Geographers; Member, Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society; Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1996-Present); Contributor and Expert Reviewer, IPCC (1990, 1992, 1995, 2001, 2007)

Now you've got a something of a scientist who's remotely qualified. It's a pity the guy you've cherry picked is an ethically bankrupt crank who works for a right-wing 'think-tank', and outright rejects anything which might cost his (and their) big business financiers any significant amount of money, and even goes as far as to ignore the damage the warming will have, and lie about the thermodynamic properties of CO2 and the insular effect it has on the climate.

Quote:
Views on climate change
Michaels has said that he does not contest the basic scientific principles behind greenhouse warming and acknowledges that the global mean temperature has increased in recent decades.[citation needed] He is one of the most widely quoted global warming skeptics[4] and has described himself as a skeptic.[5] He contends that the changes will be minor, not catastrophic, and may even be beneficial.[6]

He has written extensive editorials on this topic for the mass media, and for think tanks and their publications such as Regulation.[6]
Quote:
[S]cientists know quite precisely how much the planet will warm in the foreseeable future, a modest three-quarters of a degree (C) [in 50 years]

All this has to do with basic physics, which isn't real hard to understand. It has been known since 1872 that as we emit more and more carbon dioxide into our atmosphere, each increment results in less and less warming. In other words, the first changes produce the most warming, and subsequent ones produce a bit less, and so on. But we also assume carbon dioxide continues to go into the atmosphere at an ever-increasing rate. In other words, the increase from year-to-year isn't constant, but itself is increasing. The effect of increasing the rate of carbon dioxide emissions, coupled with the fact that more and more carbon dioxide produces less and less warming compels our climate projections for the future warming to be pretty much a straight line. Translation: Once human beings start to warm the climate, they do so at a constant rate.[7]


Criticism and support
Office of Science and Technology Policy director, John Holdren,[9] told the U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee in June 2003, "Michaels is another of the handful of U.S. climate-change contrarians … He has published little if anything of distinction in the professional literature, being noted rather for his shrill op-ed pieces and indiscriminate denunciations of virtually every finding of mainstream climate science."[10] In 2009 Michaels responded in a Washington Examiner Op-Ed, saying that the IPCC had subverted the peer review process, and adding the IPCC had "left out plenty of peer-reviewed science that it found inconveniently disagreeable."[11]

Climate scientist Tom Wigley,[12] a lead author of parts of the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has stated that "Michaels' statements on the subject of computer models are a catalog of misrepresentation and misinterpretation … Many of the supposedly factual statements made in Michaels' testimony are either inaccurate or are seriously misleading."[13]

Michaels received praise for his book, "Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Don't Want You to Know" from University of Alabama-Huntsville Principal Research Scientist Roy Spencer, who wrote, "Michaels and [Co-Author Robert] Balling have provided a treasure trove of the latest global warming science."[14] Will Happer, Professor of Physics and Former Chairman of the University Research Board at Princeton University, also praised the book and wrote it "...provides important and honest information about climate change that is hard to find elsewhere."

Funding from energy or fossil fuel companies
On January 25, 2011, Rep. Henry Waxman sent a letter to Rep. Fred Upton seeking to call in Michaels for questioning about his science and funding. In the letter, Waxman wrote that Pat Michaels testified before the Energy and Commerce Committee in February 2009 "that widely accepted scientific data had 'overestimated' global warming and that regulation enacted in response to that data could have 'a very counterproductive effect.' Among the scientists who testified before this Committee on the issue of climate change in the last Congress, Pat Michaels was the only one to dismiss the need to act on climate change ... Dr. Michaels may have provided misleading information about the sources of his funding and his ties to industries opposed to regulation of emissions responsible for climate change."[16]

On July 27, 2006 ABC News reported that a Colorado energy cooperative, the Intermountain Rural Electric Association, had given Michaels $100,000.[17] An Associated Press report said that the donations had been made after Michaels had "told Western business leaders ... that he was running out of money for his analyses of other scientists' global warming research" and noted that the cooperative had a vested interest in opposing mandatory carbon dioxide caps, a situation that raised conflict of interest concerns.[18]

According to Fred Pearce, fossil fuel companies have helped fund Michaels' projects, including his World Climate Report, published every year since 1994, and his "advocacy science consulting firm", New Hope Environmental Services.[19][15]

_________________
juniper wrote:
you experience political reality dilation when travelling at american political speeds. it's in einstein's formulas. it's not their fault.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
slonocode
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 03 Jun 2002
Posts: 273

PostPosted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 11:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mcgruff wrote:
pjp wrote:
With that out of the way, please try keep some civility? Thanks.


I promise to be fair. I can't promise to be civil.



You could always abuse the moderating system and go crying and whining to the report thread...unless you already did that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Poptech
n00b
n00b


Joined: 24 Jul 2012
Posts: 0
Location: U.S.

PostPosted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 11:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mcgruff wrote:
You're full of shit Pop, just like creationists, 9/11 truthers, scientologists, and everyone else who tries to invent their own alternative, pseudo-scientific reality. We do not have a scientific disagreement. We don't because you do not have any science to disagree with. People like you are like travelling salesmen with a foot stuck in the door of honest science; peddlars of tricks and lies whose purpose is to prey upon the anti-scientific bigotry of gullible people who know nothing about the practice or achievements of real climate science. A blowhard with a blog offers little challenge to the findings of a broad community of scientists, endorsed by all the major scientific institutions on the planet.

More ad hominem because you have no argument. First of all I am religiously agnostic and support evolution theory, have posted a detailed article debunking 911 conspiracies and could care less about scientologists. Pretending that credentialed skeptics do not have scientific disagreements is a nice fantasy but the peer-reviewed literature says otherwise,

1100+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm

Your rant is just bizarre, I have used no tricks and stated no lies. My purpose is simple - to correct misinformation. What I am tired of is people who peddle lies that no credentialed scientists or peer-reviewed papers exist challenging alarmist positions on climate change.

In relation to "major scientific institutions", please provide a comprehensive survey or poll of those scientific organization's membership bodies in support of the position statements released by a handful of their council members or in many cases signed just by the president. Failure to do so discredits your ability to use them as justification of proof of consensus. Policy statements release by the council members of a scientific organization can speak for no one other than the handful of members in the council. It is meaningful in that those few members in the council support such statements. It is meaningless to imply that the membership bodies of these scientific organizations (which never approved such statements) can be used in support of these statements. Many members join scientific organizations for free access to organizational resources or discounts on journals and meetings. They may have little to no interest in the organization's policy positions. Without a comprehensive survey or poll of the member's position in relation to the organization's policy statements no meaningful conclusions can be drawn.

mcgruff wrote:
Nice choice of names by the way: Doug, Mike, and Karl. Computer scientists and engineers. They sound like the plain-speaking, no-nonsense kind of guys you can trust to get the skinny on these wacky scientists. Average guys in average jobs just like you and me.

That is not a choice, that is their names. They can only speak to the articles they authored not the list.

mcgruff wrote:
I wouldn't argue with you about climate science any more than I'd argue with a scientologist about pharmacology. You are not an honest party. The only reason people like you get a toe in the door is because we're addicted to oil like crack cocaine. As with all addictions, this ultimately leads to some dark and sinister places, an exploitative world of pimps, johns and other pond slime, a lawless, violent place where money means everything and the currency of truth has no value.

You can't argue the facts which is why you ad hominem. Claiming I am not honest is pure lunacy. Oil is used because it is the most economically viable and efficient transportation fuel. There is no "addiction" it is simple economics and physics.

mcgruff wrote:
PS: Steve McUntyre's Hocky Stick Illusion, and its author, sucks donkey balls. You know it. I know it. Everybody knows it. So cut the crap.

No I do not support your ad hominem, it is the best book on this subject and I highly recommend everyone read it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Poptech
n00b
n00b


Joined: 24 Jul 2012
Posts: 0
Location: U.S.

PostPosted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 11:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You are so predictable,

aidanjt wrote:
Poptech wrote:
He is an expert in Environmental Economics and has an extensive publication history of papers relating to climate change.

Which means he can tell us all about how expensive climate change will be. Awesome. But entirely irrelevant to the universe.

Poptech wrote:
His co-author Dr. Michaels is a highly credentialed climatologist,

Patrick J. Michaels, A.B. Biological Sciences, University of Chicago (1971); S.M. Biology, University of Chicago (1975); Ph.D. Ecological Climatology, University of Wisconsin-Madison (1979); Research and Project Assistant, Center for Climatic Research, University of Wisconsin (1976-1979); Assistant Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1980-1986); Virginia State Climatologist (1980-2007); President, Central Virginia Chapter, American Meteorological Society (1986-1987); Executive Board, American Association of State Climatologists (1986-1989); Associate Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1986-1995); President, American Association of State Climatologists (1987-1988); Chair, Committee on Applied Climatology, American Meteorological Society (1988-1999); Member, American Association for the Advancement of Science; Member, Association of American Geographers; Member, Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society; Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1996-Present); Contributor and Expert Reviewer, IPCC (1990, 1992, 1995, 2001, 2007)

Now you've got a something of a scientist who's remotely qualified. It's a pity the guy you've cherry picked is an ethically bankrupt crank who works for a right-wing 'think-tank', and outright rejects anything which might cost his (and their) big business financiers any significant amount of money, and even goes as far as to ignore the damage the warming will have, and lie about the thermodynamic properties of CO2 and the insular effect it has on the climate.

Pitty all you have is libelous ad hominem based on distortions from Wikipedia. You do know how to do better research than this?

What is the Cato Institute's position on the Iraq War and the Patriot Act? You couldn't have knee jerk called them "right-wing" without knowing if this was true?

Please demonstrate that Dr. Michaels is corrupt and changed his position on climate change due to a funding source. You do understand the difference between receiving funding because you already hold a position the funder supports with changing yours due to funding?

He does not ignore damage that has not happened because he does not scientifically believe it will happen and he has lied about no such thing. Where do you get such misinformation?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Poptech
n00b
n00b


Joined: 24 Jul 2012
Posts: 0
Location: U.S.

PostPosted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 11:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

aidanjt wrote:
Now you've got a something of a scientist who's remotely qualified.

Please provide the objective criteria to determine if someone is "qualified".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
McGruff
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 147

PostPosted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 11:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Troll > /dev/null
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Muso
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 655
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu

PostPosted: Wed Jul 25, 2012 1:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mcgruff wrote:
Troll > /dev/null


Referring to yourself? Poptech just completely schooled you.


@ Poptech, thank you for your information.
_________________
“If the words 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" don't include the right to experiment with your own consciousness, then the Declaration of Independence isn't worth the hemp it was written on.” ~ T. McKenna
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
McGruff
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 147

PostPosted: Wed Jul 25, 2012 1:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

No he really didn't. Only 116 papers from E&E, not 125? Gee that 9 really makes all the difference. Nature are "too busy" to publish everything? Yeah right. If it was a significant new finding about climate, believe me, they'd publish. Etc etc.

He's just repeating the same bullshit that's on his blog (and which has no business on a forum for gentoo users). A bunch of "computer guys" :roll: magically discover hundreds of important papers which the science community somehow failed to take proper account of? Yes that makes perfect sense. Tell me: how exactly do you think they are qualified to judge good from bad when reading through - ferociously technical - original research in a range of different fields in none of which they have any expertise?

Some people are just so desperate to have their prejudices confirmed that they'll believe any old crap. Next up: typing pool discovers a cure for cancer!


Last edited by McGruff on Wed Jul 25, 2012 1:35 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Page 8 of 9

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum