Cool Video. Nice work Eva!
I needed a video like this because i was working on my split jerk for the first time the other day. Thanks HQ!

Indonesia now - awesome!

How much does Eva weigh? That's some serious weight she's lifting.

Eva is my hero

Nice work J-Rad and Spuke!!!!

Orson Scott Card wrote Ender's Game, Speaker For the Dead, Xenocide and Ender's Shadow. All AMAZING books. Read them...very creative, very thought provoking Looking forward to this article.

Coach,

I like your style. There isn't anything political that is off limits with you and I will await the fire storm that will surley follow. You are a brave man to continue to wade into some of these arguments but I can see how you must enjoy the fireworks that ensue.
I'm amazed that I've lived long enough to remember when these same folks were getting us to believe we were all headed for a Global Winter. The next ice age was almost upon us. These are the same type of scientists that won't fess up to the faking/doctoring of the evidence in support of evolution. Where is the scientific minds in looking into intelligent design? The religious zealots of secular humanism have a basic problem. The more real science shines the light into the corners of their "gospel" the more the road map doesn't fit the terrain. Have a great rest day all and I will eagerly await the rest day political firestorm.

What!!?!?!?!! Does this mean that my "beach front" property investment in Western Maryland ISN'T going to pan out? Dang, I hate when that happens.

Sweet! Climate change again.

One of todays news stories...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17632043/

Apparently NOAA and NASA are in on the conspiracy. EPA accepts global warming as well although they have a lot of IPCC stuff on their website so that's questionable from the beginning.

The main question I want to ask everyone is why? Why would so many scientists go to so much effort and risk their reputations if it weren't true? How does putting scrubbers on smokestacks and finding alternate energy sources punish rich countries? Why do they want to punish themselves?

I'm going to order the book and read it so next time we have climate change I can talk intelligently about it.

Cheers!
JP

Glad to see Spu, J-Dub, Rubes and of course the womanizer himself kicking some Indo-ass into shape.

Good article. I hope he writes an article about getting away from the automobile, and I hope Coach posts it. Card is a great writer...again, I recommend his books.

Not sure about that evolution comment...I mean, evolution and intelligent design are not exactly mutually exclusive concepts. Also, how can scientists look into intelligent design? I think the reason none are "looking into" it is because that would be impossible by definition.

We have religious leaders to contemplate the ethereal...

The standard for medical literature (I'm work in a medical field) is that all statements of fact must be referenced. In some articles the list of references can be pages long and be a great source of infomation on the topic of the article.

I have taken this as a rule in my own life and believe all infomartion to be dependable and accepted as fact must be "Hard-Nosed, Literal, Precise and Accurate."

When applying this rule it is very difficult to find sterotypes and credibly make statements such as "the same type of scientist..." without naming the scientist. Or, "faking/doctoring of the evidence..." without providing the actual evidence that was "doctored." What does "doctored" mean anyway. (see comment #8 above)

In my life I find stereotyping and seeking information or point-of-views that support my biases is one of the greatest henderances I face in recognizing reality. I believe this is a nearly universal problem.

hmm thanks for the article gets my brain rolling

Funny, when I started reading that article I swore he was going to say the context was Doug Feith and the 'ironclad' intelligence for going to war with Iraq.

Works both ways, I think.

Did anybody notice the banner ad after the end of the article. It was by Native Canada. It had a picture of two polar bears with the following text rotating through:
"Their Habitat is Melting"
"They Need Our Help"
and the kicker
"Let's Stop Global Warming"

Does anyone find this as ironic and hilarious as I do?

I wanna be Eva T. when I grow up. ;)

JPW, it punishes rich countries because poor countries are not obligated to do anything at all. As I recall, this was one of the fundamental flaws in the Kyoto treaty...third world crap-holes were allowed to pollute as much as they wanted...even some VERY LARGE and VERY POWERFUL ones.

This is an awsome documentary:

"The Great Global Warming Swindle"

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831

I keeping with my theme 2 rest days ago, would one of the "True Believers" in global warming please explain me:

How are man's activities here on earth causing the the polar ice-caps to melt on Mars?

Crossfit Indonesia

Anyone got any contacts for them?

Looks like a TNI base.

I will be there next week.

Cheers

Jerry

The standard for medical literature (I'm work in a medical field) is that all statements of fact must be referenced. In some articles the list of references can be pages long and be a great source of infomation on the topic of the article.

I have taken this as a rule in my own life and believe all infomartion to be dependable and accepted as fact must be "Hard-Nosed, Literal, Precise and Accurate."

When applying this rule it is very difficult to find sterotypes and credibly make statements such as "the same type of scientist..." without naming the scientist. Or, "faking/doctoring of the evidence..." without providing the actual evidence that was "doctored." What does "doctored" mean anyway. (see comment #8 above)

In my life I find stereotyping and seeking information or point-of-views that support my biases is one of the greatest henderances I face in recognizing reality. I believe this is a nearly universal problem.

Ken #14,

Surely you agree that exhaustive citation would be too cumbersome for this forum.

And surely you agree that referencing sources of information, while helpful, does not necessarily make them true. We all know an accepted set of facts can change over time (e.g. high carbohydrate diets, traditional weight training, etc.). One certainly bolster's one's argument by citing credible resources, but we can always find statistics to support our opinion if we look hard enough.

That said, I haven't read the article, I'm sore from yesterday, and I just saw 300 and feel terribly inadequate.

great article and great video (#20). I think the politics of the environmental movement relate well to this book. http://www.amazon.com/Guilt-Blame-Politics-Allan-Levite/dp/0966694309/ref=sr_1_2/104-7976878-1495941?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1174023311&sr=1-2

As Rx'd 7:36

I have to admit I skimmed a little.

wow, my callus hurt from my hands from all the exercises, anybody knows where i can get the powder (not sure what the powder used is called) for all these excersises.

Re: #20 Please see this article for information on the Mars argument: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/10/global-warming-on-mars/

Also, please see this link for a response to the "Swindled" television program: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/

I've understood Coach as a proponent of getting as much information as possible before jumping to conclusions, being responsible for your own actions, etc and I respect that. I'd encourage you, Coach and readers, to actively pursue that information with regards to our species' actions on this earth and their implications, both with regards to "climate change" as well as other pollution, environmental health and biodiversity issues. I believe www.realclimate.org to be a decent, scientific forum from which to begin or further hone your search for a better truth in relation to our climate. As has been touched on in this forum thread, and I'd like to echo, please be wary of articles in the popular press with regards to this topic. Proponents of both sides of the argument are certainly guilty of many misleading, over-simplifying, and even false statements. In the end simple physics tells us that CO2 helps hold heat in our atmospheric system, it's why we have life. We are releasing a lot of CO2 as a species. More CO2 must mean more heat. From there it just tends to get complicated (the global climate system is rather big and involved) not "undecided" as many folks like to say. As for Mr Card's article and main point you might search realclimate.org for information with regards to solar forcing, solar radiation variances and its effects on our climate for more detailed, technical analysis of what the research is finding as well as for information on the Mann debate. You might start here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/07/the-lure-of-solar-forcing/

If anyone is interested in finding links to more studies and scientific analysis of the information available to our academic community I'd be happy to forward some of the research I've read and done to you, specifically with regards to counter arguments to many climate change denier's main talking points. However, I do love this little rant about information gathering and questions: http://www.gymjones.com/deliverance.php

The issue may seem politicized, and it has become that way in the popular press. The issue may seem disconnected from our lives personally, and danger could certainly seem that way to an ostrich with it's head in the sand. The planet won't blow up, humans won't cease to exist, we're just going to change the way things look. We'll probably loose sensitive ecosystems, habitats and species, and alter the habitability of many regions of the planet. I, personally, don't want to be responsible for those changes nor do I want to pass the responsibility on to my children. We have a duty to be stewards of our home.

Best,
Geoff

The amount of money that is wasted on the farce that is "global warming" could likely pay for universal health care and a few other things...when the Citizens finally realize that...they'll surely be pissed.

#3 do you even know anything about Indonesia other than that they are the largest muslim population of any nation? Moderate muslims, who are doing alot more in asia to keep extremists under control than most countries around the world with an economy that can barely be considered poverty. The reason you probably don't know that is because they broadcast what they do over BBC or CNN because the liberals would cry about human rights violations ...

don't broadcast it too =P
take 5 points off my grade for typo's

I don't buy Card's article. First, however much Card might wish it otherwise, the "Hockey Stick Report" is NOT the basis of climate change theory. There are a plethora of studies, literally thousands, that support the theory of anthropogenic global warming. So even if Card's claims were true, it wouldn't matter all that much.

But as it happens, they aren't true. For example, Card makes the following statement in his article:

"Anybody who cares to can verify the story. In fact, one of the leading science journals was prepared to publish Steve's results. But then, before publication, they kept cutting back and cutting back on the amount of space they would let Steve's report take up in the journal.

Finally the space they were going to allot was so small that they concluded Steve could not tell his story in that number of words, and therefore they decided not to publish it at all."

They decided not to publish at all? Then what the heck is this?

http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/mcintyre.grl.2005.pdf

There is "Steve's" paper, published for all the world to see in Geophysical Research Letters, February 2005. Card's claim that it was not published, that it was "suppressed" by "Global Warming Alarmists" is a flat-out lie. Either Card is lying, or he's just accepting the word of people who are lying to him, without even the most minimal fact-checking. It took me less than 60 seconds to find that paper, and I didn't know going in that it even existed.

I hope this wakes up some of the people who have been buying into Card's hack piece without question. His "facts" are demonstrably wrong.

There's more like this. Card says "Even the IPCC, which was so heavily biased in favor of Global Warming alarmism, could not get its pet scientists to agree that Global Warming in recent decades is even probably caused by human activity." That is flat wrong. The IPCC's annual reports for the last several years (the reports written by their "pet scientists") have stated more strongly each year that global climate change is in fact caused by human activity.

The "Global Warming alarmists" that live in Card's head are some tiny cadre of ultra-liberal scientists who hate America and have managed to "ruthlessly suppress" dissent. But this is nothing more than Card's overactive imagination divorced from its useful outlet in his fiction. Science doesn't work that way (and I say that as a scientist myself). If there is strong evidence for or against any theory it comes out, usually sooner rather than later. To date there is no strong evidence against global climate change. And you can see the truth of that in the fact that when Card goes looking for that evidence he has to make it up.

I guess I'm getting old too. So far I've been through predictions of a new ice age, global warming caused by a hole in the ozone layer, (remember that one?) and now global warming caused by co2.

In the 80's we spent billions getting rid of chloro flouro carbons in spray cans, refrigierators and a million other devices because the hole in the ozone layer would fry us. Result, ozone hole went down too quickly to be attributable to human actions and the temperature still went up. Shit, we better look for the 'real' cause quick!

Very interesting documentary on UK tv last week called "The Great Global Warming Swindle" about this subject and the politics behind it. You can find details at http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/

If you can't get it abroad using the on demand service you might want to look for it as a download on your favourite p2p service. There's a lot of reputable scientists on it, but guess what? The day after it was broadcast they suddenly weren't reputable anymore!

Sad world.

Do you wear gloves on rest day?
J

Question #32

As I understand it, you only wear gloves on a rest day if you intend to comment on the ROD (Read of the Day). In which case they should be flame proof. ;-)

#32 J- What are you a nube? Refer to the FAQ and don't plug up the comment space with fashion questions. This is for times, weights, funtional trolling, and gentlemanly discourse about the things that effect our future WODs (recommend that we add cold weather survival vids that compliment the oncoming iceage). . . I cannot wait for underwater muscle ups and HSPUs. a little Linda with snorkle gear . . . yeah!

Initially, I thought "Mann" was a pseudonym for McGovern and "Steve" a pseudonym for Gary (Taubes). I thought the article was about nutrition!!

First, I liked the article as it applies to any aspect of scientific study. Science is to be "rationally" questioned to an inch of its life then "rationally" questioned some more.

Sadly, you get comments like #8 that feel left out in the cold because scientist don't take the intelligent design theory seriously. Sorry, forgive me for scoffing at your idea that aliens created life on this planet. You think aliens created us, fine, then at least provide rationale beyond thought experiments.

And if we were put here by aliens, what's the theory behind where the aliens came from and what created the aliens?

Goofy science fiction it sounds like, pardon me for not wanting it taught with seriousness in school.

Great Video!!!!!

Excellent Eva.

TE wrote: "The amount of money that is wasted on the farce that is "global warming" could likely pay for universal health care and a few other things...when the Citizens finally realize that...they'll surely be pissed."

Global warming is not a farce it is a fact. That being said, I think it would happen whether humans were helping it along or not. I mean the glaciers that use to exist in America did not recede due to human causes, yet they did recede.

Anyone who has taken a college level astronomy course knows how the story ends: As our sun ages (it is a G class star right now aka a yellow dwarf) it will expand to become a Red Giant and consume all the planets. A Red Giant star is—if memory serves—about 100x the diameter of our sun. That is just the natural progression of our sun. Too bad, so sorry, sad ending for all. But we can all take comfort knowing that nodoby gets out of this world alive.

Seriously, I am not saying we should not try and prolong our planet's life as long as possible, I think we should, it is the only place my kids will have to live but just remember that in the end we are merely rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

Oh yeah TE…health care is NOT A RIGHT nor should it ever be! Doctors should get paid what the market will bear not what the pencil necks in DC say they should. Our government does very little well, health care will be no exception. If you really want to piss people off go ahead and fight for a lazy man’s healthcare system. But I will leave it at that…. I pray I pray that universal health care will come up on rest day soon.

Great workout, Eva!
I love watching videos like this before hitting the gym. It is both educational and inspiring. Keep them coming.

If you want to see a weightlifting video that is mind boggling, check this one out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVB_rQFSsEg

It is of 3-time Olympic champion (82.5 to 85kg)Pyrros Dimas doing a workout. It is amazing to see that much strength and power from a guy who weights only 175lbs. Check it out.

Did "Fran" for the fun of it today.
3:44 PR today
Previous: 4:35

Let me start by saying, I AM NOT AN EXPERT ON CLIMATE CHANGE! Saying that, it seems to me with all the technology out there, #8, neither is the weatherman or scientist. None of these people can accurately predict the number of hurrincanes we are going to have let alone next weeks weather - that's with using all of the advanced technology. And as for Hockey Sticks - those are for hitting hockey pucks and whacking your opponent upside his head, not for climate change examples.

Seems to me we have much more to worry about in the world. Is it getting warmer, I don’t know. I am more worried about the welfare of this great country imploding, which is happening right before you eyes, and my children's future. We have a bunch Bull S**tters sitting in Washington who care more about themselves and their interest than they care about the citizens or this country. And I don't mean President. We as a country lack and lost one important thing - COMMON SENSE.

Geoff #26,

Though I applaud the atttempt you make, the evidence sited by realclimate seems odd to me.

Mars can be affected by things such as dust clouds and seasons, but our planet can not. This is weird when one considers the size of our fluid-state oceans and the sheer amount of water vapor that is created when less clouds are present.

That being said, what makes this whole thing so hard to bite off on is historical evidence of our own world warming and cooling.

Finally, the most repugnant part of it is the Global Activists. Perhaps it would be more attractive of a theory to wrap my head around if every time there was rally there was not the usual crowd of "Che" flag waving leftists who have decided to take over all things enviro.

The most revealing part of the documantary was the co-founder of Green Peace exlaining how the global leftists hijacked his movement after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the USSR.

The most suprising was the link between PM Thatcher's request(and funding) for scientists to research global cooling in the late '70s. when the temps started to rise they decided global warming was now the threat.

Follow the money.

This "Carbon Credit" stuff to help one lead a "Carbon Neutral" lifestyle is another hoax.

Howdy,
Question
Who sings the song that accompanies the box jump video from 01FEB07 and the song that accompanies today's video (my inner city students have not heard of this song). Thanks...

TimmyTheNoose wrote: "but just remember that in the end we are merely rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic."

I guess. But rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic does not seem quite as pointless when the Titanic is not going to crash for another 4-5 billion years (estimated time until Sun enters red giant phase and destroys the earth).

#8 Bill,

with regards to intelligent design, give the book written by Tom Collins, the former head of the human Genome Project called "The Language of God" a read.

He is a serious scientist. Also a seriously spiritual person, who does not agree with ID.

I'd also just second #13-Joey's point. Evolution is biology.

and then DDD wrote: "TimmyTheNoose wrote: "but just remember that in the end we are merely rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic."

I guess. But rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic does not seem quite as pointless when the Titanic is not going to crash for another 4-5 billion years (estimated time until Sun enters red giant phase and destroys the earth)."

That was meant tongue in cheek, I am not really that fatalistic my man...did you catch the other part of my post that said I was FOR preserving our planet for our kids? My point was no matter what we do, it all ends the same, only the timeline changes...hugs man, hugs.

one question, where did you get that estimate, I have never heard that...not saying you are wrong, just never heard it, please leave a link...thanks

#42 JLW- Common sense is only common if everyone has it.

#43 Joey-
You pretty much said everything I was going to say, so I will just say good post!

Kate

#47 Timmy- That estimated timeline that DDD used was given out to my 4th grade science class.

Did you also see the video posted quite some time ago about Free Hugs?

Kate

Couple things.

Logic is not science. "More CO2 must mean more heat" is a hypothesis vulnerable to observational falsification. In point of fact, credible hypotheses that are consistent with observable facts have been proposed--and were referenced in the article--that model the Earth's atmosphere essentially as a self-buffering system which uses the oceans as CO2 traps, and which reliably correllate atmospheric CO2 levels with global warming, as an AFTER-effect, meaning that as a combination of solar output and the Earth's relative position to the Sun vary--with corresponding increases in temperature--the oceans warm, and more CO2 is released. As the Earth cools, that CO2 is reabsorbed.

The net is that the basic mechanism posited--CO2 as heat-trapping--has consistently failed to generate the sorts of predictive power that makes science science. Water, in point of fact, is the principle greenhouse gas. This is well known.

I have come to realize there are really two possible definitions, at least, of Science. One, the theory. Two, what scientists do.

In theory, persons conforming perfectly to the Scientific Method are infinitely and perennially skeptical. As anyone who has an understanding of Signal Theory knows, the only way to guarantee perfect detection of an anomaly is to set your filter at catching 100% of possible signals. Whatever you just "proved" is contingent upon the next test, and perfect scientists are constantly trying to "break" their own work.

The theory exists this way because of the very human tendency to become enmeshed in belief systems, which become self-reinforcing, which become the preferred filter through which to view the world. Which become dogmatic.

In the real world--i.e. in the realm of "science as what scientists do", Scientists will obviously have their biasses, but they need to have the discipline--the character, and this isn't easy--to treat them formally, and not back off from ideas that might overturn what they believe.

For example, if you believe x,y, or z, for it to fit within the realm of science, you have to be able to make statements like: "If X is true, then Y will happen. If Y does not happen, then X is flawed in some way."

This is PRECISELY what has NOT happened in the Global Warming debate (I call it a debate, but it has failed rise to that level; rather this discussion consists on the one side of what appears to me to be reasoned opposition, and on the other hysterical shrieking). We do NOT see scientists making predictions that can in any way be confirmed within anything approaching the timeframe within which they want us to make economically life-altering decisions. In short, they have provided NO evidence that should be admissable in "scientific court", and in point of fact the most salient piece of "evidence", the Hockey Stick, appears to be an outright fraud, and demonstrably so.

Someone mentioned that the article was published. Card did not say it wasn't published. He said it wasn't published in SCIENCE. If you yourself are a scientist, you should know that there are countless thousands of publications out there, and consequently if you want wide "air play" there aren't a lot of players in town.

The reason I think there hasn't been more coverage of this story is that it shows clearly that thousands of scientists went along with the crowd, and ASSUMED somebody else had done their job. And in fact, that no one did should and does reflect soundly on their collective level of professionalism, and--now that the story is out and they are keeping their mouths shut--their professional integrity.

Net: the piece of "evidence" stating that 7 of the last 10 years are the warmest on record (meaning, after the current warming period began in the late 1800's) is documentably fraudulent, and current computer models of our climate cannot currently predict the past or the future. They predict nothing, and consequently have roughly the same scientific standing as unicorns, and the people using them as "evidence" should be ashamed of themselves.

Hey Boys and Girls,there was an article in the liberal press about this was the warmest winter on record. I gues,it was just a lie they needed to take up space. Who cares? I think we should all drive our Hummers up to the Newfoundland to find out for ourselves. Maybe,one the way,we can stop at a flea market and pick up some WOD from Saddam arensal. What do you think?

Barry,

**Someone mentioned that the article was published. Card did not say it wasn't published. He said it wasn't published in SCIENCE. If you yourself are a scientist, you should know that there are countless thousands of publications out there, and consequently if you want wide "air play" there aren't a lot of players in town.**

You need to read Card's article again. That is simply not what he said. Quoting him:

"In fact, one of the leading science journals was prepared to publish Steve's results. But then, before publication, they kept cutting back and cutting back on the amount of space they would let Steve's report take up in the journal.

Finally the space they were going to allot was so small that they concluded Steve could not tell his story in that number of words, and therefore they decided not to publish it at all."

Note the phrasing: "A leading science journal," unnamed. In fact, Geophysical Research Letters IS a leading science journal in that field. Card did mention the journal Science specifically - when he was referring to an article that WAS published there.

**For example, if you believe x,y, or z, for it to fit within the realm of science, you have to be able to make statements like: "If X is true, then Y will happen. If Y does not happen, then X is flawed in some way."

This is PRECISELY what has NOT happened in the Global Warming debate...We do NOT see scientists making predictions that can in any way be confirmed within anything approaching the timeframe within which they want us to make economically life-altering decisions. In short, they have provided NO evidence that should be admissable in "scientific court"**

Again, this statement is simply false. In the earth sciences (geology, astronomy, atmospheric chemistry, climatology, etc.) it is frequently not possible to make predictions about future discoveries that can be verified at will. When the world is your laboratory, you often have to wait until she shows you what you're hoping to see. Scientists in these fields can predict what should happen under certain conditions, but then they have to wait until those conditions can be observed. It's not like chemistry, biology, or physics, where we can usually just make the experiment happen.

That said, predictions have been made in global warming theory, and have been verified. Ice core studies are a good example, in which CO2 is predicted to vary along with indicators of global temperatures.

And the "solar cycle" theory has been generally discredited. Check the literature.

**in point of fact the most salient piece of "evidence", the Hockey Stick, appears to be an outright fraud, and demonstrably so.**

Once again, this is also simply false, in more than one way.

First, Mann's study is NOT "the most salient piece of evidence," not by a long shot. It has been confirmed by multiple studies using different methodologies.

Second, it is not "an outright fraud," demonstrable or otherwise. The criticisms of Mann's study prompted Congress to call for an investigation by the National Research Council and the National Academy of Sciences. Now these were the same criticisms, you'll recall from Card's article, that never came to the attention of anyone important because they were "suppressed" by "Global Warming alarmists." Just more evidence of Card's fictionalizing.

In any case, the NAS published a long analysis of Mann's work and other climate-change research in 2006. You can download it here if you like:

http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676

The National Academy of Sciences concluded that while Mann's work could have been more rigorous (a spank to him in scientific terms) nevertheless his methods ended up producing few problems for the reliability of his results, and that his conclusions "have subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world, which in many cases appear to be unprecedented during at least the last 2,000 years."

So, no, he wasn't a fraud, and such a claim is not demonstrable. In fact despite your claims and Card's, scientists have not simply accepted Mann's work and closed their eyes to criticism. They rechecked both and determined that Mann's work was the scientific winner. The demonstrable fraud here is the claim of bias and lack of scientific study.

**The reason I think there hasn't been more coverage of this story is that it shows clearly that thousands of scientists went along with the crowd, and ASSUMED somebody else had done their job. And in fact, that no one did should and does reflect soundly on their collective level of professionalism, and--now that the story is out and they are keeping their mouths shut--their professional integrity.**

I'm sorry, but it just doesn't work that way. Scientists NEVER "just assume someone else has done their job." A scientist working in a particular field (such as climatology) keeps abreast of the literature in that field. When he begins to develop an idea or an experiment, he goes back through the literature and checks, with his own eyes, to see what other scientists have done that has bearing on his work. He cites the relevant papers in his own research. He checks to see if earlier results have been reproduced. Et cetera, et cetera. He doesn't "assume" anything.

What I'm seeing here is a lot of claims, by you, Card, and others, that are just factually WRONG, and that can be shown to be wrong with very little effort. If there's anyone making convenient assumptions and failing to do their homework, it's not climate scientists.

RE: rack jerks
Are those the people that I have to let finish their curls before I can squat?

See Figure SPM-4, page 11-18

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

"It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent except Antarctica (see Figure SPM-4). The observed patterns of warming, including greater warming over land than over the ocean, and their changes over time, are only simulated by models that include anthropogenic forcing. The ability of coupled climate models to simulate the observed temperature evolution on each of six continents provides stronger evidence of human influence on climate than was available in the TAR."

TAR = Third Assessment Report, 2001.

Notice that this is not based solely on a 10-year-old model with some fairly trivial flaws (okay, 9-year-old). I'm not saying this figure is fact; there might be things the modelers haven't considered (although it might be worth looking at the models).

I'm only saying that when people claim that climatology isn't a science, I disagree. There are hypotheses, alternative hypotheses, tests of those hypotheses involving comparisons of real data to those hypotheses' predictions, and conclusions based on those tests.

Scientists aren't idiots. And nobody gets into science to get the wrong answer (and almost never to score some kind of political point).

When someone says, Your models standardized its data in such a way that biased its results, other scientists tend to scrutinize the models pretty closely. Nothing makes a competing scientist happier than proving a colleague isn't as smart as he is.

When newer models show results that are the same or qualitatively similar to the original models, and political forces (anti-climate change) ignore those but continue to cite the papers from a decade ago rather than the ones that have addressed the problems, I can only question the motives of people like Orson Scott Card.

He's a very good science fiction writer.

CF Community,

I must applaud all for the civility of the discourse on this rest day discussion. It is a far cry from the vitrol spouted around the Iraq war discussions and seems to be much more thought provoking.
I tend to fire off with out doing all the linking to resources as our more computer literate posters and for that I apologize. The fact that th climate is changing and is either cooling or warming is beyond controversy. This is a fact as pointed out in other folks posts. We have evidence of several ice ages with glaciers receding from North America in the not so distant past. The real question or premise of the hoax is whether or not man (ie. the U.S.) is responsible. That is the fundamental problem I have with this issue. The "cooked" book science is a challenge for scientific communities, medical, geological, meteorlogical, etc. Having facts and crushing them to support your hypothesis is the problem. The facts need to support or deny your hypothesis. When the facts refute your hypothesis, you must, by definition of the scientific process, come up with a new hypothesis.
"Evolution is biology" is just a way to end the argument before getting it started. Evolution is a theory put forth by Darwin in the 1800's. Reading Darwins book of evolution leaves some clues as what may disprove his theory. Lack of fossil evidence of cross over was just one of the things that Darwin listed as being a problem with his theory. Intelligent design is a theory. It addressed the problems with irriducible complexity that are at present plagueing the evolutionist staunch hold on their theory. Pure science should be more committed to the scientific process and not to a specific ideology. Christianity or Secular Humanist, both need to set aside their biasis as they head into the labratory.

Sorry for all the mis-spellings. I pity the person that can only spell a word one way! :-)

Card IS a great science fiction author. Ender's Game and Speaker For the Dead fostered my genuine, although novice, interest in theoretical physics and cosmology when I was a child.

I recommend to anyone interested in those subjects: Read Brian Green's books "The Elegant Universe" and "Fabric of the Cosmos". He writes for the layman, and uses profound yet simple examples to help explain the complicated ideas he presents.

The Universe, matter, and the properties of spacetime are all fascinating subjects...

I think saying that "Scientists NEVER just assume..." is an example of the American tendency to worship at the feet of science, rather than engaging their own common sense, researching issues, and applying checks and balances. Education and the scientific method does not equate to giving up one's personal agenda, nor does being a scientist mean that you evolve beyond human flaws.

That's why debates like this are so valuable. There should be no blind faith in science, just as there shouldn't be blind faith in religion. Scientists need to be questioned, and not just trusted.

Personally I haven't done enough research into this subject to have reached a conclusion. I would like to know what other studies besides Mann's are considered definitive in proving the global warming theory, if anyone has any thoughts.

Global warming? Climate change? This time of year I like to call it "spring."

Bill, I must disagree.

**The real question or premise of the hoax is whether or not man (ie. the U.S.) is responsible. That is the fundamental problem I have with this issue. The "cooked" book science is a challenge for scientific communities, medical, geological, meteorlogical, etc. Having facts and crushing them to support your hypothesis is the problem.**

There is no "hoax." There is no crushing of facts. As I've pointed out with multiple links and citations Card's claims to this effect are, at best, the results of inexcusably bad fact checking. At worst, he knows perfectly well that the facts refute him and he's simply lying.

I've learned over the years to check claims of fact made by creationists and climate change skeptics, because more often than not their "facts" are either badly distorted or just plain false. Card's article is par for the course.

**"Evolution is biology" is just a way to end the argument before getting it started. Evolution is a theory put forth by Darwin in the 1800's. Reading Darwins book of evolution leaves some clues as what may disprove his theory.**

When someone says "Evolution is biology" they are making a statement of fact. However it's no more "ending the argument" than saying "clouds are water vapor in the atmosphere" ends an argument about the weather.

And really, we need to nip this "evolution is only a theory" nonsense in the bud. A scientific theory is not just a guess, the way the word is used in everyday language. It's a model for investigation that is already supported by a large body of evidence. This is true of the Theory of General Relativity, Atomic Theory, the Germ Theory of Disease, and yes, the Theory of Evolution. But only the last of those threatens anyone's religious beliefs, so it's the only one that they call "just a theory."

**Lack of fossil evidence of cross over was just one of the things that Darwin listed as being a problem with his theory.**

Darwin was writing over 150 years ago. Since then, we have found many, many, MANY transitional fossils. See here for further discussion.

http://talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-index.html#transitional

**Intelligent design is a theory. It addressed the problems with irriducible complexity that are at present plagueing the evolutionist staunch hold on their theory.**

"Intelligent design" is not a theory, scientific or otherwise. It is badly disguised theology. William Dembski, the primary mover and shaker behind ID, is a professor at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Kentucky. He has said on the record that "theology underpins all his views of science and intelligent design." Quoting Dembski directly:

“I started out as a straight research mathematician but got into these questions of philosophy and theology because I was so exercised in my spirit about the unbelief I saw in the academy [and] why it seemed so reasonable to disbelieve the Christian faith. That is what really motivated me to work on Christian worldviews and apologetics and it is in the background of my work on intelligent design as well."

Source: http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?ID=19115

ID is not causing any particular problem for evolutionary theory at all. "Irreducible complexity" is a poorly-defined fiction. Dembski's methodology was examined scientifically and discarded as badly flawed. And that's pretty much the end of the story. They only reason scientists are paying any attention to it all these days is because evangelicals keep trying to use it as a back-door to get Christianity back into school science curricula. Scientifically, ID is simply garbage, just like Card's article.

Global Warming is a hoax.

Government grants ALWAYS prop up endeavors that can not stand on their own, and then create an enviorment where those funded by them must keep up the lie to receive more funding.

If addressing Global Warming leads to new technologies that result in cleaner air and water, reduce dependency on non renewable resources and spurs job growth in the green industry and Global warming ends up a completely natural, not caused by man, occurence what has been lost? The way this issue is politicized as being "anti capitalist" is ridiculous. Humans are chewing our way through the resources that sustain us and spewing poison into the environment. This is a fact. If the global warming/climate change topic can begin to inspire discussion about how to best sustain human endeavor within the biosystems we depend upon for existence us than it's a good thing. Whether it is caused solely, partially, or not at all by humans may never be known fully. What can be known is whether or not we grow out of the adolescent stage of capitalism that demands more, faster and cheaper and progress into a grown relationship with the world we inhabit.

Guinevere, I didn't say that scientists never make assumptions. We're human like anyone else. I said that scientists don't just assume that "somebody else has done the work," as Barry claimed. And they don't. They check to make sure. That is not "the American tendency to worship at the feet of science." That is my experience after 25 years of working in and writing about the sciences.

As for other studies besides Mann's, the list is literally too long to go into in detail. However you can get started by reading this article and following the links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

You may be particularly interested in a survey referenced there (along with many other valuable studies that I encourage you to check). It was published in 2004 in the journal Science, by a scientist named Naomi Oreskes. She surveyed almost 1000 papers in the scientific literature (collected simply by a keyword search for "global climate change") and found that 75% supported the model of human-caused climate change while the other 25% were on ancient climatology and took no position one way or the other on modern climate change. Not one of the papers surveyed disputed the current model. Not one.

You can read Oreske's study for yourself here:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

You can read other studies on this subject by following the links at the first site I posted.

Paul S,

Looks like I was mistaken about the article. Fortunately, this is irrelevant unless you want to base your arguments on my character and related fact checking capacity, as you are implicitly wanting to do with Card.

Let's go tit for tat, shall we?

You state "And the "solar cycle" theory has been generally discredited. Check the literature." a couple paragraphs after stating: "Card did mention the journal Science specifically - when he was referring to an article that WAS published there."

And what were the contents of that article?

"On 16 November 2001, the journal Science published a report on elegant research, done by unimpeachable scientists, giving us the Earth's climate history for the past 32,000 years -- along with our climate's linkage to the sun" (p. 8).

They quote Richard Kerr of Science:

"... the climate of the northern North Atlantic has warmed and cooled nine times in the past 12,000 years in step with the waxing and waning of the sun."

And Kerr quotes glaciologist Richard Alley of Penn State:

"The ... data are sufficiently convincing that [solar variability] is now the leading hypothesis to explain the roughly 1,500-year oscillation of the climate seen since the last ice age, including the Little Ice Age of the 17th century" (p.8).

We're not talking about fly-by-night wackos. We're talking about leading scientists doing solid research.

And other scientists have found data that correlates closely with their findings all over the world. In other words, these solar oscillations account, completely, for the global variations."

The basic problem with this whole debate is that it is extremely technical, so much so that non-specialists, or people unwilling to become specialists, in effect cannot challenge, on a detail level, what scientists have written. This is what makes our trust in those scientists so critical.

You posted a link to a 2,000 page book that, self evidently, I'm not going to read.

In order to assess this thing properly, we would need to analyze the regressions done by Mann, and the criticisms of them ourselves. I don't want to do that.

Much simpler:

1) crop cultivation and growth in Greenland in the Middle Ages are well attested. Hence GREENland. Self evidently, that means it was much warmer then. Why?

2) "The opposite is the case with the Global Warming alarmists. Their human-emitted Carbon Dioxide hypothesis is made ludicrous by the fact that most of the warming since the 1860s occurred before 1940, an era when human CO2 emissions were not significant. And we had significant global cooling between then and 1970, precisely the period when CO2 emissions were steeply rising."

What do you make of this? Obviously, the Global Cooling articles were appearing at the beginning of the 70's.

3) "All the computer models are wrong. They have not only failed to predict the future, they can't even predict that past.

That is, when you run their software with the data from, say, the 1970s or 1980s, and project what should happen in the 1990s or 2000s, they project results that have absolutely nothing to do with the known climate data for those decades.

In other words, the models don't work. The only way to make them "work" is to take the known results and then fiddle with the software until it finally produces them. That's not how honest science is done."

Obviously, if a model is accurate, you can extrapolate forwards as well as backwards, and can start at any arbitrary point, and compare your predictions to what is known to have happened. If you consistently fail to do this, you have a bad model. Period. And as Mann showed clearly, you can always make any model work with any data set. But that isn't science.

What is your response to that?

4) the following link is helpful, in that among other things it uses plain language, and shows the actual construct--the Hockey Stick--so people can see it. This is a good summary of the debate.

http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm

http://www.iraqslogger.com/index.php/post/1928/Haidars_Hero_Ayatollah_Sistani

Some folks asked about the moderate Muslim leaders in Iraq some time back - here's a really short one written in the words of an Iraqi. It's all true, to the best of my knowledge; this guy is a living symbol of peaceful religious leadership. I'm sure if I read his theology, I'd find plenty to disagree over, but in terms of his leadership of his flock, I admire him greatly.

WRT Indonesia, and Islam, I think the correlation with religious extremism and poverty is not substantiated - it's religious extremism and state repression, and in particular when the state advocates a fairly simplistic, puritan religious as a means of its oppression; Saudi Arabia being "king" of that group of nations.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0314/p08s02-comv.html

Here's a short bit about the tenor of things in Indonesia. Strategically, we needn't put these folks on our list of enemies. The US comptroller general said by 2040 or so, forecasts indicate we'll have only enough money to pay for national debt and social programs aka 'entitlements.' That's a far greater threat to the US than Indonesia and any harm from "global warming."

Just wanted to post a "THANKS" to Doug Chapman of CrossFit Ann Arbor/HyperFit. Top notch facility with a great guy running it. Thanks again Doug.

Brian

Noose - can I be part of your "praying for no universal health care" communion?

All these years to demonstrate the fallacy of socialism, distressingly few people have paid attention. I've also been hoping for that 'health care' rest day.

I can't download today's vid or article from work - will try from the hooch in a few minutes.

Paul S on # 60:

I tracked to both of your links. The one that was in support of the cross over links proving evolution were interesting yet showed the same photos and proof that we have seen since the 70's highschool text books. The second link, proving that Dembski is a religious whacko, lists an impressive bio of someone that I would put serious weight behind what he thinks or sais. Thanks for the links and for the discussion.

Dembski holds seven degrees, including two Ph.D. degrees -- one in mathematics from the University of Chicago and the other in philosophy from the University of Illinois at Chicago. He holds a Master of Divinity degree from Princeton Theological Seminary and also holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in psychology and a Master of Science degree in statistics. In addition, Dembski has done postdoctoral work in mathematics at MIT, in physics at the University of Chicago and in computer science at Princeton.

A little food for thought.

We have the responsibility to protect our earth. However, the up and coming scam of "carbon credit" makes the whole thing a farce. You can now spend your money by calculating your "carbon footprint", based on how much you consume (vehicles, electricity, etc.) you can pay someone to plant trees and invest your money in companies that don't pollute as much and it's supposed to give you a clear conscious by cancelling out your co2 emissions. Arnold Schwartzenegger is already doing it to make up for all his private jet flights. Think about where this will end up in the coming years as the widespread acceptance of global warming becomes more and more severe. Will we all be required to pay ridiculous amounts of money to offset our fossil fuel consumption/co2 emissions? And if so what will the ramifications of that be?

Barry, I really think you need to sit down and read something BESIDES articles by people like Card before you try to continue this.

As you say, tit for tat...

I'm not attacking anyone's character. I'm saying that the failure to check simple facts - like Card's claim that McIntyre's paper was never published (when it's posted on McIntyre's own blog) and your attempt to excuse Card by claiming he wrote something he didn't - call into question the reliability of the conclusions that a writer is drawing. I don't think that's a revolutionary idea.

You go on to quote Card quoting Avery and Singer quoting a paper by Richard Kerr from 6 years ago. But as near as I can tell neither you nor Card actually bothered to read the article in question or any of the scientific response to it in the 6 years since.

What Card didn't tell you, and you didn't bother to check, is that Richard Kerr AGREES with anthropogenic climate change theory. Here's a list of Kerr's papers from Science magazine, 2001.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?num=20&hl=en&lr=&q=climate+author%3A%22RA+Kerr%22&as_publication=Science&as_ylo=2001&as_yhi=2001&btnG=Search

The piece that Card was re-requoting was from Kerr's summary of a different article (written by someone else), which he posted as a news piece, not a scientific paper. And Card didn't give you the whole quote. Kerr goes on to note that "some researchers" believe (in 2001) that the sun might be a primary mover behind global climate change.

That was true - in 2001. It's even true to a lesser extent today. However in the intervening 6 years opinion has been moving away from that model.

The actual article in question is this one:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/294/5549/2130

That's a discussion of possible effects of solar variations on earth's climate during the Holocene era (roughly the last 12,000 years, not 32,000 as Card's source reported). It does not address possible solar effects in the currently observed global warming. Card is simply requoting authors who lifted the study out of context.

As for the general theory of solar cycles and climate change ("solar forcing" is the technical term), here's a summary of research SINCE 2001.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_forcing#Solar_variation_theory

Quoting: "Solar variation theory is one attempt to account for global warming. Various hypotheses have been proposed to link terrestrial temperature variations to solar variations. The meteorological community has responded with skepticism, in part because theories of this nature have come and gone over the course of the 20th century."

You might also be interested in this paper:

http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDocumentation/documentation/pressReleases/2004/pressRelease20040802/

Again, quoting: "Studies at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research reveal: solar activity affects the climate but plays only a minor role in the current global warming."

So yes, I stand by my statement: Solar forcing has been generally discredited as an explanation for the observed global warming. Your third-hand reference to a 6-year old paper doesn't change that. Once again, simple fact checking would have shown this.

You wrote, "You posted a link to a 2,000 page book that, self evidently, I'm not going to read."

Once again, CHECK YOUR FACTS. The link I posted is to a paper that is only 160 pages long, NOT 2000. And if you can't be troubled to actually read the science on this subject, or even skim the conclusions that they summarize in the first 5 pages, then you simply can't claim to have an informed opinion about this.

I posted a link to an article that directly refutes several of Card's claims, to wit:

Card claims that no one of any importance heard about the criticisms of Mann's work, because they were "suppressed" by "Global Warming alarmists." So I showed you a paper examining that very issue at the request of the US Congress.

Card (and you) claim that scientists have willfully refused to examine these criticisms. So I showed you 160 pages of examination.

Card claims that Mann's work is a demonstrable hoax. So I showed you a paper that concludes that it is not.

I show you the evidence, and you reply (without even looking closely enough to get the page count right) that "self evidently" you aren't going to examine it. I think that says everything that can be said about climate change skepticism, both yours and Card's.

Until you actually get out there and get some facts that haven't been filtered through Card's propaganda, you simply don't know what you're talking about here.

Interesting. It seems that my posts on this subject are now "being held for review by the blog owner." So if you don't see anything further from me on this, you'll know why.

Paul S,

Mine get held up all the time. Occasionally--twice--they failed to reappear. Why was clear to me on both occasions.

I'll be expecting a detailed rebuttal of the link I posted. As far as I could tell, he offered compelling and darn near scientifically unimpeccable evidence in favor of the model that was generally embraced prior to the appearance of the Hockey Stick, in addition to pointing to serious methodolical problems with the approach Mann--and his followers, using the same method--took.

Nate,

I'm wondering if I'll have to account for my tobacco use? I'm sending a plume of smoke into the air as I write. J. Paul's Special #1, in a fine Danish pipe. Good, good, and good.

Briefly ...

Science certainly doesn't develop through consensus ... but a consensus emerges around a theory because it best explains the data.

Few would argue with the circulation of the blood these days, or with a germ theory of infectious disease. Of course, some scientists do ... and some credible scientists try to define the edges; where an otherwise useful theory breaks down.

Climate Change theory does not rely on one single data set, manipulated by one single individual. Nor does it rely on one set of indicators for the climatic effect of putting more energy (solar heat) into the Earth's ecosystems.

Doubtless, somebody somewhere has fudged some of the data - maybe that's Mann. I dunno - I've not seen or inspected his data. That does not invalidate the numerous other studies which also support the human-generated climate change hypothesis. It just says that one individual was crooked.

My F-I-L is a world renowned scientist - he holds honourary degrees, and also the highest civilian honour Canada can give ... for his contributions to science. For two decades now, he's been one of the members of the Royal Society to review the credentials, credibility, and scientific impact of OTHER scientists ...to see which are also exceptional enough to be nominated to the Society. That makes him rather uniquely placed to evaluate the quality and legitimacy of research programs, data manipulation, and hypothesis development.

He is convinced that climate change is occurring, thanks to human activity. Not because he's wanting to be part of a consensus - in fact, his career was built on challenging consensus positions.

He believes the climate change consensus because it is the hypothesis which most adequately explains the masses of multiply sourced data. Enough for me.

So, let me get this straight. We have a climate change conspiracy that benefits a few hundred or at most a few thousand scientists with grants totalling in the millions, but the coal and oil industries, with profits in the 100's of billions is on the straight and narrow, and no amount of pollution, consumption, and waste will ever be too much for the earth to handle. Yeah, that's it.

Barry, we'll see what gets through. I wrote you a post detailing several of your questions, and pointing out that, again, you and Card had not checked your facts. In particular the paper I linked you to was 160 pages, not 2000 pages as you claimed, and summarized the conclusions in the first 5 pages.

Evidently you didn't look closely enough even to get the page count right. But that paper specifically addresses and refutes several of the claims that you and Card are making, most especially claims of fraud and suppression of data.

If, as you say, you aren't willing to even look at the evidence when it's presented to you, then there's very little point to continuing this.

But we'll see what actually gets through to the board.

That article was absolutely awesome. While I'm all for doing our best to keep the earth clean and safe for all, there's a point of diminishing returns. You can have a billion dollar company spend say $1M on environmental controls to get 98% of the way there, but the problem is, these super liberals want them to spend $100M to get up to 99%. There's no reason to do so.

But it's spot on, hit up my blog for more on global warming and other thoughts: keepusfree.blogspot.com

A few interesting bits on the global warming debate. First this from Andrew Brown's blog @
http://www.thewormbook.com/helmintholog/ on why some people are sceptical.

"... a thought about Melanie Phillips: Steven Poole has been wondering why she is such a passionate Global Warming denialist. Obviously, she passionate about it because she doesn’t do calm and reasonable any more. But why so perversely disbelieve the evidence? Why should just this have become a right-wing cause?

I think in her case the explanation is personal. She was a friend of a good friend of mine at the time when she began her swing from the Left. It was sparked off by the discovery that the local state school was no bloody good even though, at the time and since, there were great numbers of experts asserting that British children have never been so well-educated and so forth.

Similar things happened when she started to study social policy, and discovered — rather ahead of the pack — that things like absent fathers really matter.

So two of her formative political experiences involved the discovery that all the respectable experts were wrong (cf also Conquest’s Law, that everyone is a reactionary about the subjects that they understand). Something similar happened to her beliefs about social policy, where it also turned out that a lot of large and inconvenient truths were being suppressed in polite discourse. A non-loony, non-conspiracist version of this is found in the work of “Theodore Dalrymple”.

So I think she expects everything else to fall into the same pattern of a self-serving bureaucracy bamboozling the public. It’s a credible stance because such bureaucracies do appear and are sometimes influential. In any society that is failing at something important, a lot of expert opinion is spent ignoring or denying the bleeding obvious for dishonourable motives. Other examples would be

almost everything said officially about church membership in the last forty years
almost everything said by respectable American commentators about foreign policy"

And then a piece about the program "The Great Global Warming Swindle," I mentioned earlier can be read @ http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/comment/0,,2032573,00.html (Free registration required).
Seems that playing with data is the name of the game on both sides of the debate, but fails to address the critical points, i.e.
1. That there appears to be no conclusive scientific proof that it is man that is causing/significantly contributing to global warming or that any of the proposed actions will have any significant effect upon climate change.

2. That the main protagonists of the climate change debate seem to have an ulterior political motivation.

Went in today because we're supposed to get 12" of snow overnight, followed by an inch of ice tomorrow, so I won't be driving/walking/sledding/snowshoeing to the gym.

CFWUx2

4000m row in 16min flat

Bench press (because my bp has gone down a bit since starting cf, and because I'm a typical guy and on bad days a small bench makes me feel like a small man)

135x10
225x8
245x3
255x3
255x3
225x5

Followed with oly bar snatch practice

Paul S,

I've participated in many of these debates, and reviewed many dozens of pages of "documentation" and found it to be evasive and arguably polemical. However, since you took the trouble to post it, it's reasonable to ask me to read it, which I did, or at least the Summary.

I'm curious: did you? I'm just asking, before I go to the trouble to retype the text that directly supports my contentions. Cut and paste is not available.

Crossfit has landed in Indonesia? Man and I thought I was going to be the first to bring it there, you guys beat me to the punch already!!! Are you guys training the Indonesian army over there because judging by the uniform and the crewcut, it looks like those are the Indonesian green beret.

I withdraw that. I made an error. See how that works?

Rereading the text, the net is that they think all previous warming and cooling periods can be explained by solar and volcanic activity, and that they are reasonably confident in their proxies, and that the current period is anomalous, with the presumptive culprit human produced greenhouse gasses.

However, the point remains that the basic thrust of the Hockey Stick is that our climate historically has existed within a relatively narrow band of fluctuation, and that has only changed in the last 20-30 years.

Yet, we have considerable evidence that it was warmer in the Middle Ages, and as near as I can determine, the proxies they used are qualitatively quite similar to those of Mann, which is to say existing within a SUBSTANTIAL zone of potential error, none of which is reflected on their graph. You see the yellow +/- in my link, which is absent in their graph, which would likely otherwise pretty much fill the space between the top and bottom, as Mann's does, when it is shown properly.

I have offered proxies that are consistent with a range of fluctuation within which our current average global temperatures are non-anomalous, and which match well what was consensus reality prior to Mann's work.

Why was Greenland green?

Paul S:

Posts get held for review because of filters that scan for certain words - foul language, but also pretty weird stuff. I've had some heated debates on here and my posts always made it through in the end.

That said - thanks for putting the time in here to present the actual case for Climate Change.

Crossfitters!

Notice how Paul (#30) & Geoff (#26) are giving you links to current, reputable sources. Yes, you are free to believe in a world-spanning liberal conspiracy as an alternative to trusting your nation's scientific academies.

Notice how Paul & co (actual scientists, I gather) are able to respond to anything Barry "The Dabbler" Cooper comes up with.

I said this the last "Climate Change" day, but I'll say it again now:

It is true that the IPCC is not able to predict the future, and that the models that have been developed have not taken into account many aspects of reality that could very be important in regulating climate. This is because it is currently *impossible* to do so. We don't have the computing power or the data. Scientists are doing the best they can with what they've got. And they're frantically deploying new technologies and resources in an effort to do better. Why can't they just say "we're not sure what's going to happen" until the models are perfect? Because (1) that will never happen, and (2) the topic is rather time-sensitive. The CO2 hockey-stick is very, very real (there are hundreds of monitoring stations worldwide) and we're already well into uncharted territory as a result of (primarily) the burning of fossil fuels. Are climate scientists foolish to be concerned with such a massive human adjustment to atmospheric chemistry? Does it not make sense to be conservative with respect to the atmosphere of the only planet we have? The stakes are pretty frickin' high gentlemen. Yes, there are opportunity costs associated with taking positive action to mitigate our impact on the atmosphere. Finding a balance in resource allocation is the job of the world's governments.

So who should you turn to for advice on this subject? Here are your choices:

1. The scientific community.
2. Science-fiction writers and/or exercise websites.
3. Nobody. Your gut-feeling is probably pretty accurate anyways.

Even if you don't have 100% confidence in the first choice, why on Earth would you have more confidence in the second or third?

This *is* an appeal to authority - and a valid one. I don't get my workout advice from my grocer, and I don't get my teeth inspected by my hairdresser.

If this issue gets under your skin at all, why not take the trouble to educate yourself on it? *Really* educate yourself on it. Take a textbook on climate science out from the library. A good one will not hesitate to point out the shortcomings of current methodologies. A bad one, perhaps intended for a first-year "environmental science" course, might. That done, browse the articles in a recent issue of Science or Nature (again, your library probably has these). Why turn to armchair scientists like Barry for your information when you can become a well-informed amateur yourself?

Jay

Paul S., #52.

It's a bit of a cheap shot but I can't resist: Mann's hockey stick was "fake but accurate"?

And on this: "That said, predictions have been made in global warming theory, and have been verified. Ice core studies are a good example, in which CO2 is predicted to vary along with indicators of global temperatures."

Why do they vary together? Which is the cause and which is the effect?

At this point you must know that the causal relationship between CO2 and temperature in the paleoclimate data is the *opposite* of what you suggest. Temperature climbs for approximately 800 years before CO2 begins to rise - and this occurred in multiple deglaciation cycles, and is confirmed by multiple ice core and sea floor sediment reconstructions from around the world. In paleoclimate records CO2 is an effect, not a cause of global warming. The unsinkable SS Anthropogenic Global Warming appears to have a large hole below the waterline.

You may wish to refer to Jeffrey A. Glassman, Ph.D.s paper at the Rocket Science Journal and particularly to his response to Gavin Schmidt. http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html Dr. Glassman asserts (and he will forcefully correct me if I am wrong) that global CO2 varies with global temperature as a function of the temperature-dependent solubility of CO2 in the oceans.

Best regards,

Harry,

Come on, you remember, "fake but accurate" like the Dan Rather forgeries of GW's record.

I think the most telling thing about this debate is that President Bush now accepts, at least publically, that climate change is real. What does he gain from that? What made him change his mind? Has he converted to the "global warming alarmist" movement?

Which is more likely?

1. A bunch of scientists want grant money so they are making up and supporting false claims to alarm the public into action, which is working brilliantly. The thousands of people in on the conspiracy never admit it to anyone.

2. A bunch of scientists studied the issue every way they could think of and the evidence suggests something the public doesn't want to hear so non-scientists come up with ways that the scientists must be wrong.

#72 you rock!

JPW

Hmm. Post held. I'll remove some abbreviations that might look naughty to an algorithm.

***

BTW: I will describe myself as a well-informed amateur, in case anyone is wondering. I have an undergraduate degree in Environmental Science from one of Canada's "Ivy League" universities, took a graduate course in Global Biogeochemistry (with an emphasis on the cycling of carbon and CO2), and have assisted research into CO2 cycling in wetlands. I am married to a woman with a Master's in Geography that studied paleoclimate for her degree.

I *still* don't presume to kick back on the Crossfit forum and hold forth on the topic except in a general way.

Barry? Your credentials?

This is a topic that requires serious consideration. If you want to be done in 10 minutes or even 10 hours - you're out of luck. The fact that you need to wade through a layer of politics (on both sides, admittedly) makes the task all the more difficult. You're not doing anyone a service by settling for "Why was Greenland Green?"

BCJay

My latest post has been held as well.

Jay

BCJay,

I'm curious, did you read my link?

Why do YOU think Greenland was green?

I'm not quite sure contempt substitutes for argument.

Actually, I'm pretty sure it doesn't. I don't have time to at the moment, but I'm going to go back and read the paper upon which this was based, and I have a strong suspicion that what happened is that data with a VERY high margin of error--so high that its' use at all can only be countenanced with the greatest of caution--was imported, the highs prior to this century artificially removed, and the margin of error concealed, as it was in the link Paul S. posted, unjustifiably, as it led to the impression the data was solid, when in fact every scientist on that panel knew it to exist within a large continuum of doubt. If that fact was later corrected, in other than small print, please let me know.

BCJay, not that it matters, since you are in my a dogmatist, but did you know that the existence of mental telepathy has been proven to within a small er margin of error than the efficacy of aspirin in preventing fatal heart attacks? You know, I see Halfprin on the shelves. Makes you wonder. I don't want to do that debate here. Just making a comment.

As you were. I'll be back. As you know.

In the meantime, please read my link, and point out the flaws in logic or data to me.

does anyone know what the numbers in the rankings on the faq page are based on. like is it the big three totals added up or what???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy#_note-14

I realize that wikipedia is not a totally unboased entity, but heck... anybody can edit the entries... they eventually reach a steady-state which often is "middle of the road."

So lets throw it into the mix. It's pretty self serving to post an article written by *one* with their bias.

Did I read the study? Yes - through Chapter 8 in depth, the remainder less so.

Before getting into an analysis of your post, I would like to point out once again that the mere existence of this document invalidates Card's claims that criticisms of Mann's data were "suppressed" and that Mann's work was never reviewed. Merely sitting on the shelf, this document commissioned by Congress proves that there is no deep conspiracy to suppress evidence and keep poor Steve McIntyre from being heard.

I'd also like to point out that the conclusions of this paper put to rest the claim that Mann's work is "fraudulent," and the claim that it has not been supported by subsequent work. So right off the bat, a lot of what you've been claiming here is shown to be wrong. Now, onward and upward.

You wrote: "Rereading the text, the net is that they think all previous warming and cooling periods can be explained by solar and volcanic activity, and that they are reasonably confident in their proxies, and that the current period is anomalous, with the presumptive culprit human produced greenhouse gasses."

More or less. What they're saying is that the previous history of the earth's temperature (including the Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age, and so on) are consistent with normal variations caused by non-human effects, but that the last several decades cannot be explained that way.

Of course, this is exactly what the theory of anthropogenic global warming states.

**However, the point remains that the basic thrust of the Hockey Stick is that our climate historically has existed within a relatively narrow band of fluctuation, and that has only changed in the last 20-30 years.**

Yes, exactly. And the paper notes: "It can be said with a high level of confidence that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries. This statement is justified by the consistency of the evidence from a wide variety of geographically diverse proxies."

Which is what the "Hockey stick" shows, is it not?

By the way, there's no problem with cutting and pasting from the report. I just did it, there above.

Note also the graphic on Page 2 (Figure S-1), showing seven different studies, using different methodologies, all giving results similar to Mann's original "Hockey Stick" study. This shows that whatever the statistical problems with Mann's work (and the paper acknowledges them) they do not markedly change the conclusions. Other people get the same results using different methods. This is very strong support, scientifically speaking.

The paper goes on to say that estimating temperature beyond about 1600 is more difficult and less precise, and that they would therefore be "less confident" in saying that current temperatures are higher than any period before the last 400 years. But that even with this caveat (and again, look at Figure S-1), "Presently available proxy evidence indicates that temperatures at many, but not all, individual locations were higher during the past 25 years than during any period of comparable length since A.D. 900." That includes the "Medieval warm period."

Finally, the paper concludes that while they have some reservations about Mann's methods, in the end he appears to be substantially correct in what he says. The only serious qualification they have is to say that Mann's claim that the 1990s were the warmest decade on record is probably too narrow a claim for his evidence to support. Nevertheless, the trend he identifies is real, and is not explainable by solar fluctuations or volcanic activity.

**Why was Greenland green?**

Because it was being settled in the middle of the Medieval Warm Period, which, as we've both noted, is explainable by natural causes in ways that the current warming is not. So you're comparing apples and oranges, and so is John Daly and everyone else that you reference with regard to this. The Medieval Warm Period was a longer and much more gradual climate change than we're seeing now, and even at its peak it was not as warm as we're getting now.

I can hear you thinking, "Then Greenland should be getting green again, right?" And the answer is, "Yes, it should, and it is."

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/jakobshavn.html
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/ice_sheets.html

By the time Scandinavian settlers arrived in Greenland, the Medieval Warm Period had been advancing for some little while. Even so, only the southernmost coast of Greenland was actually "green." The rest was still icebound (and home to Inuit tribes that interacted with the Norse). The current warming period is much faster than that one, and the expected effects are only now becoming obvious in Greenland. But in fact what we would expect to see is what we are seeing.

Great job Eva. You are an inspiration to me.

Barry Cooper,

You might have to plant an extra blade or two of grass in your front yard because of your tobacco use, but your second-hand smoke might leave you responsible for someone else's cancer. HA!

Nate

Harry,

You wrote, "It's a bit of a cheap shot but I can't resist: Mann's hockey stick was "fake but accurate"?"

You're right, it is a bit of a cheap shot, since that's not what I wrote, and it's not what the NAS report concluded. They stated that while they had reservations about some of Mann's bolder claims, in the end his results were confirmed both by their analysis and by the work of others.

Had they been talking to him directly, they probably would have said something like this: "You didn't prove it quite as well as you thought you did, but the weight of subsequent studies confirms most of what you wrote."

Rather different from your "cheap shot."

I'm afraid I'm not impressed by Dr. Glassman's paper. He's not a climatologist and says so, and while he offers us many pretty graphs, he has not one single peer-reviewed analysis of the Vostok data to back them up. His analyses are his own and those of other skeptics who, for some reason (doubtless the conspiracy) haven't been published anywhere that would have been rigorously reviewed by other scientists.

Nor does he have any peer-reviewed agreement with his claim that the oceans can be blamed for "all the Vostok data." In fact the only scientific source he cites on the subject says the opposite: that observed increases in CO2 are predominantly the result of human activity.

So actually, I'm not aware of the things you claim. I am aware that you're drawing your information from the personal blog of a climate skeptic who has no formal training in the field and who has not found any peer-reviewed source who IS expert in the field to back him up.

One thing I've learned as a scientist is not to claim expertise outside my field. That's why I've been careful throughout this discussion to reference the work of people whose discipline it is.

@Barry

Yes, I did visit your link. I did not read it exhaustively it has flawed premises that render the larger analysis irrelevant.

"If the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today, with no greenhouse gas contribution, what would be so unusual about modern times being warm also?"

No one is denying the reality of the Medieval Warm Period or the fact of past temperature change without human interference.

"If the variable sun caused both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, would not the stronger solar activity of the 20th century account for most, if not all, of the claimed 20th century warmth?"

It certainly could. The last time I was well up on the literature, it didn't.

Note that the most recent citation in Daly's article comes from 2000, and he is working off of the 1995 IPCC report.

BCJay

Wow Paul S. Great responses.

Honestly, I think many people argue against human-caused global warming SOLELY because it is portrayed as a liberal/leftist movement. Just as, perhaps, many latch onto it because it is portrayed as a liberal/leftist argument.

Is it really so hard to believe that 6-7 billion people burning and consuming things would have a negative causal effect on our environment, specifically the climate/atmosphere? Even after Paul S. has laid it out, and debunked the spurious arguments against anthropogenic warming?

@Barry

You know - I might surprise you one day. You accuse me of being dogmatic, but I don't see how I've been put to the test. Certainly not by you.

Link hopping I've ended up reading Jeff Glassman's paper on the oceanic "solubility pump" and some of the previous climate change debate on Xfit. Interesting stuff.

Jeff's approach agrees with my understanding of oceanic chemistry, and raises interesting points that should be addressed. I look forward to reading the response Gavin Schmidt made and working to improve my understanding of the entire issue. Paul S.'s criticism based on a lack of peer-review stands, but may be addressed with time. Glassman's credentials are unusual but solid, in my estimation. May the best theory win.

Jay

Bill,

**I tracked to both of your links. The one that was in support of the cross over links proving evolution were interesting yet showed the same photos and proof that we have seen since the 70's highschool text books.**

That's because it was true then, and it's still true. On the one hand people complain that scientific opinion develops over time, now you seem to be suspicious of the fact that well-established and attested evidence does not change.

As for Dembski, he's a good mathematician. But why do you think that makes him qualified to speak on biology? In particular, why do you think that when the link I posted shows, in his own words, that Intelligent Design is simply the implementation of his theological beliefs?

I say again: Intelligent Design has been extensively examined by real biologists and statistical biologists (such as the National Academy of Science, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and others) and found wanting. It has been determined to be theology, not science. It makes no testable predictions, it has no actual basis in experimentation, it is based on bad mathematics (which is inexcusable for someone with Dembski's qualifications), and it is an overt attempt to legitimize the most conservative Christian religious views.

http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/darwinanddesign.html (If you read only one of my links, read this one. Very thorough and lets the ID advocates speak in their own words.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_Design
http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/evolution/pdf/QA_Evolution.pdf
http://www.nasonline.org/site/DocServer/Alberts_Evolution_Message_NY_Times.pdf?docID=801
http://www.ncseweb.org/article.asp?category=8

My comments: that is one awesome video, Eva motivates the hell outta me.

#32
Joey,
While a broken economy is a great leverage point for extremists, you seem to be stereotyping a country simply because they are muslim. So does that mean because Turkey has some economic vulnerabilities they will be the next next war after Indonesia. Some truths: Achenese make up the majority for extremist muslims in Indo; The government while not stern in there judicial process has begun to aggressively push muslim extremists out of indo; Malaysia produces far more jihadists who route their travel through indo(more recently through the Borneo region) to train and equip booger eaters in the southern philippines.
Is GWOT in Indonesia? Absolutely!! Will we ever have troops there? most likely... but not fighting the Indo government, much like Iraq, or Afghanistan we are fighting extremists there not the government. Could I be wrong?? shakes the 8 ball.... always that possibility!!!!

I've now read Gavin Schmidt's response to "The Acquittal of Carbon Dioxide", and it's anticlimatic. In fact, it's 89 words long and is mostly references to realclimate.org with little or no explanation. This is unfortunate, but we can't really claim that he "owes us more." I do think that the fact that Jeff responds to the 89 words with over 5000 is not very sporting.

This doesn't necessarily take anything away from Jeff's work, but it certainly doesn't allow us to see that work being put to the test in a meaningful way. Guess we'll have to wait for the peer review.

Jay

Timmy #99

"Panties in a bunch?" Cute, witty, kinda funny if taken in the right way. "Now I understand why people would send you hate e-mail." Not OK, not under any circumstances, not here, not anywhere, and not excused by your following statements.

Your arguments on previous Rest Days imply an intellect and a passion that deserves attention. #99 did not. Kate deserves better, and you have better to give.

D.

Timmy 'Da Noose...

easy there, disagreements aside, she did not attack you. Bingo is right, you have better to give.

i've been cfing for 2 months. i've worked out since i was 15 yo. ive seen fad workouts come and go, and rarely tried any of them, as they all were flawed or variations on the same thing. my brother, a fireman, turned me on to your site, and i am hooked and overwhelmed at the changes ive seen in this little time.

anyway, i never thought my first comment would be over a political issue, and not a workout. anyone, any time can manipulate any data on any subject, including climate to get any result they want. just pay attention to the stock market for a few months. data is constantly manipulated to fuel interest rates, investment, money production, foreign investment, all biased by one person's perceptions of our country's economic status (Bernake, and to some extent-still-Greenspan).

true science can only occur when unbiased funding is provided to a group of unbiased scientists at an unbiased facility in an unbiased country and results are interpreted without bias by a reputable and unbiased publication. this doesn't happen anymore. Scientists today have to have bias to receive funding. therefore, they enter 'research' with an end in mind, not to see what the end will be. everyone has their agenda and bias. this type of research and numbers crunching is time consuming and expensive. there are precious few if any organizations or individuals with the monetary capability to fund a study that aren't biased.

the problem this causes is that rather than focus on climate, we now focus on who is reporting what and why, and not on the climate itself.

with all the heat generated by today's comments, i can only assume we are suffering from global warming:) very few comments here are without bias. i hope i didn't offend with my bias towards using the word bias!

Comment #39

Timmy...

Did I say universal health care was a right? Nope. I am a staunch conservative...and didn't do 45 combat mission in Afghanistan and Iraq for for the sake of universal health care...just an example I threw out...

Do not put words in my mouth Timmy.

Regarding my previous post to Kate and comments 100 & 101... You guys are right, I was out of line because I thought she was taking a cheap shot at me regarding the 4th grade line. I should have let it go by or not been so uptight about it. So for the record and for all the world to read.

Kate, I apologize.

CCTJOEY and Bingo, thanks for keeping me honest.

TE, yes the way your post is written one could infer you support it, if you do not then you are a good person :)

Hugs for all

I (22/m/165) did CFWUx 3 nice and easy just to keep the blood moving... my brother (18/195) deadlifted heavy. After warming up, he set a new PR of 335, then did 315x4. awesome stuff.

1. how much CO2 is released into the atmosphere from all sources currently?
2. how much of that CO2 total is caused by human activity?

I remember reading somewhere that the man made contribution to CO2 emissions is fairly small, like tiny small.

Anyone know the answer?

#22, Gant:

Yes, I do expect people to actually list their references. It slows discussion down and lends itself to ALOT fewer claims.

In many ways it becomes an exercise in defining adjectives. I cited the example from #8 of "doctored." It's not define. If #8 had defined "doctored" he might have discovered it wasn't accurate or that some other statement would have been more accurate, e.g. "I disagree with the analysis of people who maintain global warming is real."

Being Hard-Nosed, Literal, Precise, and Accurate, is tedious, and boring. It is the best way I have found to discern reality.

160#/33yom

WU: Stretching
WOD: Rest ("...and the righteous don't need it") Day - "Chelsea"

5 pull ups
10 push ups
15 squats
30 rounds in 30 min.

I add an occasional rest day on my own, so thought I'd pick a WOD for today's "rest". I had never done "Chelsea" before so thought I'd give it a shot. I figured I'd shoot for keeping the 1rd/min pace through 20, but made it all the way through starting each round on the minute and ending on 29:37. Now my whole body feels rubbery.

BTW - just read the Gym Jones article "Quality". Found it pretty motivating to get the chest to the bar on every pull up and to the ground on every push up.

@105 Schmidty,

You'd be right to say that the amount of CO2 released due to human activity is small(ish) in comparison to the amount released every year due to natural mechanisms.

Are you asking because you think this might mean the whole thing is overblown? That doesn't follow.

Think of your bank account. As long as your earnings balance your expenses, you're doing okay. If you had a net gain of 5% every year, you'd be happy. A new loss of 5% every year, you'd be in trouble.

That's the situation here. There is a natural Carbon bank balance with natural inputs and outputs. While some of the extra, human-produced CO2 is getting absorbed by natural systems, not all of it is. This has led to a gradual increase in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

You can check out

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle

for a simple diagram of the process and the relative sizes of the fluxes at work.

You can google further if you want to find out what the current numbers are.

Jay

Interesting how many people come out of the woodwork to comment on the rest day articles. Many I don't recognize from WOD comments.

Great article Mr. Card! Much like the evolution vs. creation arguement. We should research and be taught both sides of the arguement to make the best judgements. All we see today is out-dated evolutionary theories and global warming in our schools and on television. Why is it that articles like this one are almost NEVER seen in the mainstream media today? I think I know.

I only come out of the woodwork on rest day because I work 12 to 15 hours a day and have a family so rest days are the day I have time to post really .. hugs to all ... not being a smart a$$ just a plain old A$$...cheers have a great rest day to all ..=)

#105, Schmidty

It was about half due to people when I was studying chemical engineering (circa 1990). I can't remember the total amount or, more accurately, I can't remember the units, the number was 6,000,000 due to people and the same by natural causes. Vegetation and the like could absorb about the same amount, 6,000,000, and the unknown was how much the oceans would absorb. The context was a mass balance lecture. The point was that we can't know if the atmospheric CO2 was increasing or not because a major part of the equation was unknown. Produced - absorbed = accumulated. (6,000,000 + 6,000,000) - (6,000,000 + ? )= ? I have no idea why I can remember the number but not the units. Since then the amount of vegetation has decreased (reducing the right half of the equation), the number of people has increased (increasing the left half of the equation) and they've figured out a way to measure atmospheric CO2 directly, and (although many crossfitters don't believe them) they figured out that it is causing a problem with climate.

-JPW

Paul S.

You bristle a bit excessively, though I do not fault you for that under the circumstances.

Mann's data, analysis and results are fake, and are completely unnecessary to your argument since the faked results have been reproduced by presumptively credible studies. (At least I have no grounds to dispute your assertion to that effect). There is no need for you to defend him and it only hurts your argument to do so. You've made some good criticisms of the Card piece and that is a good thing.

On the rest, and for the sake of clarity, what exactly do you dispute:

1. That CO2 increases in paleoclimate data come approximately 800 years after increases in temperature;

2. That CO2 increaes in the paleoclimate data represent an effect, not a cause of global warming; or

3. Dr. Glassman's assertion that the relationship between CO2 and temperature in the paleoclimate data is explained by the solubility curve of CO2 in water as a function of temperature?

You are making worthy contributions to the debate and I hope you will keep plugging.

Regards,

@Harry #115

>>Mann's data, analysis and results are fake

Another final arbiter. Good to see there's no shortage of them around.

Paul explained the extent of the "fakery", and gave you links to the analysis of the case by the National Academy of Sciences. Care to explain your point of view?

>>On the rest, and for the sake of clarity, what >>exactly do you dispute...

Great. We're rapidly closing in on where the Crossfit Climate Change Classic finished on November 6, 2006.

That's when you quoted the RealClimate explanation of the 800 year lag without noticing that it *does* address the idea that CO2 is simply an effect, not a cause, of global warming. Severinghaus says that from ice core data alone, it is hard to know how much of past global warming (if any) was due to CO2. By adding in other data and models, the scientific consensus is that CO2 does about half of the work.

If you want to attack that explanation, go to it. But at least attack the actual position instead of a caricature. You do realize that this stuff is complicated, right? CO2 is involved in climate regulation in many, many ways. Harry, if you're trying to wade into the fray as an armchair scientist and clear the muddy waters - you're wasting everyone's time. You probably know this one: "Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler." I might have read you wrong. Feel free to demonstrate.

It will require considerable work to properly critique Dr. Glassman's theory that the CO2 record is a simple function of the solubility pump and has no significant role in climate change. It is unfortunate that this work hasn't been done yet, but that's not really that surprising. It hasn't made many waves yet that I can see. If I was as confident as Glassman seems to be, I would be soliciting as many critiques as possible. Every successful defense adds credibility and renown.

Jay

Bingo and Joey- Thanks for sticking up for me.

#106 TimmyTheNoose-
I was busy tonight and didn't read the obviously abrasive comment that you left for me, because it was pulled.

My comment about the timeline of the Sun becoming a red giant being from my 4th grade science class was actually true. My 4th grade science class talked at legnth about how we were all going to burn up in 5 billion years. I would assume that now that statement has changed in the science world. I was mearly trying to say that if DDD's timeline was 4 - 5 million years then perhaps you should take it with a grain of salt, because the information might be out dated. I really don't understand how you could have possibly taken offense at such a small post.

It was meant as a friendly tip.
Same as the "Free Hugs" video question. I was curious if you had seen it is all, because you have mentioned hugs 3 times in the past 2 days, I assumed you liked hugs. It's a nice video and a nice idea.

I accept your apology. Just because I might disagree with someone in the discussion board doesn't mean that I dislike them. We're all in here together trying to figure out how to get along as human beings.

This is a great thing that Coach does. He opens up doors for us to all relate to each other and to learn from each other.

Best regards,
Kate

Age 51/BW 240# 7 sets of 3 @ 235# (allergies kicking my butt).

Run 800 M
100 Push Presses (45#)
Run 800 M
100 Overhead Squats (45#)

15:50

Rest 5 Minutes

5 Rounds
Row 500 M
30 Pull ups

I shall hug NO ONE! :)

Cheers...Timmy, no worries...understand how you could construe that...but not my intent...wow...if politicians could realize this, we might just have a country!

WRT the Indonesian Posts...did anyone see the white guys there? It's called FID (Foreign Internal Defense)...at least the guys in the picture are our friends...and I'll wager they're pretty BAMF...

:D

TE

Kate, et al

just wanted to say thank you for the way handled my "tude", I could give you a lot of reasons for why I was crabby earlier but none of them excuse my post. Coach, thank you for removing it, it should have never been up in the first place.

#96 Bret...
"Honestly, I think many people argue against human-caused global warming SOLELY because it is portrayed as a liberal/leftist movement. Just as, perhaps, many latch onto it because it is portrayed as a liberal/leftist argument.

Is it really so hard to believe that 6-7 billion people burning and consuming things would have a negative causal effect on our environment, specifically the climate/atmosphere? Even after Paul S. has laid it out, and debunked the spurious arguments against anthropogenic warming? "

Because the Leftist/liberals have latched onto it is EXACTLY why I am skeptical.

There is a ball of energy that is radiating 7-8 light minutes away from us, that has been doing so for...BILLIONS of years. It will keep doing it for several more BILLIONS more. The energy it is radiating is crossing Billions of miles through absolute zero temps to keep most of the water on this planet in liquid form.

Now think of the sheer magnitude of this.

The amount of energy the sun is releasing is on a scale so much larger than anything we can understand besides looking at the estimated data in number form on paper.

The most minor and random fluctuations knock our satellites out of commission, from 7-8 LIGHT MINUTES AWAY.

So yes, I find it slightly unlikely that CO2 is a "BIG" deal. Especially when it is admittedly a "BLIP" on the radar screen as admitted by the AGW supporters. I don't by that the world was in such a delicate balance that the miniscule amount of human added (released) CO2 into the total of our world is going to drastically do anything. Atleast not on par with NATURAL events.

Then with more and more "Scientists" now saying "wait a minute this data is not accurate", call me crazy but I gotta stand back and look at this.

One thing is certain...the SUN drives all of this. That thing burps or farts in our general direction we feel it. If it were to suddenly stop shinning...this planet would be an ice cube in hours.

Now on to the Pink-Os...

I have never seen a bunch of people tell us not to fear what has damaged us (Communism, Islamo-Fascism, free-love, Barney etc.) then tell us to fear what has helped us (DDT, Capitalism, animal research, Guns, bacon, internal-combustion engine, bathing etc) , yet we are supposed to take them seriously. If they had no political power, one would assume they were the villiage idiot and ignore them.

Somehow they have been able to show up in mass to places, dress in silly costumes, not engage in basic hygene, bitch and moan about this and that, break stuff, act like thugs, leave a place worse than they found it and somehow they are managed to be taken seriously as a "movement".

I can only assume they get what they get because they will not go away otherwise. This appears to be the case with the Anti-war numbnuts camped out in Speaker Pelosi's yard.

I can think of no better thing to do than turn a firehose on them both literally and metaphorically for the good of all man-kind. Man that would be fun to see. All those protest signs and paper mache' VP Cheneys washing down the road and them chasing them down while slidding around in their sandals bouncing off of each other. Ahh...a man can dream.

silly hippies...

TimmyTheNoose-
No worries! I like to read your comments and debate with you. You have a unique way of expressing yourself and it has made me see a different side to things that I would not have seen. I appreciate that.

Kate

The reason why I am still skeptical is all about in the article that was posted yesterday. I'm keeping an open mind (always do) but it is all to easy for someone to doctor their facts and be dishonest to promote themselves in the name of science. I hope that most scientists don't do that, and the ones that I have met care about the right facts. But there is always human error that we have to account for.

Kate

re: #74 Joe Pasquariello:

Joe, the effect that humans have on the environment is like peeing in the ocean, it's on such a small scale that it all balances out.

QUESTION OF THE DAY

>>So who should you turn to for advice on this subject? BCJay, #82

The highest academic virtue must be the debate. It is an art form lost in U.S. universities and in journals. It is undergoing a rebirth in the Internet and the blogs. To decide which side is right on such topics as the climate, you need to decide for yourself. You need a modicum of science literacy and some familiarity with debating. Then wherever you can, find point and counterpoint. You must be the arbiter between those who would pretend to have special knowledge. This is no different than what you would have to do if elected to office.

The frequent questions on this site about intelligence design, for example, are answered through appreciation of general scientific principles. The domain of science is the real world, man made or natural. Even a claim of measuring the supernatural is insanity or sacrilege. Science is prohibited from incorporating any supernatural force or being in any of its models. No such model exists, any where, in any field of science.

ALL IN A GOOD CAUSE BY ORSON SCOTT CARD

I agree with Paul S #30: “I don’t buy Card’s article.” It’s not half bad – not half good. I couldn’t recommend it for any purpose. No defense or attack of anything Card says here is worth a second thought.

For a good source of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) criticism, one not 5% bad, see the video cited by Joey #20: The Great Global Warming Swindle.

WHERE OR WHAT IS THE VAUNTED CONSENSUS ON CLIMATE?

Several CrossFit posters have relied on RealClimate.org. First, beware: RealClimate is an advocate not of science but of a cause. It is dedicated to promoting AGW. Nonetheless, I will rely on the following from the staff at RealClimate.org when it says,

>> We've used the term "consensus" … without ever really defining what we mean by it. In normal practice, there is no great need to define it - NO SCIENCE DEPENDS ON IT. But it's useful to record the core that most scientists agree on, for public presentation. The consensus that exists is that of the IPCC reports, … . Caps added, Connolley, W. M., Just what is this Consensus anyway? 12/22/04. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=86

So when I refer to the consensus, climatologists, or Global Climate Models (GCMs), I mean as stated by the IPCC, especially in the Third Assessment Report (TAR), Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis.

RealClimate.org is not alone. A consensus about the consensus is developing:

>> The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Oreskes, N., Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, Science, vol. 306, no. 5702, op. 1686, 12/3/04. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686. (A report and discussion of this article is at Statistical analysis of consensus, 12/16/04. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=80.)

Nonetheless, AGW is undeniable, at least according to the Washington Post. Oreskes, N., Undeniable Global Warming, 12/26/04. This, Oreskes says, is because,

>>There is a scientific consensus on the fact that Earth's climate is heating up and human activities are part of the reason.”

And a dozen or two prestigious academies have officially endorsed this AGW conjecture.

ORESKES STUDY

For her position, Oreskes relies on the statistical analysis that Paul S #63 recommends.

Unfortunately for Paul S, RealClimate.org, and Oreskes, the analysis is erroneous. She started with 928 abstracts of refereed scientific journals published between 1993 and 2003 and containing the key phrase “climate change”, or as some say, “global climate change”. Among these, she found that 75%, or 696, articles discussed what she considered the consensus proposition: global warming is occurring because of manmade greenhouse gas. Of those 696, 100% agreed! That’s OK so far. But then Oreskes finessed these data into this conclusion:

>>The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Id.

This conclusion is not supported by her sample. She did not survey all climatologists, but a screened subset of them. What Oreskes' method does show is that with a high probability, REFEREED CLIMATE JOURNALS HAVE PUBLISHED NO PAPER DISPUTING THE ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE CONJECTURE.

A claim of unanimity among climate scientists raises a pair of questions. If there is unanimity, what happened to the scientific virtue of skepticism? If there is not, why are no skeptical views being published?

Science advances by validation and modification of scientific models. It is the process of overcoming challenges to the models, not screening out opposing views. An objective journal, dedicated to science and not to a cause, would seek out dissenting opinion, if necessary relaxing publication standards and accelerating the review process. If dissent were in short supply, a journal should feature such articles by giving them emphasis. A proper journal might reprint dissenting views from other sources.

A corollary expression of the consensus is that no one earns the name “climate scientist” unless he has passed climate peer review.

Consensus is to scientific models as CO2 is to global temperature: a lagging indicator.

FEAR OF CONTROVERSY

Paul S #94 said,

>>I'm afraid I'm not impressed by Dr. Glassman's paper. He's not a climatologist and says so, and while he offers us many pretty graphs, he has not one single peer-reviewed analysis of the Vostok data to back them up. His analyses are his own and those of other skeptics who, for some reason (doubtless the conspiracy) haven't been published anywhere that would have been rigorously reviewed by other scientists.

What conspiracy is that, Paul?

Readers who have a modicum of science literacy or a sense of debate or of logic will recognize Paul S’s criticism as an ad hominem attack. He belittles the technical information, screening it out to rely on an attack on credentials.

This is EXACTLY the technique of the consensus revealed by Oreskes sampling. Paul S, like the climatologists, will not abide opposing views. Paul S practices the suppression of dissent that he denies exists at #30.

My paper is now publicly available, ready for genuine peer review. Only Gavin Schmidt has responded so far, and that he addressed to someone else. Any journal that wants to reprint my findings may do so. But it would not be originally publishable in any of the peer reviewed journals sampled by Oreskes.

Lots of papers are unimpressive, Paul. Just as long as you didn’t find anything actually wrong, your indifference causes no discomfort.

MANN’S HOCKEY STICK

Whether Mann or McIntyre & McKitrick is right could be solved with the data. Apparently the National Academy of Science has done that, and Mann lost.

What Mann did was settle on a result that he should have doubted. It was a case of too good not to be true. Little more is known, and that doesn’t rise to the level of fraud.

The consensus bit. It, too, found the Hockey Stick too good not to be true. It was evidence that solved a big problem: the lousy correlation between CO2 and global warming, the soul of the AGW conjecture.

The consensus had relied on the Vostok ice core data. It showed the desired correlation of CO2 concentration and global temperature. Too good not to be true. As Paul S $52 says,

>> Ice core studies are a good example, in which CO2 is predicted to vary along with indicators of global temperatures.

Indeed, that was the prediction! Then someone discovered that the CO2 lagged the temperature. The cause cannot come after the effect!

The consensus regrouped, and came up with the unsupported model that while CO2 DID NOT TRIGGER the temperature rise, it AMPLIFIED it. This conjecture doesn’t work either, and no parallel in physics is offered.

So, too, Mann’s Hockey Stick seemed to provide the corroboration, and the consensus held a parade. Then, it, too, wandered off. The convincing part of the anti-Hockey Stick argument is how quickly the AGW cult retreated from it.

UNPRECEDENTED WARMING

Paul S #52 quotes from the National Academy of Sciences timid apology for the Hockey Stick fiasco, listing a number of warming indicators “which in many cases appear to be unprecedented during at least the last 2,000 years.” The IPCC goes further:

>>The present CO2 concentration has not been exceeded during the past 420,000 years and likely not during the past 20 million years. The current rate of increase is unprecedented during at least the past 20,000 years. Climate Change 2001, p. 7.

In fact, the present levels of CO2 have exceeded any previous measurements for about 50 years. But the earlier measurements are ice core data, sampled every 1500 years. If there had been another epoch like the present, the chances that it would have been detected in the samples is 50/1500 or 3%. So the present measurements are unprecedented with 3% confidence!

The problem is not that the measurements are too high, but that the previous samples are too scarce.

SCIENCE FOR SALE

Paul S #52 says we can download the NAS analysis of Mann’s work at http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676. He doesn’t mention that we can download it at the attractive discount price of $36.00. This is science for sale, not freely available, science – published, but not public.

The IPCC Third Assessment Report has hundreds of such references. Anyone in government or an academic institution can get them for free. But anyone in the public who wants to verify the work, the fee is tens of thousands of dollars. This science practices behind closed doors.

If the IPCC reports are to be used for national policy, the Freedom of Information Act should apply – and not at the last minute. Every reference must be made freely accessible. Otherwise, the government should not use the IPCC reports at all. This is just another way this science screens out criticism.

Regardless, writers may freely and extensively quote copyrighted material, and should refrain from quoting abstracts. Paul S, the IPCC, and the consensus should do so, or ignore the papers.

OTHER ERRORS IN THE CONSENSUS FOR THE DEBATE

Paul S is right, we can’t rely on the erroneous Mann Hockey Stick as disproof of the AGW nonsense. Even the consensus no longer supports it. And Paul S is unimpressed with the fact that CO2 is imprinted with the solubility curve, contradicting key parts of the consensus’ models. Perhaps for the benefit of all who might want to judge the debate, Paul S would demonstrate his scientific skills and Global Warming knowledge by refuting one or more of the following propositions -- major errors in the IPCC consensus model for AGW. References on request.

• The consensus graphs data from Mauna Loa onto data from the South Pole. Mauna Loa sits in the chimney of concentrated CO2 outgassing from the eastern Pacific. The South Pole is surrounded by the CO2 oceanic sink. Charles Keeling, the father of the Mauna Loa measurements, warned not to mix such data.

• The consensus claim of unprecedented data compares Mauna Loa data with South Pole data. The concentration in the outgassing chimney should be much larger than inside the sink, which the consensus ignores.

• The consensus urges it can compare data from Mauna Loa with Antarctic data because the CO2 is “well-mixed”. In another place, the IPCC reports that the north-south gradient of CO2 is an order of magnitude greater than the east-west gradient. CO2 can’t both be well-mixed and possess gradients.

• The consensus urges CO2 is well-mixed because of its long residence time in the atmosphere, claiming the time to be in decades to centuries. The residence time is between 1.5 and 2 years, calculating from two different sets of uptake data in the IPCC report. The consensus has two sets of CO2 reservoir data. One set has leaf water, and the other does not.

• The consensus uses net flux to compute CO2 residence time. It should use the uptake flux data alone.

• The consensus claims that the uptake of atmospheric CO2 by the ocean is limited by carbonate chemistry. This erases the physical absorption of CO2 in the solubility process. Solubility depends primarily on temperature and pressure. The better model is chemical reactions occur between ions and dissolved CO2, not atmospheric CO2.

• The consensus models CO2 as a forcing. It is overwhelmingly a feedback. Modeled as a forcing, the CO2 does not exhibit the measured (and admitted) lags nor the measured sensitivity to temperature.

• The consensus models greenhouse gas as a heated, radiating source of energy. The gas mixture instead behaves as a blanket.

• The consensus wrongly states that warming reduces the uptake of CO2. The uptake is in the cold waters, always near equilibrium with ice.

And in a paper in preparation for release on the Rocket Scientists Journal,

• The consensus ignores that the Earth’s albedo is temperature dependent, an overwhelming negative feedback that substantially quells the greenhouse effect and prevents their predicted runaway. THE KEY TO THE CLIMATE IS NOT THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT, BUT INSTEAD ALBEDO FEEDBACK.

Jeff,

I'm confused on one point. Well many points actually, but one is front of mind and that is the purported paucity of ice core samples leading to your 3% confidence level that CO2 is well and truly at a 420,000 year high. Surely the Vostok data is not the only set of measurements of its kind? What does other ice core data have to say? How many samples would be necessary to satisfy the assertion?

Brian #128,

The IPCC TAR reports other ice core data. Some it claims are of higher resolution. They seem to go back 1, 11, or 20 millennia. The unprecedented CO2 levels are proclaimed for the past 420 millennia, a strong clue to the Vostok record, reinforced in places in the TAR. The IPCC says the Vostok record is best. However, it contains only 283 pairs of gas age and CO2 concentration.

Since the TAR, apparently, Climatologists extended some of the Vostok traces back to 650,000 years, but not yet with CO2, age pairs. My comments must address the IPCC reported consensus.

The high levels as of the TAR did not occur in the last 20 millennia, and that would remove 14 Vostok data samples. So only Vostok data are available, spanning about 394,000 years actually with 269 samples, an average interval of 1,465 years. So the current levels were unprecedented in the last 20 millennia with an unknown confidence level, and from then to 420,000 years with a confidence of about 50/1465 = 3.4%.

@ Jeff

>>>>So who should you turn to for advice on this subject? BCJay, #82

>>The highest academic virtue must be the debate. Jeff #127

Right. That's why I said:

"If this issue gets under your skin at all, why not take the trouble to educate yourself on it? *Really* educate yourself on it." #82

But we have people on here saying this kind of thing:

>> [T]he effect that humans have on the environment is like peeing in the ocean, it's on such a small scale that it all balances out. Matt, #126

And this kind of thing:

>> Because the Leftist/liberals have latched onto it is EXACTLY why I am skeptical. CCTJOEY, #123

Modicum of science literacy? Rigorous debate?

Like it or not, people are turning to authorities for advice here. You've now become one. The problem I see is that I'm estimating that very few people here are in a position to weigh your work vs. anyone else's. They're just rooting for the side they like better.

Jay

Jeff:

>>So the current levels were unprecedented in the last 20 millennia with an unknown confidence level, and from then to 420,000 years with a confidence of about 50/1465 = 3.4%.

Your calculation here is perfectly meaningless.

If the odds of rolling a 1 on a 33-sided die are 0.03, the odds of *not* rolling a 1, even once, on 269 rolls are minuscule. I calculate the odds of observing a similar 50-year period in the Vostok data at 99%, if such warm periods did exist.

Of course, the data isn't random and the climate gods aren't rolling dice. Both calculations are too simple (see Einstein again).

Jay

Jeff,

What are the odds that you and I have the same birthday? Now, what are the odds that you or I share the same birthday with another poster to this discussion topic? Hint for question 2: It's not also 1 in 365.

Why split hairs on this issue? It is known the climate is rising more rapidly than normal, pollutants in the air do affect the ozone layer and not good for people or other organisms. Fish are now less safe to eat because of mercury emissions. The fact that some scientists may have possibly fudged one study does not mean we should say "oh, global warming is a crock!" That's the kind of conservative carelessness and recklessness that caused us to underman and underplan the Iraq war. We should not take any right-wing idealogue's word on anything so important and huge ever again.

Jeff:

>> "I'm afraid I'm not impressed by Dr. Glassman's paper. He's not a climatologist and says so, and while he offers us many pretty graphs, he has not one single peer-reviewed analysis of the Vostok data to back them up. His analyses are his own and those of other skeptics who, for some reason (doubtless the conspiracy) haven't been published anywhere that would have been rigorously reviewed by other scientists." Paul S. #94

>>"Readers who have a modicum of science literacy or a sense of debate or of logic will recognize Paul S’s criticism as an ad hominem attack. He belittles the technical information, screening it out to rely on an attack on credentials." Jeff #127

Jeff - your article was well-written. Let it stand on its own merits. This holier-than-thou petty sniping makes you look foolish. It's only Ad Hominem if the personal attributes in question are irrelevant.

Further criticism:

1. Why do you claim that academic virtue is the gold standard, find a quote from RealClimate saying essentially the same thing, and then spend hundreds of words attacking the consensus concept?

2. "The consensus graphs data from Mauna Loa onto data from the South Pole. Mauna Loa sits in the chimney of concentrated CO2 outgassing from the eastern Pacific. The South Pole is surrounded by the CO2 oceanic sink. Charles Keeling, the father of the Mauna Loa measurements, warned not to mix such data."

Let me linger here for a moment. Are you claiming that CO2 concentrations are *not* increasing in the atmosphere? Or just that one iconic data series might be flawed?

3. "The consensus claims that the uptake of atmospheric CO2 by the ocean is limited by carbonate chemistry. This erases the physical absorption of CO2 in the solubility process. Solubility depends primarily on temperature and pressure. The better model is chemical reactions occur between ions and dissolved CO2, not atmospheric CO2."

Want to quote some references? The ocean isn't a laboratory. Your position relies entirely on your model of CO2 solubility. Why not dig up some support that this is indeed how the oceans behave? Simply asserting your model isn't going to win you converts.

In sum Jeff, your paper has withstood only the most cursory scrutiny. Schmidt's comments were a joke. You act like your battle is won, but it hasn't even started.

I hope it's clear that I don't see this as a partisan issue. I hope it's also clear that I don't have a soft spot for AGW. Why should I?

I simply hate to see debates being won or lost, especially in front of a non-scientific audience, on the basis of arguments that don't do justice to the subject at hand.

Jay

Right. That's enough time spent. If anyone cares to address anything I've said, use e-mail please.

Jay

I read the article that was written criticising Mann's work, and have cut and pasted what I think is most relevant. I don't have time to get into this--I stole this moment, but I'll be back.

Please critique the conclusions in detail, or at least show me that similar modelling techniques were not used on the other proxy sets.

"PCs [Principal Components ]can be strongly affected by linear transformations
of the raw data. Under the MBH98 method, for those series
in which the 1902–1980 mean is close to the 1400–1980
mean, subtraction of the 1902–1980 mean has little impact
on weightings for the PC1. But if the 1902–1980 mean is
different than the 1400–1980 mean (i.e., a hockey stick
shape), the transformation translates the ‘‘shaft’’ off a zero
mean; the magnitude of the residuals along the shaft is
increased, and the series variance, which grows with the
square of each residual, gets inflated. Since PC algorithms
choose weights that maximize variance, the method reallocates
variance so that hockey stick shaped series get
overweighted. In effect, the MBH98 data transformation
results in the PC algorithm mining the data for hockey stick
patterns.

The most
heavily weighted site in the MBH98 PC1, Sheep Mountain,
is a bristlecone pine site with the most pronounced hockey
stick shape (1.6 s) in the network; it receives over 390 times
the weight of the least weighted site, Mayberry Slough,
whose hockey stick index is near 0.

Here we have shown, in the case of
MBH98, that a ‘‘standardization’’ step (that the authors did
not even consider sufficiently important to disclose at the
time of their study) significantly affected the resulting PC
series. Indeed, the effect of the transformation is so strong
that a hockey-stick shaped PC1 is nearly always generated
from (trendless) red noise with the persistence properties of
the North American tree ring network. This result is
disquieting, given that the NOAMER PC1 has been
reported to be essential to the shape of the MBH98 Northern
Hemisphere temperature reconstruction."

did 100 burpees in 9:10 on 3/16

BCJAY... Don't bother to include me in on your example.

I am not here to get in to the middle of the "Scientific" debate. I am here to expose a giant swindle at the expense of "science" through political fraud. My point stands just fine on it's own when taken in context.

There are enough former AGW proponents who have turned around and enviromental activists who have turned around to show there is VERY GOOD reason to believe this issue is not a "Consensus".

The more leftist climb on this issue and come up with ideas that include the idiocy of "Carbon Credits" and Kyoto Protocol measures...the more I know I am dealing with anti-capitalists trying to find an issue to bring about a Cuban-style utopia.

Matt,
"The fact that some scientists may have possibly fudged one study does not mean we should say "oh, global warming is a crock!" That's the kind of conservative carelessness and recklessness that caused us to underman and underplan the Iraq war. We should not take any right-wing idealogue's word on anything so important and huge ever again."

I don't follow your logic. I get that you don't see the danger in front of your nose, but you do see the danger that isn't there (which is typical as I pointed out above), but your leap from one statement to the next with know connection what so ever has got me yurning for more.

Last I checked the military is asking for more manning, but are being fought tooth and nail for it by the left-wing.

I figure the millions dead from not having DDT has cost more in money and lives. That was an undermanned and underplanned left-wing idealogue's word on something very important.

Perhaps Vietnam, where an over-manned and over-planned liberal idealogue's plan turned out just as bad and then got worse when even farther to the "left" idealogue's got involved. Bay of Pigs, that was a good one too.

Oh, I know, Eagle Claw or Somolia...

The point is that least Right-Wingers generally would like to finish what they start. Left-wing just gets the ball rolling then does everything it can to hamstring their own team only to abandon it and the cause they lost brothers for.

I am watching yet another march on DC...headed by ANSWER. You know, the Communist front group who loves all things "Che" and hates all things American. They will of course use violence and intimidation to scar our National Monuments, while spitting on our service-men along the way.

Either way, with this crowd it is socialism now to save the planet from :

1. Bush
2. Capitalism
3. Global warming

Different day...different protest...same underlining message...same underwear

Engage what does not want to or can hurt you and ignore the things that do...always a great plan.

silly hippies...

New quote of the day:

Jeff Glassman- "Consensus is to scientific models as CO2 is to global temperature: a lagging indicator."

Classic Glassman

Putting what's causing global warming aside for a moment...

Apparently the idea of minimizing pollution, reducing our dependency on foreign oil and progressing forward with newer and better technology, is a bad idea, for whatever reason.

I honestly don't understand what the right even stands for anymore. Other than moral conservatism (to include the joining of church and state), the government telling others how they should live their life, and hating a group of people who are basically trying to make the world a better place (albeit, probably misguidedly at times). Oh and let's not forget the joy in the endless regurgitation of Hanoi Jane, Waco, the Clinton affair, Dan Rather, Al Gore inventing the internet, etc.

I wish someone would explain it to me. Where's the good in the right wing movement? I'm missing it. I'm genuinely asking here...

and Joey,

Anti-capitalism? Hippies? You can't be serious.

Marshall #139

I don't generally post on Rest Days except to occasionally point out bad form and discourtesy. There are a couple of topics that will bring me out (health care economics is eagerly anticipated), but one of your statements prompts a quick thought:

"Apparantly the idea of minimiing pollution...is a bad idea, for whatever reason."

The more I read about GCC/GW the more it feels like West/U.S. bashing, and the more it sounds/feels like a bludgeon to achieve the goals in your statement. As a scientist (but not a climate scientist) I am not convinced by the science on either side about the effect of humans on the climate, and I am therefore quite wary of the heavy-handed approach of the GW/Gore camp as they use climate change to force the issues of minimizing pollution, reducing dependency on foreign oil, and moving toward other energy sources.

These are worthy goals, and in fact are goals that have been addressed in the U.S. successfully and through consensus building with such things as the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, both of which are arguably the most sucessful (and least damaging to business) efforts to minimize pollution in the history of the modern world after the introduction of indoor plumbing.

What is offensive and so, so off-putting to anyone with a shred of science background is the politicization of the issue, and the attendant condemnation of anyone or any data that does not toe the party line. It reminds me of the Alzheimer's Disease research where the accepted dogma of CNS "tangles" was so dominant that it was impossible to secure funding for research on ANY other possibility, and impossible to publish any research that did occur. Lo and behold we now find that the dogma is very likely wrong, and the political nature of the issue has delayed the search for a cure.

Should we as a developed country be leading the way in reducing pollution and identifying alternatives to fossil fuels, and should we as a nation be searching for these alternatives as a national defense imperative? Of course. Nowhere have I seen here or elsewhere that these are "a bad idea". But the reason to do so, with all of its associated perjoritives directed at the U.S., is not Global Warming at this time. This issue used in this way simply feels like another expression of the collective guilt about our national bounty felt by many in the intellectual elite camp, and the collective jealousy so obvious in so much of the rest of the world.

For me it's not so much whether GCC/GW is real or if it is a direct result of human activity. The use of the issue as a political cudgel by people who are too intellectually lazy to make the harder arguments and the harder decisions about pollution and foreign energy source dependency is offensive on its face. The science will eventually sort itself out; it always does. I am hopeful that a leader will arise who can articulate the reasons why we should be making the changes your post suggests, and who will lead us to do so.

D.

Marshall...

Yes, I am serious.

You can't be blind.

Reducing dependancy on foriegn oil??
Are you serious? Everytime the anyone on the right suggest domestic drilling it is the left enviromental/global warming crowd that shuts it down through fear tactics.

Progressing through newer technology???
Are you serious? No one stiffles technology more than "goody two shoes" libs that do everything they can to stifle the "cogs of industry" through leftist propaganda and regulation.

Minimizing Pollution?? Are you serious? Like AlGore zooming all over the planet between festivals and mansions in a private jet??

Where is the good in the left-wing movement?

-Continued appeasement to violent governments and movemnent world-wide?

-Selling out our countrymen for political points by denying the military needed reinforcements in a combat zone?

-On going biggotry by propigating that people of color and females can not succeed on their own merits without Government help?

-Break down of the primary education system by consistantly lowering academic standards in order to raise self-esteem?

-The destruction of the family as a viable unit through minimizing the importance of the unborn, the too old, and gender roles?

-The undermining higher education through the systematic abuse of "free speech" and intimidation on Campus through political correctness?

-The safety of fellow citizens through arrant gun control regulations that punish the law abiding and reward the criminal?

-The spirit of their country-men by offering hand-outs without necessity, only to by votes and keep the down-trodden under the government thumb?

-The celebrating of corrupt "movement" leaders, such as a the murderous Che, to convince youth that being beligerant is "hip".

-The minimizing of morality for the sake of getting a laugh at the "Squares"?

-The effectiveness of National Security by revealing secrets in the NYT and endless allegations/lawsuits against the people defending this country and any tools that might be useful, becuase they don't like the party in charge of the executive branch?

-Undermining the Armed Forces by tirelessly trying to make service-members victims?

-Corrupting our democracy by trying to secure voting rights for illegal immigrants and convicted felons?

-Mocking our right to protest by burning our flag, spitting on our heroes, and vandalizing our monuments?

-Celebrating debaucherous behavior through acceptance of pornography, Hollywood worship, and recreational drug use?

-Disrespectful youth who ase left-wing policies to intimidate teachers, school adminstrators, bus drivers and security personnel?

-Subverting private property rights through the abuse of emminant domain laws?

-The Mocking of Patriotism as the view of ignorant Rednecks from "Fly-Over" country.

-The watering down of physical education by discouraging competition and results?

You, Marshall, might not see the Good in the right-wing agenda.

I however, see the BAD in the left-wing agenda.

Frank Miller's (of The 300) essay about Patriotism.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5784518

BCJay #129, #130, Marshall #131

I’m happy to advise, but I’d far rather convince. In the latter process, I learn, too. It’s much more the intellectually satisfying route. Besides, none of us is infallible, and arguing hones the positions to bring us much closer to a truth.

I agree with Joey. If the lefties rally around something, my skepticism is inflamed. It’s even more aroused by scientists claiming truth by consensus. If that’s their best argument, they’ve lost the round.

You don’t need to understand the science to award debate points. You do need to listen to the arguments, and ask for any clarifications you need, such as defintions.

The probability model with 269 rolls of a 33-sided die would fit a climate history where a warming period like the present existed at the time of every one of the ice cores. But the ice core reading is imperfect, with only one chance of detecting the warm period given that it was there.

The birthday model is something like the following experiment. Divide the CO2 concentration into increments of 10 ppm between, say 200 ppm and, say, 400 ppm. Assume they are all equally likely. Then what are the odds that one (or none, as you like) of 269 samples measures a concentration the same as today’s (say about 362 ppm, and in the 37th cell). That’s not much like the real problem.

The problem is more like the following. We want to test the hypothesis that the present temperature is unprecedented, so imagine there was just one such era previously. Now the problem is analogous to this experiment. Create a long strip of white paper, say 420,000 units long. Cut perpendicular slots randomly in the paper, spaced on average about every 1500 units apart. Make a rectangular piece of red paper as long as the strip is wide and 50 units wide. Cover the red paper perpendicularly with the white paper. Now what are the odds that the red shows through one of the slots? You can measure the odds if you wish by imagining all the places the red paper could (or could not) show through the slots, and dividing by the whole length.

If you run the experiment with, say, three red papers, you’ve answered a quite different question. You’ve estimated the odds that the present CO2 concentration is unprecedented given that three such epochs existed in the past. That’s not much like the problem.

Joey,

Honestly, I read nothing of your post, because skimming it I was able to see you chose to avoid my question and just be offensive.

I am earnestly asking. Could you please explain your ideology a bit better. What exactly positive does it contribute to society? I am very seriously trying to understand.

If you'd like, after that I will tackle that long list of points you made. But I'm sure it's just a bunch of overblown stereotypes and Al Gore inventing the internet stuff - if I am wrong and jumping to conclusions, I apologize. It's just that, IMO, most of your posts indicate very little understanding of those anywhere left of where you're standing.

Thanks.

"Mike Hulme, the founding director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, argues in the Guardian that while scientific evidence may cast doubt on Global Warming why believe science? When a larger truth must be expressed, then "post-normal" science must be employed."
http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2007/03/post-normal-science-as-proof-for-global.html
The key to Hulme's thinking is admitted within his article, we need "post normal" science in order to implement the socialist agenda.
Link to Hulme's article: http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2032821,00.html

Hulme attempts to justify fraudulent science as being in the service of a "greater good." Exactly what Orson Scott Card was complaining about with Mann's fraudulent hockey stick graph.

That hockey stick features prominently in Al Gore's movie, "An Inconvenient Truth" So this thoroughly exposed fraud is still being put out there by the high priests of of Athropogenic Global Warming. With than in mind, Card's question about why this known fraud has not received the public condemnation it deserves is a very legitimate inquiry.

Bingo,

Perhaps I'm being naive, or perhaps it's because I myself have no interest in the politics of it, but I really don't see how the GW issue is a political one.

I do see a group of people making it a political issue, by attacking the messenger, so to speak. But it's hardly fair, IMO, to turn that into an accusation of politically based motivations for being concerned about the issue. I mean, regardless of what is causing global warming, I would think that turning a complete blind eye to it could only be caused by complete stupidity or total spite for those bring the issue to light.

Marshall

Here's my assessment.

Basically, we have two broad classes of evidence arguing for AGW: paleoclimatatological evidence, and computer modelling.

Within the first class, the "Hockey Stick" is the Prime Exhibit. The reason it is significant is that our climate varies to the extent that it is really impossible for say, historically, what "normal" is, except as a mean of some sort.

Self evidently, the climate could be warming, and we could have nothing to do with it. Thus, deglaciation does not constitute evidence of any sort, outside of the claim "this is historically unprecedented".

That is the importance of the Hockey Stick, which basically says, "happy, happy, happy---------oh my God we're doomed unless we elect Al Gore, doomed, I tell you, doomed." From this, it flows naturally that Bush's fellow travellers are big meanies.

Yet, as I understand the methodology, the "data" was seriously flawed and polemical when it was published. This is why the link I posted is so significant, and--presumably--why no one had anything intelligent to say about it. That it was published in 2000 is quite irrelevant to the larger point, and why he presumably felt no need to update it. If you are unable to grasp the basic argument, then a later date helps little. As far as I can tell, the same BS is going on now that was going on then.

He pointed out that the entire reigning scienfific orthodoxy was overturned within in a year, without dissenting voices, without extensive debate, and as was shown in the piece Card discussed, without even taking the trouble to examine the "evidence".

Now, in the world of science, if you are "tried" and convicted of a crime as massive as what Mann was accused of, your career is pretty much over. It's like being a Baptist Minister who gets caught with drugs and a gay stripper. Of course, Christians always have redemption in Christ. Scientists don't. You lose jobs and careers.

It seems plausible enough to me, that many "scientists" consider the basic premise of CO2 emissions creating global warming "intuitively" so obvious, and the need so great, and the potential disaster from delay so massive, that we just can't wait for what would normally pass for evidence. If you tack that mindset onto political opportunism, you get groupthink in short order.

As near as I can tell, what Mann is accused of--and what it seems transparently clear he did--is cook the data.

If I were to give one of you a set tree trunk samples, what would you do with it? I don't know either. But an obvious place to start is to have some sort of idea of the effect of temperature on the growth of trees, then to establish a baseline. Now, we know pretty well what the temperatures have been for most of the the 20th century in most of North American, to take the example used.

The question is: do you use all trees, or just some trees? And if just some trees, why just those trees? Presumably Mann had ideas on the front end, but it appears that some decisions were made on the back end, that preferentially supported his ideas.

Finally, given that the goal is the estimation of the meaning of the tree rings in absolute temperature terms, an obvious technique is to take the known temperatures of the 20th Century, compare them to the tree rings we can observe, and use them as a basis for comparison as we go back in time. Now, you know there will be hiccups in that analysis, but you figure that it should be a pretty close approximation.

You do your analysis. You use the 20th Century essentially as the Control group, to help you assess what you have in the past. Then you compare it to the period 1400-1900. You look at the correlation between tree ring size and known temperature, and infer backwards. You know you have a margin of error, which is unknown—obviously—but which can be estimated, again, from known variables. You apply a statistical analysis to this.

However, what you do--which is not kosher—is not only apply statistical correctives, but a data filter that in effect gives preferential weight to outlyers in the late 20th Century. Which are thereby increased in statistical importance, and which thereby emerge clearly from the noise.

As McIntyre showed clearly, using the methods of Mann generates a Hockey Stick an unexplainably large amount of the time, in both directions, significantly, by which I mean that it’s quite easy to generate a data set showing global COOLING. If you look at just a couple details, like which trees where got the attention, you can see this bias clearly.

This is manifestly unacceptable, and the simple fact that this manipulation has survived for over ten years in no means mitigates the original error, or the intention behind it. That this manifest politicization of science has not received wide press, and Mann widespread professional infamy, speaks volumes the credibility of the scientists in this debate.

There is no reason, in my view, not to suppose that similar database manipulations were not done with core samples, other tree rings, and the various proxies in the sample.

This is absolutely critical, as this is the only solid evidence showing that the current warming is aberrant, and not well represented in the history of the Earth.

What is also so self-evidently missing that it’s difficult to believe no one pointed it out, is the fact that their sampling began after what we believe was the end of the Medieval Warming Period, from 900-1300. They started at 1400. Thus, there may well have been data in there showing higher temperatures, and more prolonged increases, than we are seeing today.

Significantly, the first report Paul S. cited downplays EVERYTHING prior to 1600, in the course of making comments about the temperature of the last 1,000 years. If their confidence isn’t high, they should talk only about the last 400 years.

I have to go. Link on the Sun: http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V10/N8/C1.jsp

This just in....

Environmental Guru Predicts Climate Doom: 'Billions of us will die; few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in Arctic'...

http://www.theage.com.au/news/in-depth/paranoid-planet/2007/03/17/1174080219538.html

thanks Drudge

BCJay,

Dude, my feelings are hurt - "Schmidt's comments were a joke"

Is water vapor considered a greenhouse gas? If so, If the data found here (and apparently footnoted from probably somewhat legitimate sources) -

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

- is right the percentage of anthropogenic contributions is somewhere around .3% of the total greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

I'm not sure it means anything but that does sounds kind of small to me. Thoughts?

"Just have to say it; I'm awesome."
-Dan Silver

For those of you who missed that AGW is political...

Here is the indoctrination of children for political means in the name of Global Warming. Looks like something right out Castro's Cuba.

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070317/NEWS01/303170003/1009&theme=

now for the Green Beer

Marshall #143

Please re-read my post. I neither state, nor do I imply, that global warming is not an important issue. I am careful to remain neutral to the issue itself: "As a scientist (but not a climate scientist) I am not convinced by the science on either side...". I discuss only the use of GCC/GW as a political tool; I neither accept nor deny global warming as a phenomenon, and I specifically neither accept nor deny a human element in causation.

Please re-read my post. I am openly in agreement with what I believe is your stance that we must make better efforts at pollution control, and that we must make better efforts to identify and utilize non-fossil energy sources, specifically energy sources that are not imported.

Please re-read my post. I object to the use of GCC/GW as a lever to achieve said goals. I specifically object to the MANNER in which GCC/GW has been used and compare that with the politization of Alzheimer's research in the last 10 years. I would object regardless of the identity of the players involved; I name the players, that is all. I do not ascribe political motives for their concern about GCC/GW. I make clear that their actions and how they USE the issue itself is political, that their use exceeds the reach of the issue, and that this informs my objection.I assume in good faith that you are interested in the science involved in this issue, and that you are interested in the issue itself. I take at face value your assertion that you are uninterested in the politics of this issue. My post is ENTIRELY about the politics of the issue.

Please re-read my post. I made no comment reflecting my personal feelings about any personalities involved or named. I did NOT share my thoughts on the issue of human causation of GCC/GW, and so therefore no inference can be made regarding my "eyesight".

Please re-read my post. I speak firmly within the lines. I do not ask that readers attempt to glean some additional message between the lines. Your response is not, in my opinion, to the post I wrote. You are obviously bright, interested, and passionate, and I am sure that I would gain some value should you decide to respond to #140.

Please re-read my post.

D.

Alright, to conclude on paleoclimatology: this is the “discipline” which enables statements like “Warmest decade on record”, and “warmest year in 1,000 years”. Yet, in the case of the principle analysis that changed the landscape of the field completely with essentially no opposition, the data was ordered in such a way that either global warming or global cooling can be generated from random, statistically neutral data consistently.

This point has not been brought to the forefront of the debate, which has rather continued from Mann’s research as if nothing untoward had happened, and ignoring completely the Warm Period not included in his research, which is nonetheless used without apparent guilt in claiming radical and unprecedented increases in temperature.

Logically, if Greenland WAS green at one point, and is so no longer, then it was warmer THEN than it is now. Given that, we are still well within the realm of what can be explained as normal temperature fluctuations. Paul S. makes the argument that we are warming faster than was the case then, but none of the documentation he cites references any research on that period, and in fact as far as I can tell that just isn’t something that exists. I don’t know the basis of that claim, other than prejudice. If we posit solar activity as the principal factor in global warming, then I see no reason warming periods like this—assuming that is even what is happening—cannot have happened in the past.

The issue here, as Jeff Glassman points out, is that skepticism—which is the lifeblood of real science, and ultimately the basis upon which all progress is made—has been not just absent, but spectacularly absent, and opposition denigrated as, in effect, apostasy. Apostasy not from Anthropogenic Global Warming, but from SCIENCE, period. From intellectual credibility, from not being an “oil industry shill”. This is ridiculous.

There are alternative explanations for warming, and in any event warming is not proven, and less than 20 years ago the concern was cooling. When climate modeling of weather began, all the models pointed to cooling, and this may sound tongue in cheek, but if we get this thing wrong, global cooling could still be a problem. I see no reason to assume that to be impossible.

Gotta go again. I’ll be back.
b

Consider for a moment not whether the Hockey Stick is true or false, nor the political motivation that might underlie it. Suppose it to be true! So what? What does it prove?

We have strong evidence that the modern CO2 concentration is high and manmade. What the AGW consensus needs is evidence that this CO2 caused a corresponding warming. The AGW theory predicts that would occur. What the here-assumed-true Hockey Stick establishes is the correlation between CO2 increases and temperature. It does not prove causation. If the Hockey Stick had been false, it would tend to disprove causation; being true, it merely fails to disprove.

However, we already have a strong correlation between CO2 and temperature! It is abundantly clear even to the layman in the Vostok data. Additional correlation is only a little bit helpful.

The first problem facing the AGW proponents is that the CO2 at Vostok LAGS the temperature. The CO2 cannot be the cause of the temperature. That is not just science; it is embedded in the definition of the words cause and effect. The assumed fact of the Hockey Stick proves nothing about lead and lag, about possible cause and effect. The AGW consensus has a backup theory, the amplification theory discussed earlier.

Just recently my paper The Acquittal of Carbon Dioxide showed that the concentration of CO2 in the Vostok data is imprinted by the solubility curve, a function of temperature. The AGW folk haven’t had time to respond, but the fact raises havoc with the Global Climate Models. Whether the CO2 comes from the ocean or not, the GCMs need to reproduce CO2 concentrations curved with temperature. The amplification conjecture needs repair. The GCMs make CO2 a forcing, meaning the level is a boundary condition, fixed and insensitive to temperature.

The Hockey Stick is a professional embarrassment for Mann and a blow to the AGW proponents who were too quick to adopt it. Beyond some untoward glee at this discomfort of others, why would anyone care? Why spend time and energy on esoteric data processing to prove or disprove the Hockey Stick? It cannot mend the broken AGW cause and effect conjecture.

Marshall, of course you skimmed over my post. I expect nothing more from you. You are a drive-by poster who only wants to hit and run and not explain.

You are making the accusations...back them up. If you see nothing good, point out the bad.

Since I can not mention ALGORE, WACO, ETC.

How about you not mention BUSH, NEOCON etc.

sack up.

Jeff,

I understand what you're saying, but to me the significance of this goes beyond the strict science involved, the proof or lack of proof. It gets at the integrity of our scientific establishment, and I don't think it is overstating the case that scientist have become--not necessarily secular priests--but rather judges.

When we need a wise pronouncement on a vexed issue, the dominant lay presumption is that in complex matters--matters largely beyond the reach of the bulk of the population--that we can trust people who wear lab coats, and who have supposedly dedicated their lives to the pursuit of truth. We have seen that precise contention multiple times on this thread. "Just trust them/us", we hear.

Yet gut instincts, in my view, is in this instance something we very much need to rely on, although ultimately I will agree we need to subordinate our opinions to the evidence. The problem in that case, though, arises from the very complexity of the evidence. It increases the power of the scientists, in the way that the Latin Bible and Mass--which laypeople couldn't understand--increased, by design, the power of the priests.

This makes it critical that we when we do have somebody by the nuts--or, rather, in this case, a group of people--we need to squeeze as hard as we can. These things should never be tolerated, to any extent, in any form. Mistakes happen. They are in the nature of any complex enterprise. Willful manipulations for political purposes, however, do NOT just happen.

If you catch someone cheating at cards, do you keep playing with them? How can we know a "scientific" study won't come out showing that the "lag" was a miscalculation--silly us--and the raw data won't appear until after the 2008 election, or until after some significant decisions have been made. That would likely be possible in the current political climate, and given the history of this sordid affair, not only possible, but likely. That's why people that understand this need to make their case clear and airtight, then jump on the culprits and pound them into the ground until there's only a bloody puddle left. This can't be accepted, period, for the whole field of science to retain credibilty.

Our society can survive a corrupt priesthood. Although they are influential in the political process, churches have no direct influence on the decision making process, like "expert witnesses" do. If those folks are rotten, the whole system is rotten.

We know who the players are politically, and we have reason to suspect their science. That's enough for me.

Anyone who wants to argue details, please refute my specific, detail level contentions above, or as far as that goes, address Harry McD or Jeff Glassman's salient points.

Barry, the NAS report expresses the information available with the level of confidence available. The data since 1600 is more complete, and hence conclusions drawn from it can be made with more confidence. They say that. The earlier data is less complete, but what they have supports the later data pretty well. They say that too. Your assertion that they shouldn't say that is without foundation.

Jeff, I really don't know what you're going on about.

1) Mann's work has been confirmed by multiple subsequent studies and other lines of evidence, as noted in the NAS report. The evidence of increasing global temperature is extremely solid.

2) The increase observed in the last several decades cannot be explained by any known natural mechanism. That too is solid.

3) Increasing levels of CO2 in the last 150 years are thoroughly attested.

4) The only known factor that does correlate to the otherwise unexplainable recent increases is CO2 levels.

5) CO2 is known to be a greenhouse gas: that is, it tends to prevent loss of heat from a system by radiation back into space. This has been understood since the 19th century, with increasing refinement in the last 50 years.

See here for a discussion of the exact mechanism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect#The_basic_mechanism

Your claim that there is no known cause and effect link between CO2 and temperature is simply false. The link is well-known, and has been for a very long time. I don't know if you were unaware of the mechanism, or simply chose not to mention it. Either way, though, I think this discussion has gone as far as it can. I just wanted to correct the latest climate-skeptic misrepresentations.

Paul S.,

Perhaps it's my caveman lack of higher intellectual capacity, but I missed the part where you addressed the criticism of Mann with other than Appeal to Authority. The article indicated that using his methods--which he initially failed to disclose--you can generatate your choice of Global Warming or Cooling with almost any data set you want.

Since the allegation is that this manifest manipulation of the data--which, absent his "unique" and unusual massaging, shows no unusual warming trend whatever--has been ignored by his peers, and made a part of the "science", it stands to reason that all subsequent work is ipso facto suspect. The evidence is what it is, and no amount of scientific consensus, brow beating, or "I'm smarter than you so be quiet" types of responses change that fact. The beauty of science, properly conducted, is that anyone anywhere for any reason can go back and check anything they want. And if they find substantive issues they can document, it doesn't matter on iota what their credentials are, or what everybody else things. It's moot, and anyone who claims otherwise is practicing something other than science.

I posted a link stating that solar activity can explain the variation over the last period of time, whatever that period might be, including the end of the 20th Century. Did you read it? You state "The increase observed in the last several decades cannot be explained by any known natural mechanism. That too is solid." In point of fact, this is NOT solid. Multiple other explanations are in play.

"CO2 is known to be a greenhouse gas: that is, it tends to prevent loss of heat from a system by radiation back into space. This has been understood since the 19th century, with increasing refinement in the last 50 years."

Question for you: what is the importance of CO2 relative to water?

Note: please do not ever post links to Wikipedia. I participated in the creation of an article there, and was thoroughly disgusted. Whatever that is, it is not objective.

Your attempted syllogism fails badly, as it must, if erected on shaky foundations. Like Jeff and others, I respect what good scientists do, and am not claiming all scientists are crooked, but in this particular case, I am. If I'm wrong, please show me a specific rebuttal of the article in question. That Mann's colleagues--the one he drinks beer with, and swaps funny emails with--found his research just fine makes me question them, too. It does nothing whatever to erase his own stain. It increases it.

I know it's glamorous to "shoot the messenger" and cry foul that Mann left out important data sets. Regardless of his motive of his motive, why can't we just get over the fact that his analysis was flawed. What about the study by the National Academy of Sciences that included all of the pertinent data sets? Why don't we discuss the fact that added those data only slightly affected the outcome or the "hockey stick" chart? That is fact. So it's all fine well and good, to get caught up on the fact that Mann performed some careless analysis. Lets not ignore the fact that the outcomes are almost exactly the same, as is the message of that chart.

Now that these studies prove what is happening globally, getting wrapped around the axel about Mann and *his8 study is just a red-herring argument.

No it isn't, because I'm contending that there's no reason not to believe similar statistical methods were used to massage the data in latter studies. If it was found largely unobjectionable, and about the worst they could say is it probably wasn't true 1998 was the warmest year on record, then they didn't blow the whistle on the fact that there is no plausible reason to believe this was an innocent mistake.

As I understand the issue, using the analysis program he wrote, if you feed data from polar ice cores, trees, coral, or anything else in there, it's like a top-heavy caber that will topple down with the greatest of ease into a "hockey stick" of one sort or the other. That's nearly the only result you will get with any sort of data set. It's like loaded dice.

Moreover, the omission of the Medieval Warming Period even from that analysis is unforgivable for anyone wanting to make claims about the last 1,000 or 2,000 years. This is the only sort of basis upon which such claims can be made, and they themselves are criticizing their own data prior to 1600. Yet, without guilt they are making very sweeping claims about the pace and extent of global warming.

Please understand, warming itself proves nothing, increased CO2 levels proves nothing, and computer models that predict nothing prove nothing. The principle evidence being presented to the political world, and which is being used as such, is the purported aberrational nature of current warming trends relative to our best reconstructions of Earth's climactic history. Yet, if those reconstructions are bogus, then the claim is bogus as well. We already know the Earth has been warmer than it is now as recently as 1,000 years ago. The only open question then relates to the purported pace of change, and that is poorly documented, as the period we would want to see would be 900-1300. Prior to Mann's paper, that was generally considered to have a curvaceous form which he attempted to overturn--largely succeeding--with his Hockey Stick.

The link to John Daly's site I posted covers this point well. None of what he posted, as near as I can determine, has been overturned by addressing his points. He has been ignored, as far as I can tell. At a minimum, he offered a scientific assessment, stated what he believed would offer a prima facie falsification not just of Mann, but the entire Hockey Stick hypothesis, then offered the evidence. The only arguments against him that I can see are that his pieces of evidence were wrong.

The whole thing feels like we're getting the bum's rush.

Note: when I said "The only arguments against him that I can see are that his pieces of evidence were wrong." I meant that if we accept his evidence, his argument appears air-tight, not that there is any reason to doubt it. English, beer, and fatigue. Bad combination.

Barry,

Darling, I think it's time to come in now. You're going to catch a cold standing out there in the rain all by yourself screaming at the heavens. Tsk tsk. At your age!

Jay

(Okay, I know I just chided Jeff for getting prissy with Paul. I just can't help myself when it comes to Barry. He's too precious.)

Jay

Barry,

All kidding aside, do you really want to be held to your argument? Do you want the integrity of AGW skeptics to rest entirely on whether or not there has been data and method-cooking going down in the kitchen? Consider carefully.

I found this quote that reminded me of the way you seem to go about things:

"Most skeptics don't actually do research. They comment in a highly selective way on research that other people do. Their own research tends to be very limited, and limited to a very few processes. You don't get anything like a balanced view from skeptics. They tend, as a group, to approach the problem rather like lawyers, making the best case for a client who has a preconceived position, rather than like scientists, which is to examine the climate system with the idea of figuring out how nature works, not to substantiate a preconception that one comes in the door with."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/debate/somerville.html

Now, on to Daly. Let me summarize the paper in a few paragraphs.

****

Daly shows a graph of the temperature over the last millennium, derived from the work of the IPCC in 1990. If you can't count good that's 17 years ago. This graph clearly shows (aha!) the MWP and the LIA.

Daly presents solar variability research from as recently as 2000, and decides that this variability explains climate variation over the last millennium. I'm not sure where the sophisticated analysis in support of this conclusion is. Must be an oversight.

Daly then slams the Hockey Stick for the rest of the paper, presenting various other proxy records to support his claim the the MWP and LIA did, in fact, exist.

****

So? Barry, there's essentially nothing here. Teams of bickering scientists with more legitimate qualifications are concluding that solar variability *does not* in fact, account for all of the climate change over the last millennium, and especially not for the last 100 years. From a review of literature in Nature, Sep 2006: "Our results imply that, over the past century, climate change due to human influences must far outweigh the effects of changes in the Sun's brightness"

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Changes_In_Solar_Brightness_Too_Weak_To_Explain_Global_Warming_999.html

Here's a link to a paper pointing out errors in the initial analyses (e.g. Friis-Christensen) that concluded that solar forcing was dominant.

http://www.realclimate.org/damon&laut_2004.pdf

Meanwhile, the science of estimating the past global temperature has improved greatly. Here's a link to recent paper (Feb 2006) that used 14 calibrated, screened, proxy data-sets to estimate past global temperature back to the MWP. You could think of it as "Bristlecone Pines", but legit and on steroids.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/311/5762/841

This wikipedia article (gasp!) features a compilation of other proxy studies. The references are there. You can read the charts the way you like.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

Lastly, a link to RC (gasp!) on the picture emerging of the last millennium. I like RC, and ClimateAudit.org, because in addition to the articles the comments threads are usually educational.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/02/a-new-take-on-an-old-millennium/#more-253

To conclude: Are you still impressed with Daly?

Mercifully, you've always got your "corrupted science" position to fall back on.

Jay

I guess that response means you have nothing substantive to say? As long as you admit I won that argument, I'll take insults all day long.

Michael E. Mann, then Assistant Professor, University of Virginia, was a “lead author” of one section of the IPCC Third Assessment Report. His Hockey Stick analysis appears twice in full page charts. See Figure 5, Technical Summary of the Working Group I Report, p. 29; and Figure 2.20, p. 134.

Right after introducing the Hockey Stick in Figure 2.20, the IPCC asks in section 2.3.3, “Was there a ‘Little Ice Age’ and a ‘Medieval Warm Period’?” The answer is “the conventional terms of “Little Ice Age” and “Medieval Warm Period” appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries.” These two dominating features of the last millennia are erased by the Hockey Stick reconstruction. So instead of questioning Mann’s analysis, the IPCC denied contradicting facts to accept the Hockey Stick reconstruction as valid. This lack of skepticism is a major black eye for the IPCC and the Third Assessment Report.

If the facts don’t fit the AGW theory, just change the facts, eh? The boat won't float.

Last month, the IPCC released its Executive Summary of the its Fourth Assessment Report. It summarizes the history of climate change, but omitting the Hockey Stick reconstruction. We’ll have to wait for the full report to see if it survived at all, and what ever happened to the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period.

Paul S #156 believes, “Mann's work has been confirmed by multiple subsequent studies and other lines of evidence, as noted in the NAS report.” The section of the NAS report posted by Barry Cooper #136 demolishes Mann’s work. Maybe Paul S will share with us what subsequent findings NAS found rehabilitated Mann. Do these subsequent findings establish that the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age indeed didn’t exist?

For a well-documented summary of criticism of the Hockey Stick, see David R. Legates, Breaking the “Hockey Stick”, 7/12/04. http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba478/. This is short -- almost worth posting here in its entirety.

Jay #158,

You did indeed chide me at your post #130. Then with the bits still wet, in post #131 you told me shut up. I complied.

I don't think I'd brag about that.

Barry: The substantive post got held. See above.

Jeff: I'll get back to you. Didn't tell you to "shut up" - just didn't have time to check back in here on the comments in the then foreseeable future.

Jay,

Your arrogance is truly stunning. I don't have time to comment at the moment, but I'm curious, what are the obvious objections to your post, on a scientific basis? Do you genuinely think that's such a door-slamming post that you can take that tone? Have you failed entirely to anticipate that anyone could say anything substantive in response? If so, you have ample company on your side of the debate.

What, if anything, would cause you to say "maybe I was wrong"? I don't think that possibility exists, and you have exhibited extensively and repeatedly a predilection for Appeal to Authority and Ad hominem. Those are the arguments of the mentally defective and disingenuous. I am arguing the merits of the case.

I don't have time to reread your post, but I'm trying to remember where you addressed the actual evidence Daly presented, or my own link to an article from 2006 stating that solar activity alone is sufficient to explain known temperature patterns. Did you? I'll check tonight.

I have to go to bed, but thought I’d type up quickly my assessment and summary of the debate so far.

Prior to the appearance of Mann’s “hockey stick paper”, the scientific consensus was that it was warmer in the Medieval Warm Period than it is now.

In the space of a year or so, and with substantially no dissenting voices, the tone changed to one of total adoption both of his data, and the related conclusion that the “unprecedented” warming was anthropogenic. This was the dominant tone in substantially all field related journals.

His data—rather his interpretation of his data—appears not only flawed, but demonstrably oriented around the generation of an unambiguous, and presumably politically actionable “crisis”.

The state of the debate appears to be that his peers stand by him, he stands by his peer reviews, and everyone seems to agree that scientific consensus should mean something.

McIntyre and and McKitrick disagree. Here are what appear to be the most recent links.

The first links to a Mann Koolaid site, wherein is contained a letter Mann wrote to a Congressman. The substance of his argument is that his peers stand by him. He cites an article by his buddies Amman and Wahl, purportedly destroying the case made by the interepid subjects of today’s debate.

The second link is to that study.

The third is to McIntyre and McKitrick’s response. Lesson: Don’t screw with Scots. I would be lying if I claimed to understand all of that, but as near as I can tell the most recent critique of Mann, in Jan. 2006, stands, and post-dates what is currently on Realclimate.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=172

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/CODES_MBH.html

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=512

To continue, this piece of evidence is suspect. If someone will lie to you once, they will lie to you twice. This is common sense.

I keep reading on these sites how there is just tons of other stuff supporting their hypothesis, but if it takes a form other than proxies of various forms, I don’t know what it is.

There are indications that solar activity may not be a sufficient external forcing to create our current temperatures, but, again, if it was warmer in the Medieval Period than it is now, quite obviously such warming is possible. Then, of course, there are also studies indicating that a solar forcing actually is sufficient. I posted one from 2006, which was unaddressed.

We have a model from Jeff Glassman showing that CO2 can be naturally buffered, and relates as an aftereffect of climate change, and not an amplifier, or causative agent. This negates the notion that CO2 is necessarily a Greenhouse Gas, and relates well to the dominant and obvious idea that water vapor in fact is the dominant greenhouse gas.

Bottom line: we can explain what we can observe without reference to CO2 emissions. The principal evidence upon which current temperatures were claimed to aberrational was cooked by people who should have known better, and that assessment has withstood detailed scrutiny, even though the “good old boy” network has resisted bringing this fact to the forefront.

Global Warming has been embraced by the French as a good cause celebre for bringing about global government, and presumably for bringing American capitalists to heel.

Dissenters are called “deniers”, and people like Jay want to psychologize us as somehow deficient in our ratiocinative or perceptual abilities. I am told that “people like me” are characterized by a passionate refusal to study details.

This is ironic, in that a person who apparently derives a substantial portion of his sense of self worth and intellectual pride from his rabid embrace of a vapid scientism and pseudorationalism has in fact failed to adhere to his own ostensible criteria in failing to address the details of a well laid case by John Daly, who in effect argues what I have, provides evidentiary detail sufficient for all but the most, what is the word? Sceptical.

Yes, I stand by John Daly. More importantly, I stand by my assessment of his argument, which was logically coherent, articulate, and based upon verifiable facts.

What I think you fail to grasp is that there are two issues here. One: do YOU believe in Global Warming. Two: is it still subject to debate? If you have even a grade school grasp of science, you KNOW that yes, it is still subject to debate. It will ALWAYS be subject to debate, unless the evidence becomes truly overwhelming. Then it will still be contingently open to debate, but no one will want to. But in my estimation we are nowhere close to being able to close down the argument. And the fact that so many people want to do that justifiably sets off my—and many others—BS detectors.

Oi, that wasn't quick. I wish I weren't so stubborn.

Barry & Jeff, your patience and tenacity are impressive. True crosfitters. BCJay, gotta hand it to you on the tenacious thing as well.

Still, I can't help coming to the conclusion that AGW (before this multi-day thread I was just calling it plain old Global Warming - now I now better!) is a whole lot of BS. There seems to be more skeptics jumping on board judging by some of the news flow on Drudge.

Thanks for the great food fight, it's been fun.

Peace.

Oi indeed!

Okay, you stand by Daly. Do you stand by his paper? Or by the position he is representing? Because the online paper we're discussing doesn't carry much weight - that's why you need to quote other studies.

BTW: the recent study on the sun you linked to *does not* say solar forcing is sufficient to explain warming - the guy who *summarizes* it says that. Those are two different sources.

You call me arrogant - but the truth is I'm simply exasperated. Barry, you're essentially incapable of evaluating the research that is getting thrown around here. Suspicious of proxies? Are you hoping we're going to find a series of dated sketches of thermometers in someone's attic instead?

Not only are you a total amateur when it comes to the science (as displayed by several of your "observations"), but you've got an axe to grind.

I'm banging my head against a wall here. Your only response - as in the case of the authority of religion debate - is to conclude that I am incapable of revising my position. I observe how you get pouty when I miss a link ("here's a link on the sun..." - but brush off the material I send *you* without even the barest attempt at an analysis or response. Deja vu all over again.

Like the quote hinted at - you're simply jumping from one piece of dubious work to the next saying "Well, what about THIS." Why do I have to explain everything to you? Why don't you do like I suggested and go take out a book on modeling, or paleoclimate, or the carbon cycle and get yourself a clue?

As Jeff has admitted - he's out to convince as opposed to advise. If you two want to turn the quest for answers about the most complex and inscrutable system science has ever attempted to understand into an Oxford debate - I'll leave you both to it.

What would it take to convince me that AGW has no support?

1. You could demonstrate that CO2 does not, in fact, contribute to the greenhouse effect.

2. You could demonstrate, convincingly (i.e. not just one interpretation of just one paper), that solar forcing, or some other forcing, does account for all recent warming.

3. You could demonstrate that the CO2 does not, in fact, come from human activities.

A lot of the other stuff (Green Greenland, CO2 lagging temp) makes the present warming perhaps less exceptional that it has been portrayed - but does nothing to undermine the current theory of AGW.

In short, you would have to do *actual* work. You're going up against a peer-reviewed mass of thousands and thousands of scientist hours of work. Simplistic, non peer-reviewed internet papers? Bring 'em on, but don't cry when they don't convince me.

I give Glassman respect for having done actual work. You, Barry, haven't done much by comparison except work up a proper self-righteous lather.

Jay

Hey Schmidty,

Glad someone's getting some chuckles out of this. Sorry about calling you a joke :)

Jay

Jeff:

I've gone back to your paper and I will give you a critique. Maybe just in time for your forthcoming piece on Albedo.

Jay

Not that this contributes anything, but I just had an amusing thought:

Barry, *you're* a hockey stick. Whatever gets fed into your mind comes up anti-AGW every time. I observe a tendency to "weigh" the different pieces of evidence in a highly non-scientific fashion.

You can turn around and try to pin the same observation on me - I think anyone reviewing our exchanges will be able to see which accusation rings truest.

Jay

"A lot of the other stuff (Green Greenland, CO2 lagging temp) makes the present warming perhaps less exceptional that it has been portrayed" - Me.

Okay - the bit about CO2 doesn't make sense. That's an argument for another day.

Bottom line: claims that current warming is unprecedented are not the underpinnings of AGW. You are right to observe that it does, however, make for good political fodder.

Jay

Nice video Eva. You are going to do amazing in Georgia!