that's fine. I'm not the one who went through all of the trouble to discredit the work of fear-mongerers. Feel free to educate yourself on the matter.

Oh, and Paaaaaaaaage 3

1/30/2008 11:03:07 PM

Its hilarious because in ten years you're going to be the born again-rebaptized-now-Jesus-loving nutjob thats going to preach to every one that humanities sins caused the environmental collapse and the end times are near.

1/30/2008 11:07:57 PM

actually, in about three years I will probably be the one laughing as temperatures begin to shift downwards again as the solar cycle moves away from its maximum. Ironically, during the cooling scare of the 70s, a guy predicted that the turn of the century would be a period of higher solar activity which would translate into higher temperatures. But, naaaaaah, let's just ignore that guy.

1/30/2008 11:13:05 PM

Mods should start banning people for not making fun of aaronburro.

1/30/2008 11:18:14 PM

Right.^^

[Edited on January 30, 2008 at 11:20 PM. Reason : >.<]

1/30/2008 11:20:11 PM

Quote :

"i wonder if you'll disregard the work of people who proved, without a doubt, that the research of those prize-winning scientists was shady, incorrect, and rigged. "

haha... what?!??

1/30/2008 11:20:35 PM

Yep. Look up the Wegman report to Congress. Pretty much puts the entire basis of the current AGW movement where it belongs: in the trash.

1/30/2008 11:21:46 PM

I'm going to look it up, but why do you feel that's more credible than other documents?

1/30/2008 11:23:04 PM

Ummm. Because the guys reverse engineered the fucking research despite grandstanding by supposed scientists, and they identified the direct flaw in the methodology. They then ran random data through the reverse-engineered program and showed that 95% of the time the program produces the same "affirmative AGW" result. Most importantly, not one of their findings has actually been refuted, though they have been repeatedly vilified.

1/30/2008 11:25:54 PM

Wegman was a statistician. How is he in any way qualified to determine if global warming is happening or not?

From Wikipedia:

Quote :

"In 2006 Joe Barton, chairman of the United States House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee and Ed Whitfield, the chairman of the subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation, requested that Dr. Wegman prepare a report on the statistical validity of Michael Mann's "Hockey Stick graph", for the hearing "Questions Surrounding the 'Hockey Stick' Temperature Studies: Implications for Climate Change Assessments," [2] [3][4] Dr. Wegman assembled an ad hoc panel of himself, David W. Scott of Rice University and Yasmin Said at Johns Hopkins University to prepare the report on a pro bono basis. At the hearing to present it, Wegman said "We were asked to provide independent verification by statisticians of the critiques of the statistical methodology found in the papers of Drs. Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes published respectively in Nature in 1998 and in Geophysical Research Letters in 1999." and "We were also asked about the implications of our assessment. We were not asked to assess the reality of global warming and indeed this is not an area of our expertise. We do not assume any position with respect to global warming except to note in our report that the instrumented record of global average temperature has risen since 1850 according to the MBH99 chart by about 1.2 degrees Centigrade, and in the NAS panel report chaired by Dr. North, about six-tenths of a degree Centigrade in several places in that report." The presented report was highly critical, saying among other things: * It is important to note the isolation of the paleoclimate community; even though they rely heavily on statistical methods they do not seem to be interacting with the statistical community. Additionally, we judge that the sharing of research materials, data and results was haphazardly and grudgingly done. In this case we judge that there was too much reliance on peer review, which was not necessarily independent. Moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that this community can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility. Overall, our committee believes that Dr. Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis.' * Our committee believes that the assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade in a millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year in a millennium cannot be supported by the MBH98/99 analysis. As mentioned earlier in our background section, tree ring proxies are typically calibrated to remove low frequency variations. The cycle of Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age that was widely recognized in 1990 has disappeared from the MBH98/99 analyses, thus making possible the hottest decade/hottest year claim. However, the methodology of MBH98/99 suppresses this low frequency information. The paucity of data in the more remote past makes the hottest-in-a-millennium claims essentially unverifiable. [5] At the hearing, Dr. Wegman indicated that the report had only been peer-reviewed by those he selected. There were a total of 12 members present in an official status; Committee Chair Barton was there in an ex officio status.[6] The report itself has been commented on extensively by the blog RealClimate [7] and also on the blog Climate Audit[8]"

They make some really stupid claims that they are not qualified to make.

[Edited on January 30, 2008 at 11:32 PM. Reason : ]

1/30/2008 11:26:40 PM

How to sucessfully make an argument:

Quote :

"I don't think that global warming scientists are wrong or confused about the risks. My problem is when a politician like Gore comes out with these doomsday scenarios and fearmongering. Sure, it calls attention to an issue, but it polarizes the issue and misinforms the public."

How to fail at saying the same thing.

Quote :

"I never argued against global warming. I just argue that the "consequences" are grossly exaggerated fear-mongering."

And then people don't even state their position on the issue that directly follows from this. Should we DO ANYTHING to cap GHG emissions?

The answer is yes.

1/30/2008 11:59:28 PM

Quote :

"Most importantly, not one of their findings has actually been refuted, though they have been repeatedly vilified."

Their main criticism was with the mann data from 98 and 99. In the most recent IPCC working group report (AFAIK hasn't been officially released), this data is still present, but it is supplemented with I think 10 other data sets ( http://www.realclimate.org/images/ipcc_6_1_large.jpg ), using different proxy and methodologies, that support a rising temeperature trend. Wegmen briefly showed ( http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/others/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf page 46 there) some of the datasets from scientists he claims were buddies with Mann (according to wikipedia, they only became buddies AFTER the 2001 IPCC report). However, that still leaves a good other 5 different studies that don't apparently fall under friends-of-Mann group. Also, Wegman's re-evaluation of tree ring data seperate from Mann reinforced rising temperatures and the general ideas of what Mann was saying (it's on the same page I just noted from the Wegman report).

On top of that, the Wegman group actually supports the idea of climate change, and they apparently think it's likely that humans are changing the climate. They just seem to REALLY hate Mann and his group, and his methodologies. But Mann is just one relatively small component of the climate change report by the IPCC. I would say it's clear though that some more analysis could be done on the data Mann used for that one graph. However, one proxy data model by one group doesn't represent the entire body of evidence against climate change.

From the Wegman report (page 64):

Quote :

"What is the current scientific consensus on the temperature record of the last 1,000 to 2,000 years? Ans: There is strong evidence from the instrumented temperature record that temperatures are rising since 1850 and that global warming is a fact..."

1/31/2008 12:09:04 AM

Michael Mann and his "hockey stick" have been discredited numerous times. Wegman is one of many who questioned the mysterious disappearance of the Midieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age in that model.

That said, it's quite obvious that global warming is a fact. I'm sure that Aaronburro will say as much. the causes of this recent warming are in debate, and Mann's bullshit "hockey stick" graph only discredits his side by falsifying data and misrepresenting the facts.

1/31/2008 12:20:29 AM

Quote :

"prawn star: it's quite obvious that global warming is a fact. I'm sure that Aaronburro will say as much."

Quote :

"aaronburro: actually, in about three years I will probably be the one laughing as temperatures begin to shift downwards again as the solar cycle moves away from its maximum. Ironically, during the cooling scare of the 70s, a guy predicted that the turn of the century would be a period of higher solar activity which would translate into higher temperatures. But, naaaaaah, let's just ignore that guy. "

I'm guessing burro has never actually read the Wegman report though, and instead is going on analysis by the typically braindead right wing commentators.

-----------------

Quote :

"the causes of this recent warming are in debate"

Not by the Wegman report they aren't. They come just short of explicitly saying the warming since 1850 is due to humans (I think they implicitly state this, but I don't feel like finding the page, so I won't stick by it). The most uncertainty you can have after reading the wegman report is if now is the warmest time in recorded history. It either is by a small margin (by the 10 or so models used by the IPCC), or at the very least the second warmest time (if you assume Wegman is right and all the others are wrong), but still trending to be the warmest (if you assume Wegman is right).

But, the past 160 years of temperature data has at least a fairly strong correlation with human greenhouse gases, enough to at least circumstantially say humans are causing global warming. Combined with recent atmospheric chemistry data (noted earlier in thread), ice core data, and coral data, it's fairly convincing that we are affecting the climate.


[Edited on January 31, 2008 at 12:39 AM. Reason : ]

1/31/2008 12:30:04 AM

Quote :

"Wegman was a statistician. How is he in any way qualified to determine if global warming is happening or not?"

Considering that the whole fucking debate about climate change is based on statistical analysis of data, I'd say he has a LOT to say, especially when the statistical analyses are completely WRONG.

Quote :

"Their main criticism was with the mann data from 98 and 99. In the most recent IPCC working group report (AFAIK hasn't been officially released), this data is still present, but it is supplemented with I think 10 other data sets"

The problem is that most of those "other data sets" are equally as bad as the ones chosen by mann. Moreover, those studies still use a similar methodology which is equally suspect.

Quote :

"But Mann is just one relatively small component of the climate change report by the IPCC."

False. What got the whole ball rolling was Mann's work.

Quote :

"I'm guessing burro has never actually read the Wegman report though, and instead is going on analysis by the typically braindead right wing commentators. "

False, I read the whole bloody thing. How bout you? I also read the entire study on which much of the Wegman report was based. How bout you?

Quote :

"But, the past 160 years of temperature data has at least a fairly strong correlation with human greenhouse gases, enough to at least circumstantially say humans are causing global warming. Combined with recent atmospheric chemistry data (noted earlier in thread), ice core data, and coral data, it's fairly convincing that we are affecting the climate."

And this right here is where statisticians are 100% valid in stepping in, because CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSALITY.

1/31/2008 7:02:14 AM

Quote :

"i wish people had a better grasp of geologic timescale...ie that in the big scheme of things, 100 years, or even a 1000 years is NOTHING"

all the responses i got to this quote pretty much confirmed that people definitely need a much better understanding of the geologic timescale

1/31/2008 10:43:21 AM

I admit

It would be kind of funny if in thirty years we were thrown into an ice age.

Like, inverse global warming.

Planet Earth ultimately trolling Humans: "LOLZ U THOT U NEW ME KEKE"

1/31/2008 10:51:20 AM

aaronburro, hats off to you man. I can't believe you're still rehasing info and arguing with these people. I think its a waste of time to repeat things already stated by us in the infamous "An Inconvenient Truth" thread.

1/31/2008 1:35:25 PM

I do not see how anyone can not conceive that the human activity can impact the climate, however, the hippy liberals like to preach hell and brim stone grossly over-exaggering the effects to support their green agendas. Much like Bush's fear-mongering about terrorists to support his defense and state-control agendas.

ZOMG global warming is gonna flood out NYC and cause 10 category 5 hurricanes to slam the NC coast every year ZOMG

1/31/2008 2:11:05 PM

Quote :

"all the responses i got to this quote pretty much confirmed that people definitely need a much better understanding of the geologic timescale"

nobody is claiming that the earth is gone and done for, for good. We all know that given enough time, the earth will naturally re-correct itself or the ecosystems will adapt or whatever.

But the problem comes in with what is 1) the status quo, and 2) the rate of change while humans are trying to live on the earth.
In 10,000,000 years, will "the earth" give a shit what this small, temporary species called "homo sapiens " did to the air and water in their short existence? No, probably not. But what we're trying to do is to ensure that humans, who are living now and into the foreseeable future, are able to reasonably maintain the lifestyles that we've grown accustomed to (such as living on the beach), or at the least to protect assets worth billions or trillions of dollars that people have real money invested in.

Additionally, while it's clear that plant and animal species appear and go extinct on a regular basis over the millions of years of existence, do you not agree that there is no reason to accelerate that process by needlessly harming or destroying their habitats before they can adapt or evolve?

1/31/2008 2:49:40 PM

I understand what we're TRYING to do and that its a noteworthy and good cause

But my repeated statement about geologic timescale is to point out how assuming and presumptious it is to think the 1.5 degree increase in global average temperature over the last 140 years is some kind of 'cycle' and not simply a blip on the radar. Not only that, but could it just be a natural cycle that we're observing, regardless of what we're emitting into the atmosphere, or a small section of a cycle thats going on. The planet has been around longer than 400,000,000,000 years but we're freaking out over 140 years of quality temperature data

1/31/2008 4:23:44 PM

Quote :

"while it's clear that plant and animal species appear and go extinct"

well if they do its just a part of life. Kinda like my theory on poor people starving.

If the lion evolved a way to more efficiently kill and out compete the hyena Simba will not stop because he's worried that the hyena might go instinct. survival of the fittest

1/31/2008 4:41:43 PM

^^The naming the geologic period has only a minimal relationship to global warming.

1/31/2008 4:45:09 PM

i dont have much of a problem with the name cause its just a name, although it is also kind of presumptuous

but in regards to climate change discussion in general, the relative scale is important, but its hard for people who live ~78 years or whatever on average to be able to step back and think about billions of years

1/31/2008 4:50:59 PM

This is an issue over the human impact on the geology of the earth. It is abundantly clear that humans have a significant impact on the Earth's geology. Furthermore, you cannot argue about people not understanding geologic time when it is GEOLOGISTS who came up with the change. If anyone understands geologic time it is a geologist.

I also don't understand why people are so opposed to Green technology. The issue isn't about saving the Earth for 50 million years, it is making sure that the Earth remains hospitable to human society and civilization. what is the harm in leaving your children and your grandchildren a better place that what you inherited?

1/31/2008 4:56:15 PM

Quote :

"you cannot argue about people not understanding geologic time when it is GEOLOGISTS who came up with the change"

i'm arguing about people in this thread not understanding geologic time, not geologists

and i realize the efforts of green stuff are usually well meaning, i dont think anybody wants to fuck up our planet...i just think some people are still skeptical about how bad things will supposedly get and if drastic changes in our ways of life are actually needed

1/31/2008 5:10:49 PM

i don't have a problem about green technology if you want a hippy green toyota prius then that is your own deal. Just stop bitching and crying Armageddon if i choose to use MY hard earned money on a 12mpg escalade.

1/31/2008 5:13:09 PM

Quote :

"The planet has been around longer than 400,000,000,000"

off by a few orders of magnitude there, dude

1/31/2008 6:46:14 PM

oh shit i meant 4,000,000,000

still a big number

1/31/2008 6:59:05 PM

Quote :

"The problem is that most of those "other data sets" are equally as bad as the ones chosen by mann. Moreover, those studies still use a similar methodology which is equally suspect."

"Most" of the other data sets? Why didn't wegman examine the rest? And wegman presumed they were just as bad because of comradery. He didn't actually analyze the methodology. And the report also didn't look at all the data sets the IPCC is using, when they were available to wegman.

Quote :

""But Mann is just one relatively small component of the climate change report by the IPCC." False. What got the whole ball rolling was Mann's work."

Clearly I meant part as a body of evidence. I'll agree that Mann got the ball rolling, but you're implying that because of this, all the other scientists, many (i would actually bet on most, but I haven't counted-- and IPCC is made up of MUCH more than paleoclimate researchers) of which aren't related to Mann, are wrong as well? Mann may be a statistician, but you seem to need a basic logician.

Quote :

"And this right here is where statisticians are 100% valid in stepping in, because CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSALITY."

I agree, more people with eyes on the data is never a bad thing. But considering the data, it's unlikely it'll completely reverse the conclusions, like you seem to be hoping for.

1/31/2008 9:31:16 PM