Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[Wildcat]

No you haven't

 

Straw man alert. No where have I stated that we are worth 5 to 10 times more than people in devloping countries. My position is that if CO2 is harmful (I very much doubt this, but I don't rule it out) then the surely we should be looking at the biggest producing nations by total volume and some arbitrary per capita economic figure. However you don't seem to get this.

 

I get that perfectly well.

 

Which is why I made the point I did, that your method values people in developing countries as being less important by a factor of 5 to 10.

 

Counting the cost per capita is the only fair way to assess the cost. Counting costs by Country imposes the costs for fixing the problems on the very people we are causing the suffering to.

[Wildcat]

So it's OK to use tree ring proxies for years that we don't have observed (fudged) datas for. However you don't trust the figures from the rings when we have actual observations of temperature, so they are simply discarded.

 

Cherry (tree) picking at it's worst.

 

The only thing that's stupid on here is your inability to see both sides of the debate.

 

The tree ring proxies aren't required for the hockey stick, the hockey stick stands without them.

 

The tree ring proxies used in mann's paper were used legitimately for the period the proxies have been shown to be valid and weren't used for the period they weren't valid.

 

It really isn't that complex, there is no cherry picking unless by that you mean excluding data we know to be false, it is quite simple.

 

The "other side" of the debate, is a criticism that wants to defraud the the results.

Edited June 5, 2010 by Wildcat

[Wildcat]

That mistake calls into question the credibility of the IPCC, along with several other 'mistakes' in the report and the executive summary.

 

Again the word consensus. Science doesn't operate by consensus.

 

Science doesn't, but an assessment of science does.

 

If people had looked at what the scientific community was saying in relation to MMR jabs instead of publicising a fraudster there would not have been needless deaths.

 

We can't all devote our time to being specialists in a topic, we have to rely on the credibility of the authorities in order to make a judgement.

 

In the case of global warming we have the vast majority of specialists in the subject supporting an anthropomorphic cause, we have all but one or two peer reviewed papers supporting anthropomorphic cause to global warming. And we can see that those that oppose global warming are a mixture of paid lobbiests for the oil industry (some of whom previously worked for the tobacco industry telling us cigarettes were safe), right wing bloggers involved in conspiracy theories and wishful thinking conservatives that see environmental issues as a threat to their short term interests.

 

The anti-global warming group are a disparate bunch that will and do seize on any argument they can think of to discredit global warming one day they talk about global cooling, the next they talk about it being sun spots, or dust or . Every argument they have put forward has been thoroughly refuted and discredited. In doing so more often than not the argument has come from some fraud or other.

 

A few minor inconsequential mistakes in the IPCC report does not discredit the underlying argument or the consensus of opinion on the subject. The lack of any coherent alternative theory to account for the evidence makes the consensus opinion the only one with any credibility.

Edited June 5, 2010 by Wildcat

[Cyclone]

Hardly a wave of the hand. I pointed out that using tree ring proxies in the recent time period when they were no longer a proxy for temperature would be a fraud. The argument is simple and clear and the alternative stupid.

 

Yes, conveniently ignoring how the trees that were used were a hand picked sub set from all the possible trees available.

[Cyclone]

The panel of five 'independent' investigators concluded that the CRU’s climate data results were “subjective" and that tree ring growth, used as a climate proxy for older Earth temperatures, was “influenced by many factors of which temperature is only one”

 

Indeed, respected independent climate analysts such as Steve McIntyre (see below) argues that the CRU tree ring samples have been systematically cherry-picked to make past temperatures appear artificially cooler than they were. McIntyre repeatedly condemns those results from Yamal as determined by Keith Briffa on his blog, Climate Audit.

 

The Oxburgh committee conceded that it was “regrettable” that common reliance had been placed upon such tree ring data. They further agreed with sceptics that there was a notable “discrepancy” from actual thermometer readings in modern comparisons with tree rings rendering them questionable as reliable proxies.

 

Doesn't look like an exoneration to me.

[convert]

I get that perfectly well.

 

Which is why I made the point I did, that your method values people in developing countries as being less important by a factor of 5 to 10.

 

Counting the cost per capita is the only fair way to assess the cost. Counting costs by Country imposes the costs for fixing the problems on the very people we are causing the suffering to.

 

It's not supposed to be about cost though is it?

 

It's about the fact that the pro AGW lobby say that CO2 is killing the planet.

 

I don't think that the planet takes into account the 'per capita' figures, I think the total amount of CO2 is the ONLY measure that makes any sense from an environmental stand point.

 

Unless of course your goal isn't to save the planet, but to re-distribute it's wealth fairly...

[convert]

The tree ring proxies aren't required for the hockey stick, the hockey stick stands without them.

 

The tree ring proxies used in mann's paper were used legitimately for the period the proxies have been shown to be valid and weren't used for the period they weren't valid.

 

It really isn't that complex, there is no cherry picking unless by that you mean excluding data we know to be false, it is quite simple.

 

The "other side" of the debate, is a criticism that wants to defraud the the results.

 

So who gets to decide what's valid and what's not.

 

Surely if tree ring datas are valid during certain periods (those without instrument data), then they have to be valid during the periods for which we have instrumental data?

 

Surely they would back the instrument data.

 

Obviously they don't so they were ditched by the 'scientists'

[convert]

Science doesn't, but an assessment of science does.

 

If people had looked at what the scientific community was saying in relation to MMR jabs instead of publicising a fraudster there would not have been needless deaths.

 

We can't all devote our time to being specialists in a topic, we have to rely on the credibility of the authorities in order to make a judgement.

 

In the case of global warming we have the vast majority of specialists in the subject supporting an anthropomorphic cause, we have all but one or two peer reviewed papers supporting anthropomorphic cause to global warming. And we can see that those that oppose global warming are a mixture of paid lobbiests for the oil industry (some of whom previously worked for the tobacco industry telling us cigarettes were safe), right wing bloggers involved in conspiracy theories and wishful thinking conservatives that see environmental issues as a threat to their short term interests.

 

The anti-global warming group are a disparate bunch that will and do seize on any argument they can think of to discredit global warming one day they talk about global cooling, the next they talk about it being sun spots, or dust or . Every argument they have put forward has been thoroughly refuted and discredited. In doing so more often than not the argument has come from some fraud or other.

 

A few minor inconsequential mistakes in the IPCC report does not discredit the underlying argument or the consensus of opinion on the subject. The lack of any coherent alternative theory to account for the evidence makes the consensus opinion the only one with any credibility.

 

In your opinion. Not currently in mine.

[Wildcat]

Doesn't look like an exoneration to me.

 

What is your source?

 

This is the report. it says the opposite:

 

We have not exhaustively reviewed the external criticism of the endroclimatological work, but it seems that some of these criticisms show a rather selective and uncharitable approach to information made available by CRU. They seem also to reflect a lack of awareness of the ongoing and dynamic nature of chronologies, and of the difficult circumstances under which university research is sometimes conducted.

 

and

 

We saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit and had it been there we believe that it is likely that we would have detected it. Rather we found a small group of dedicated if slightly disorganised researchers who were ill-prepared for being the focus of public attention. As with many small research groups their internal procedures were rather informal.

 

http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/SAP

 

You seem to be getting your information from a source that is deliberately attempting to mislead.

Edited June 5, 2010 by Wildcat

[Wildcat]

Yes, conveniently ignoring how the trees that were used were a hand picked sub set from all the possible trees available.

 

They would have to be, otherwise you would bias the results geographically.