OT: Global warming deniers debunked

Page 1 of 13  
There was a discussion some time ago regarding a paper by Spencer and Braswell that criticized observations of global warming and the theory behind. Now the editor of "Remote Sensing" responsible for publication of this paper has resigned because he didn't see the flaws of the paper at the time he decided to publish it:
"Abstract: Peer-reviewed journals are a pillar of modern science. Their aim is to achieve highest scientific standards by carrying out a rigorous peer review that is, as a minimum requirement, supposed to be able to identify fundamental methodological errors or false claims. Unfortunately, as many climate researchers and engaged observers of the climate change debate pointed out in various internet discussion fora, the paper by Spencer and Braswell [1] that was recently published in Remote Sensing is most likely problematic in both aspects and should therefore not have been published. After having become aware of the situation, and studying the various pro and contra arguments, I agree with the critics of the paper. Therefore, I would like to take the responsibility for this editorial decision and, as a result, step down as Editor-in-Chief of the journal Remote Sensing. [...]" http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/9/2002 /
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/2/2011 11:17 AM, Han wrote:

I think it is pretty obvious that there is global warming, it's been going on since the ice age. Ant then there is that season that immediately follows winter every year.
What the real confusion here is that global warming enthusiasts/greenies have only considered data that does not include enough information to make a reasonable assumption one way or the others. Two hundred years worth of data is simply not enough to make any type of accurate prediction.
What I find funny is that global warming was not a problem until
a. It became a politically popular topic. b. Al Gore and his types found a way to profit off the "theory". c. Pleasing the greenies by cleaning up the environment has brought global warming to the light of day. Global warming was not a thought in any ones mind prior to laws being passed to clean up the environment.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Leon" wrote in message

Can you document that, show with credible evidence that scientists studying climate change haven't looked any further back than 200 years? And no, something you read in a blog or heard on a radio show doesn't qualify as documentation, what is needed is primary sources like the authors of a scientific study stating that their data doesn't go any further back.
If you cannot demonstrate that this claim is valid, why do you believe it?

Assuming that the only people who would be interested in a clean environment would be "greenies" (whatever they are) or other left-wing radicals is an odd way to look at it. From what I've seen Ducks Unlimited isn't a group dominated by raving leftists, and yet they seem to think protecting the environment is a worthwhile goal.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/2/2011 12:18 PM, DGDevin wrote:

I am only using common sense, I am not regurgitating anything that I have heard. Do you personally know of any period prior to 200 years ago when electronic instruments were being use to collect data like it is being collected today? You see 200 years ago most data that was collected was being done so very sporadically and with inconstant results from much more crude mechanical instruments.

Se above, again common sense prevails.

Yeah! Lets let Ducks Unlimited be the "End All" to all the problems in the world.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Leon" wrote in message

The thermometer dates back to the 16th century and writing has been around for thousands of years, so while it is true that detailed weather record keeping is a more recent state of affairs, that does not mean human observation of weather cannot be trusted more than a couple of hundred years back. There are also other ways to study weather/climate such as examining the growth rings of trees which can tell scientists a great deal about temperature and rainfall in the past. Bones and even fossils can be used as well by showing what kinds of plants and animals lived in various locations, that's how we know that areas that are desert today were once arable. Even archeology can contribute to climate studies, e.g. the remains of what people ate hundreds or thousands of years ago tell us what kind of crops they grew and that certainly tells us about the climate in the area at the time. Consider the clear evidence of what is happening today with species associated with warmer areas moving north and living at higher elevations due to increasing temperatures--you don't need weather records to see that these species are on the move as the climate changes, and thus it is possible to apply that knowledge to the distant past. In other words you do not need detailed records and electronic instruments to figure out what the climate was like in the distant past. *That* is common sense.

See, the way it works in the grownup world is you respond in a rational manner to what someone actually posts rather than making up something silly and responding to that instead. Or not, your choice, and clearly your choice is to sidestep anything that doesn’t agree with your views.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/2/2011 3:14 PM, DGDevin wrote:

And grownups address issues WITHOUT giving into juvenile ad hominem bombast.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/2/2011 3:14 PM, DGDevin wrote:

Please reread what I said, I mentioned nothing about thermometers not being around, I mentioned "electronic" instruments not being around. No one was able to deduct any conclusions of what was going on with the world atmosphere until electronic gathering and calculating came into the picture. Further taking samples of trees and earth are simply interpretations of what might have happened, no a guarantee.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/2/2011 1:47 PM, Leon wrote:

The paper under question deals with the correlation (actually the lack thereof) of recent satellite temperature monitoring results, with computer climate model methods, using data from both between 2000 to 2010 ... NOT with tree rings, or any other form of attempts to interpolate temperature reading when temperature recording devices were unknown.
The latter is nothing more than a red herring rabbit trail ...
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

My understanding of the controversy is that many climatologists doubt the accuracy, or the proper calibration of the methods of Spencer & Brasswell (sp?). That combined with the stated positions of these scientists on the theory of global warming, and their sources of funding make me disbelieve their results. Like it has been stated before - follow the money (or cherchez la femme in different circumstances).
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Which of course includes the federal money. THAT is not be any means clean money since who gets the money is decided by who appeals best to the notions of the people doling it out. And that is further muddied by the politics involved in getting the money allocated in the first place. To take an example from an area I am more comfortable with, studies have shown absolutely no correlation between the NIH money being spent and (1) the number of people with a disease (2) the amount of money being spent on treatment (3) the quality adjusted life years lost or gained or any other measurement. It is largely based on who is yelling at the COngress the loudest when the money is allocated (I have always wondered about the correlation between the average Q-value of the disease's spokespersons and funding, but nobody wants to give a grant to study it--grin).
--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Far from me to dispute some of that. I too have seen that some good ideas get funded, others not, and vice versa. However, in the final analysis most funded research is on average better* than the proposals not funded. The problem is that outofthebox proposals get sent back with the request of "show at least some data" and that is often difficult. The request for a correlation between money spent and diseases cured is difficult to address because the final treatment studies often aren't financed (almost on principle) by NIH, but by industry. And big pharma (no caps please) has been more interested in protecting patents and looking for a way to circumvent others' patents than in truly innovative treatments. Some of that seems to come about, thanks to whosoever's deities.
Gene studies have come so far now that some subclasses of subclasses of diseases can get treatments that are really rationally designed. Some novel cancer treatments are like that. If you have melanoma that has a certain mutation (which here means that a certain growth-promoting protein is continuously "on", rather than subject to in/off regulation by the usual signal transducing pathways) there is now a drug that can block the mutated protein, in effect just about curing the melanoma. There is something somewhat similar for certain "Philadelphia-chromosome positive" leukemias - the drug Gleevec. IMNSHO Dr.Brian Druker might (soon?) get the Nobel price for conceiving the idea and developing this medication. Unfortunately, the cancer sometimes mutates and Gleevec doesn't do the job anymore, and other similar inhibitors need to be alos used. Altogether these and other studies have slowly (too slowly) paved the way for better treatments. They aren't cheap however.
____ * better (unfortunately) often means 2 different things. Either really better research, or better presented research. Of course the combo is the very best ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Actually in the NIH, they do a lot of funding at both ends. They spend a lot of their money on more or less basic research. The stuff that the pharma types take and go looking for compounds to address (or the middle part). They also spend a ton on comparative studies that the pharms don't want to spend the money on, nor I would say should. But the correlations (or more important the lack thereof, aren't just on treatment studies but all of them.

That is some of the most fascinating stuff I am working on. Especially in breast cancer, they can pretty much look at your genes and not only tell if you are more likely to get the disease, but also which medication you won't and will respond to.
--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Yes that latter part is TRULY fascinating, and not only (by far!) in breast CA, but also in all kinds of leukemias and melanomas.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The whole of S&B's paper was questioning the climatologists' accuracy. Spencer interviewed tons of modelers and they all complained that their data was lacking, their models wouldn't reverse, etc. They'd added hundreds of new datapoints and the models are getting more accurate, but they're still lacking. Go ask one, Han. They'll tell you. Read Spencer's books, find the people he asked, and ask them yourself.

OK, quick: How many researchers are being funded by the U.S. gov't (+ liberals who believe in AGWK) versus how many are being funded by The Evil Oil Companies and the conservatives? Hint: the ratio is likely higher than 1,000:1, respectively. Follow the peer pressure, get the money/research grants.
Didn't anyone read the transcripts of the emails from East Anglia? "Don't peer-review his papers. He doesn't believe in global warming." and fifty other subversions. No, most of that was swept under the rug with a denial of the data tampering, period. How can that be? The media are Believers.
Last question: Have you ever seen a rich global warming skeptic? (Take the hint. ;)
-- The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

My wife doesn't think that what we are doing is all that bad, and mother earth has heated up and cooled down many times before. And I agree. But the current speed and degree of heating is extraordinary.
As for the rest of your arguments, I believe that I am scientist enough to not fall for follow the leaders, nor for people influenced by contrarian money. I just follow logic, ie we are changing the environment in unprecedented ways, and yes, mother earth has adapted numerous times, but there have also been several extreme bottlenecks in our evolution. I believe one of those bottlenecks had our hominid ancestors reduced to numbers iof a few thousand or a few 10,000. An extremely small number to get a stable humanoid line from. Just a few *(whatever) and we would all have been naked mole rats.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Sir, please remove your hockey stick colored glasses. Mann CHEATED!

Y'know, just because an oil company gives money to people on both sides of the aisle and both sides of anything which affects them, doesn't necessarily mean that the money influences the outcome of their research. In many cases, it only makes that research possible. If you saw that a researcher was heading down the road toward a paper which would mean a good outcome for your business, wouldn't you invest in the research? How can it (money) be good for the alarmists and bad for the skeptics?

So, what in this makes you lean toward mankind making any difference in the state of the Earth's climate?
-- The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Core ice samples from Greenland and Antarctica go back a "bit" over 200 years ago. Like about 1110,000 years. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Paleoclimatology_IceCores/
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/3/2011 8:05 PM, Steve wrote:

Sure they do and all that information derived from those samples is up for interpretation since no one lived during that period to verify the findings. And then that sample is simply a sample of what happened at thta spot, not the whole world.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/2/2011 12:18 PM, DGDevin wrote:

Can you document that they have?
The same qualification you ask for below apply to your response, should you deign to give one.

Ditto ...
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Swingman" wrote in message

Scientists can tell us what the climate was like thousands of years ago in parts of the world that today are deserts, for example by the remains of the plants and animals that lived there including human beings who grew crops where today that would be impossible without irrigation. How do you suppose they do that without detailed records made with electronic instruments? Is it *really* so hard to figure out that they have other methods of determining such things? If scientists haven't studied climate changes throughout and prior to human history, how come you can go down to the library and read books about them doing exactly that? If as Leon claims scientists haven't looked at climate past 200 years, how they they do things like this?
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl /
Gee--ice cores, growth rings in trees, sediments in oceans and lakes, preserved remains of plants and animals including those in human settlements--who could have guessed such things existed and have been used to study climate going back hundreds of thousands of years, what a revelation.
Seriously, when did ignorance become the preferred state for so many people?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.