Greetings From Idiot America

[OperaTenor]

In summary, large-scale surface temperature
reconstructions are proving to be important
tools in our understanding of global climate
change. They contribute evidence that allows
us to say, 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.

That is the crux of the report, instead of the excerpt you cite, Shap. If you look at the whole chart, the only abnormal spike in surface temperature occurs starting the last decades of the twentieth century. I don't think anyone tries to seriously argue the preceding hundred or so years of increase were primarily due to human influence.

I keep forgetting Shap and BigJon are Siamese twins. I wish I had the luxury of someone to proxy post replies to posts addressed to me.

[Shapley]

You had AVivaldi, but he seems to have disappeared. You also have Shos, anytime the discussion offers an opportunity to bash the President.

This the debate team. If you wish to have a discussion solely with BigJon, I recommend PM's or e-mail.

As I've said, and as your post bears out, the temperatures are unprecedented only within the short span of 400 years. All of the data that provides actual data dating that far show that they are repeating a pattern last seen 1,000 years ago, before "Little Ice Age" which theory the committee endorses.

You're trying to say the temperatures experienced are 'unprecedented', yet the data shows only that they are unprecedented during the period of the "Little Ice Age". That is not the same thing.

It is also worth noting that the charts show that, according to several of the methodologies employed, the temperatures are lower now than they were seventy-five years ago. That is significant when attempting to attribute to human causes, as those causes have not been significantly reduced during the same time period. Quite the opposite, in fact.

V/R
Shapley


V/R
Shapley

[OperaTenor]

We can address public posts in response to individual's comments and intend for that to be directed to the individual without pmming.

My initial point with regards to the NAS report cited was that it doesn't break any hockey sticks as the wingnuts claim. This is why I made the snarky Siamese twin comment. Once again, my point was hijacked.

And I thought I'd learned...

[Shapley]

I've never so much as mentioned a hockey stick. I addressed the link you posted, and cited excerpts from the link that refuted the claim that the link 'backs up Mann's findings'. It backs up only part of the findings, specifically that the Northern Hemisphere was warming during the last few decades than they have been in four hundred years.

In fact, the committee is actually addressing the issue of whether or not the use of large-scale surface reconstructions are valid tools in the support of Mann's work, not the accuracy of Mann's work itself. Saying that they have a 'high level of confidence in' his work is not the same as verifying it.

Now, how exactly does that qualify as a hijack????? :confused:

V/R
Shapley

[BigJon@Work]

Based on the analyses presented in the original
papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting
evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the
Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last
few decades of the 20th century than during any
comparable period over the preceding millennium.
The substantial uncertainties currently present in
the quantitative assessment of large-scale surface
temperature changes prior to about A.D. 1600 lower
our confidence in this conclusion compared to the
high level of confidence we place in the Little Ice
Age cooling and 20th century warming. Even less
confidence can be placed in the original conclusions
by Mann et al. (1999) that “the 1990s are likely the
warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at
least a millennium” because the uncertainties inherent
in temperature reconstructions for individual
years and decades are larger than those for longer
time periods, and because not all of the available
proxies record temperature information on such
short timescales.

Plausible? Is that the best you've got? We are supposed to overhaul our entire economy, most likely to its severe detriment, and throw untold dollars at plausible? Plausible!? When millions suffer from AIDS and unclean water and real pollution in Africa? Plausible my ass. Your self described concerns for people should make you wretch over this mess. Real people are dying right now and you want us to chase a chimera down the rabbit hole.
<end rant>

I guess I would expect a positive spin to the summary when some of the high priests sit on the board. The real science is much messier and much less "plausible." when you dig past the summary to the body of the report.

Do you understand the paths of scientist behind the current warnings of catastrophe? Do you understand computer modeling? Do you understand that the models are not robust and are significantly subject to spin and bias. This is more like gambling because it involves the gamblers fallacy. You already know what I think of gamblers.

[BigJon@Work]

Let's not forget the key point; Mann et al will not release the methodologies they used to achieve their charts. We can call this entire report prognostication until their methods are released and found repeatable by other scientists. Until then what they are doing is not science, it's gnosticism. There we go around again, to the religions and the priests.

BTW, OT, ask you wife about science by consensus. She seems to have a handle on it.

[OperaTenor]

Still missing my point. All of the people memming about the "broken hockey stick" go back to this report, which supports Mann, not refutes him.

[BigJon@Work]

I don't think anyone tries to seriously argue the preceding hundred or so years of increase were primarily due to human influence.

They don't? Did you miss-type here, because there are lots of folks trying to seriously argue this.

[OperaTenor]

Nope. If that statement's not taken out of context, as you're attempting to do above, it's not a miss-type. There wasn't enough human emission of greenhouse gases prior to the full-swing of the Industrial Age in the early twentieth century to have any marked influence on global climate.

[BigJon@Work]

Still missing my point. All of the people memming about the "broken hockey stick" go back to this report, which supports Mann, not refutes him.

The NAS report neither supports or refutes, merely opens the door for further verification and testing, as all good scientist should. So far Mann does not yet seem given to considering opening all his work up to scrutiny. It's other recent work that show the breaks, not this report which was started some time ago.

[Shapley]

OT,

Apparently you missed the reference I cited a while back that said that global warming apparently began when man changed from an hunter-gatherer culture to an agrarian culture. The article blames this change for the beginning of global warming.

My argument was that it is more likely that the beginning of global warming allowed man to give up his hunter-gatherer culture in favour of an agrarian culture.

The Al Gores of the world believe that there is a cause-effect to everything, that man is the cause, and that the effect is always negative.

V/R
Shapley

[BigJon@Work]

Nope. If that statement's not taken out of context, as you're attempting to do above, it's not a miss-type.

What context would that be and how was I attempting to take it out?

There wasn't enough human emission of greenhouse gases prior to the full-swing of the Industrial Age in the early twentieth century to have any marked influence on global climate.

I understand this statement but not your first one. Lots of people are arguing that the last 100 years of output has brought us to the point we are today.

So, based on this statement, what date is the consensus on the knee-point?

[GreatCarouser]

Here is The full text of Feynmann's Cargo Cult Caltech commencement speech

There are some things bothering me about where this thread is going. First on global warming. The following is from the article by Richard Lindzen from The Wall Street Journal online of 4/12/06 that I reproduced in full on page one of this thread:..."Earlier this year, Texas Rep. Joe Barton issued letters to paleoclimatologist Michael Mann and some of his co-authors seeking the details behind a taxpayer-funded analysis that claimed the 1990s were likely the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year in the last millennium. Mr. Barton's concern was based on the fact that the IPCC had singled out Mr. Mann's work as a means to encourage policy makers to take action. And they did so before his work could be replicated and tested--a task made difficult because Mr. Mann, a key IPCC author, had refused to release the details for analysis...."(Emphasis added). The scientific method works in part because results may be reproduced independently for corroboration. If this is good science why aren't the details available that will allow skeptics and supporters to attempt to duplicate the results?

Second is part of the political slant of the original article in this thread. I would take far more comfort in it if it admitted somewhere that (to use its own term) Idiot America is hardly confined to one party. The 'rain' falleth on the righteous and the wicked. I think there is ample enough 'science' on both sides of the global warming issue to justify further investigation but will give the NIH Office of Alternative Medicine and some of its projects as being right up there alongside ID

Lastly some of us seem to prefer mudslinging to uncovering the 'truth'. I will admit to times when I would rather be 'right' than allow my 'opponent' his/her points but I try to use this board as an opportunity to expand my horizons rather than as a soapbox to dish out some 'party line'. Maybe its only me and these are only my defects of character showing themselves but the tone in some of these threads gets particularly nasty and then we seem to be lobbing stones rather than ideas.

[Shapley]

GC,

I don't see what mudslinging you're talking about. The article was posted for discussion, and we're discussing it. We don't always remain 'on topic', and we don't always pull our punches, but it is a discussion on the merits and biases of the article, on the spirit it was written in, and on the articles and posts that have appeared here on the thread to support or refute it. That's what I've always seen as debate.

You'll forgive me, I hope, but I would expect that discussion on any article that begins by calling all of America, and all Republicans specifically, 'idiots', would get a little spicy.

I've argued in the past that the problem is that we've given government too much power over our lives. What did it matter if a person or group of persons believe that Adam and Dinosaurs co-existed? They never had the power to spread that belief beyond the handful of people that are looking for a theory that pretty much supports what they believe anyway. But now, with a Federally funded education system that allows the Federal government to designate what will be taught with the monies the schools are addicted to, those people have the power to mandate that their idiocy is taught throughout the country. And it doesn't matter if it's the religion of creationism or the religion of global warming, it can be taught as truth as long as it has the backing of the government behind it. Thus we teach children that millions of blacks were thrown overboard during the voyages across the Atlantic during the dark days of the slave trade, despite the obvious fact that the economics of such a venture would not have made that possible, let alone the problem of logistics.

The author complains that power in the hands of people who disregard the experts is bad. And he cites experts that were ignored. Yet other experts were not ignored . Not everyone, as he claims, is an expert. There are experts on both sides of the issues. This is where we were going with the discussion on global warming.

Remember the old saying: "No matter what happens, you will always be able to find experts after the fact to tell you why it was inevitable". Those experts have their day in the sun, and then they fade into the twilight when they fail to maintain their track record.

V/R
Shapley

[Shapley]

I was watching the news channel (not Fox) a couple of Sunday's ago, and they had 'experts' talking about the hurricane season. Last year's hurricane season was terrible because of global warming, we were told. This years hurricane season (so far) has been much less dramatic than last year's experts told us to expect, so they now have new experts who are telling us that this quieter hurricane season was to be expected, and it's the result of - you guessed it - global warming.

Of course, if the hurricane season increases in activity to the point that it becomes as dramatic as last year's, we'll have new experts - or a rehash of last year's experts - telling us that it's the result of global warming.

So it is with 'experts'. As long as you can point the blame for whatever occurs on the cause-du-jour, you'll get air time. You'll probably also get a boost in funding, which ties back to the article you posted in this thread and the link BigJon posted earlier.

With the war on terror, the situation is the same. If you blame the problems in the Middle East on President Bush, you get the airtime. If not, you're relegated to speaking at Republican Party fundraisers and corporate meetings if you want an audience. Then, having spoken at a Republican Party fundraiser or a corporate meeting, your credentials become tarnished, and you're expertise is called into question, as you are now a 'shill' for the Republican agenda or corporate greed.

V/R
Shapley

[barfle]

I think I see something a bit funny here, and to those who I will undoubtedly irritate (but hopefully not offend), my apologies are presented in advance.

What I see is admitted conservatives (those who wish to either preserve a status quo or revert to an earlier status) indicating a lack of concern about what could be a radical change in climate, while the admitted liberals (those who seem willing to attempt almost any social experiment as long as its funded by the deep pockets of the other guys) expressing great concern about a few hundred square miles of permafrost.

My experience as a fortune teller has been abysmal, so I'm not about to say where "global warming" is going. I expect carbon dioxide levels to increase as we continue to burn fossil fuels with no end in sight, and I do feel that carbon dioxide tends to trap heat in the atmosphere, although I'm far from knowledgeable enough to say how much, and I have my doubts about those who say they are knowledgeable enough.

The climate has changed in the past, and it will continue to change until the sun makes the climate change so much that there won't be anyone left to care about it. Those changes will require a reaction, and that reaction may be positive or negative, depending on the individual's situation.

That's not to say I'm not concerned, because although I despise the winters here in the deecee area, the summers are pretty muggy and I don't want them to get any more so. I've expressed my concerns about fossil fuels, but it's based a lot on a desire to reduce funding for middle-east strife.

[Shapley]

Barfle,

I don't claim to be unconcerned but, like yourself, I don't pretend to be a fortune teller. The only thing constant in life is change, we're told, and that is as true about the climate as it is about politics or any other aspect of our lives.

The experts are those who make a living explaining why whatever has happened was inevitable. We can't really acknowledge their expertise until after the fact, at which point it's too late. We have hordes of 'experts' clamouring for us to accept their wisdom and to fund the programs that will invariably see us through whatever misfortune they've predicted. Who do we believe? If you're a conservative you choose the experts that endorse a conservative plan of action, a free-market plan that requires little governmental action, little governmental cost, and relatively little forced imposition on the lives of the citizens. If you're a liberal, you choose the experts that endorse a liberal plan, that requires governmental action, governmental mandates, and more taxes and spending. Who's right? In the long run, it's probably about 50-50, but in the short term, each side thinks the future of the world depends on choosing their course of action.

In my view, enacting the protocols of the Kyoto treaty probably won't bankrupt the nation, but they probably won't have much of an impact on global warming, either. Not enacting the protocols probably won't save the economy, nor will it lead to preventable climate change. Both sides think the very worst will result if their experts are ignored. The truth lies somewhere in between. I think enacting the protocols would be a mistake, primarily from the economic and financial basis, but I don't think it would be a devastating mistake.

The liberal view is that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake. It may have been. However, they now blame every instance of violence in the volatile region as a result of the Iraq war and Bush's failed policies. That hardly seems probable. Israel has been attacked and has been responding to such attacks since it's establishment. Cease-fires have been written and broken numerous times since then. Violence has been increasing in the region for decades. The Shah or Iran was deposed in 1979, and we've done nothing to quell Iran's hatred for us in the twenty-seven years that have followed. Now they're building nuclear weapons using technology we gave them decades ago, and suddenly it's George W. Bush's fault. The problem there is a clash of cultures, a problem that is bigger than George W. Bush, bigger than the United States, bigger even than Al Gore's ego.

V/R
Shapley

[OperaTenor]

Gore, et al, may be wrong. But, what IF they're right? What bad can come from trying to accomplish what they say we need to in order to minimize the human impact on global warming?

I thought being conservative meant playing it safe. Isn't playing it safe making sure there's no doubt we're doing everything we can to conserve the world?

[piqaboo]

BTW, OT, ask you wife about science by consensus. She seems to have a handle on it.

This article is not science by consensus, sorry BigJon.
Its one possible interpretation of the data gathered. From what I've read (its not extensive) on the subject, there is little doubt that temperatures are up. The discussion, and the focus of additional scientific research, is on quantifying the rise, and figuring out if it is part of a recurring pattern, and the cause of the rise. Global warming is part of a healthy scientific debate. My problem with the guys in charge right now is that they categorically deny it (as you seem to be doing), rather than acknowledging it as a possibility. That puts them on par with the guy in africa who denies HIV causes AIDS.

A whole lot of folks in France (and much of the world) decided to ignore the possibility - not yet proven, but being researched - that AIDS could be transmitted thru blood transfusions. They didnt present counter data, they didnt discuss. They ignored, because not ignoring it was going to cost them money. Turns out, ignoring it cost them a lot more money. Most of the French at high levels in the Bloodbanking industry (and gov't related to it) went to jail. The French Gov't is now one of the first to implement every new bloodscreening test that comes across their radar screen. Net costs much higher than taking the data into account and accting conservatively, 'just in case'.

Global warming falls into that category, IMO.

Taking a conservative approach often reaps unexpected/unpredicted benefits.
An example - coaltar dyes.
In the '50s, it was discovered coaltar dyes cause cancer. Gov't banned their use in lipstick etc. Mucho outcry from cosmetic manufacturers ...Oh No Mr Bill! What will we use???:???
The replacement dyes are many, varied, and the overall resulting textures and colors of lipsticks are far better than they were in the '50s, as well as far safer. Necessity is a mother, as they say.

So I expect it will be when reduced emissions become mandated again. The various and sundry factories will find ways to increase their output on less power, in order to reduce overall emissions. This will in turn reduce their costs. Unmeasurable side benefits will be improved health in their worker populations, lowering corporate health insurance costs, or reducing work lost to sicktime (paid or unpaid). Other benefits will arise, tho I cant guess what they will be.

Interesting possible contributer to global warming: cities. The mean air temp over cities is higher than over the neighboring countrysides. One current hypothesis is that this is caused by the dark surfaces of streets, roofs etc (why isnt it rooves?). What could be done to counter act?
Perhaps more greenery - ground cover and trees. Side effects so far: the water that hits the storm drains is cleaner (a bit), which means the ocean is cleaner. Plus, this lowers cooling costs. When I park under a tree all day, I dont need to run the AC on the drive home, thus I burn less fuel, creating fewer emissions, and slowing the feedback cycle.

Global warming, if sufficient, may one day make Siberia the most desirable real-estate in the world, as it has an amazing variety of natural resources, but that damn snow gets in the way.

[Shapley]

OT,

Do we play it safe environmentally or do we play it safe economically? In the case of Al Gore's proposals, the two are mutually exclusive. We can enact measures that impact us both economically and socially, on the basis that it might help improve the environment, or we can continue to allow changes to occur gradually, without a drastic alteration in course, as we work towards the same goal. Gradually, more and more hybrid engine vehicles are appearing on our streets. The auto industry, not hampered by governmental mandates, are meeting the growing demand with vehicles that provide a balance of economy and luxury that appeals to the environmentally-concerned consumer without forcing him into an unappealing box designed by government fiat (think Yugo).

The safe course is the course that has the least impact on our lives. Keep in mind that curbing our emissions do not necessarily equate to curbing emissions in other parts of the world. The goods that can no longer be produced here because of environmental concerns will be produced elsewhere, where the protocols are not imposed or are looser. There goes the trade imbalance, which you also find so abhorrent. Or, we can impose a ban on the use of such products in order to prevent the import of them, and there goes our freedom and standard of living, reduced by government fiat.

Your view of the safe course is not necessarily the same as anyone elses view of the safe course. Al Gore favours giving the government control over many choices in our lives, even though he bills himself as pro-choice. You decry the loss of personal freedom under the Bush administration, yet favour the loss of economic freedom propsed by Al Gore. Why? Because of the probability that such sacrifices may be necessary to possibly head off a possible catastrophe?

I think we're taking the safe course. The one that makes sense, based on the data at hand. The Bush administration is spending millions, perhaps more than any administration in history, on environmental research, to find the truth about issues such as global warming. Which 'experts' he listens to in the end I cannot predict, nor can I even guess at what the 'experts' will say. My understanding is that he is trying to get opinions from experts who do not have a political agenda, but those experts are then refuted as having a political agenda by experts with an opposing policital agenda. Whatever decision is made, you can bet that the experts whose testimony was rejected will be paraded by the media as further proof that the President ignores the testimony of experts.

V/R
Shapley