Re: Latest equivocation from the global warming...er, climate change folks

On Jun 17, 12:54 pm, Con Reeder <consta...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2009-06-17, rastafarians2...@xxxxxxxxx <rastafarians2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Jun 17, 8:05 am, Con Reeder <consta...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
According to a new paper titled "Is the climate warming or cooling" by
Easterling and Wehner (Geophysical Research Letters, 2009)

        "global warming trend is tracking toward 3 or 4 degrees Celsius through
        the 21st century, likely including pauses, namely multi-year to a decade-
        long or two decades-long periods of cooling inherent in the ENSO (El-
        Nino La Nina) cycle to date."

Ah, the likely multi-year or one- or even two-decade cooling trend. Just
as they forecast!

Is anyone actually going to buy this? Do they think this will get them
two decades more of funding?

Science is hard.  Unlike religion or philosophy where you may be able
to state absolute "truths" even when lacking evidence, science is
based on hard data, evidence, and interpretation.

Then show some. I'll show the indisputable fact that the earth has been
both warmer and colder than it is now, and that the current warming is
nothing unusual. Just show me some science that contradicts that. Oh by
the way, the one they were claiming all along? Positive feedback from
greenhouse gas which should show higher temperature gradients in the
upper troposphere? Ain't there. The model which shows consistent warming
as CO2 increases? That one ain't holding up, either.



Ptolemy used ever more complicated explanations to explain away Mars'
retrograde motion while keeping the Earth at the center of the
universe (i.e., the abolute "truth").  Scientists eventually figured
it out, based on careful data and observation.

Which seems to be exactly what the global warming people are doing
as shown by my post.  They are making ever more convoluted and baroque
adjustments to try and explain their pet theory.



Global warming is complicated and data can be interpreted in different
ways.  If you're a climatologist or in a closely-related field, I'll
listen to your opinion.  Otherwise, you don't know jack.

If you can't explain it so that ordinary people understand it, you don't
understand it well enough yourself. And there are many, many, scientists
who dispute the idea of antropogenic global warming. More each day.

Healthy skepticism in science is a good thing. But when it becomes
political, it is not. In any case, there are some very complicated
concepts that "laypeople" can understand. But when one gets into the
details of such concepts, may laypeople will get lost very quickly.
For example, measuring the amount of a drug in a person's blood is
easy. Drug concentration curves are straightforward. The concepts
are fine, but have you ever heard someone explain the 4-parameter
fractional derivative model used to analyze such data? Heirarchical
Bayesian models? Not easy.

When it comes to GW, one would be happy to strip the problem down to 4
parameters. The problem is that there is an almost infinite number of
parameters and climatologists are barely able to scratch the surface.
It is hard, and there are dedicated scientists working on climate
change.


Since global warming folk cannot show how the recent warming period
differs substantially from previous warming periods, and are do not
dispute a bunch of utter hooey (by a non-scientist, mind you) like "An
Inconvenient Truth", they are simply full of it.

Now conveniently, one of their number talks about a likely multi-decade
cooling trend. One unmentioned before. It stinks to high heaven, and
all you can do is claim that it is so complicated people can't understand..

I thought it was very interesting that no global warming defenders came
up with a rebuttal to "The Great Global Warming Swindle". Other than
their usual tactic of ad-hominem attacks by claiming that the critics
are in the pay of "the forces of evil", that is.

The capper for me is that it is clear that the most vehement defenders
of global warming are non-scientists. (Probably like yourself.) They
don't know jack, either. But they *believe*. Yes baby, they believe.
Such belief without evidence hasn't been seen since -- maybe --
communism?

Belief without evidence = religion, no?

Don't assume that I am (1) a vehement defender of global warming, and
that (2) I am not a scientist. You might be wrong on both counts.
You can claim to have seen the data, but what you are seeing is
already shrouded in interpretation, and you naturally gravitate
towards the interpretations that align with your beliefs. I don't
blame you for that.

I will agree that the "belief" in GW has transcended science, but
don't assume I agree with that approach. Politicizing GW is really
dumb, if you think about it. If the Earth is heating up (or cooling
down, for that matter), it would affect us all in many ways.
Conservatives don't want to believe GW, not because of the science,
but because it would force them to regulate industry and pollution
more rigorously. Liberals embrace it because it is aligned with their
environmental agenda.

Both sides are mainly non-scientists. The bottom line to me is that
if we can predict that in 85 years, for example, there is a 2% chance
that the Ceres will collide with the Earth, we should start developing
some contingency plans. Doing so in 50 years, when the chance may be
37% could be too late. Likewise, GW may not be "true", but it may be,
and we should plan for that contingency.

.

Loading