A GUIDE TO GLOBAL WARMING FOR THOSE EDUCATED IN THE UNIVERSITY OFLIFE

On Nov 26, 1:33*pm, William Asher > wrote:
> flipper > wrote :
>
> > To wit, I am not going to play in your "I'm smart and you're not" game
> > as arguments stand or fall on their own merit.
>
> This is another way to state "I can't do the math so I'm not going to"
> isn't it? *If you did do the math, you would not be having this argument,
> you would move on to some other skeptic myth. *I mean, even poor old Ian,
> who started this, bowed out when first challenged. *
>
> >http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N31/EDIT.php
>
> Oh great, the same guy who publishes a delusional opinion piece on
> climate change in 2001 is now your chief reference using a paper in
> "Energy and Fuels?" *Couldn't you at least have found a reference or two
> from the mad Pole Jaworski?
>

Ah, more guilt by association. So someone who once opposed AGW
can't continue to oppose AGW? How about a bunch of researchers
whose work is cited by nearly every paper purporting to demonstrate
evidence for AGW being found to have lied, falsified data, & engaged
in illegal concealment? Is that evidence for or against AGW?

> >http://www.cprm.gov.br/33IGC/1345952.html
>
> His global carbon cycle budget is low by a huge amount (total atmospheric
> CO2 flux is on order of 200 GtC/yr, not 140). *Given that error, I doubt
> the rest of his calculations. *(A total flux that is too low would give
> the conclusions he gets, by the way.)
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3hqzq6
>
> http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/gl.../lectures/klin...
> rbon_cycle/carbon_cycle.jpg
>

Odd, that I see more evidence for 140 than 200 in your unsourced,
uncited .jpeg. but do go on.

> The peer-reviewed literature on CO2 increase being anthropogenic is
> decades old. *This is a very very very tired skeptic myth. *If Lindzen
> doesn't even argue the point any longer, neither should you. *Skeptics,
> whenever possible, need to preserve some intellectual credibility. *
>

Yes, and the peer reviewed literature on all CO2 increase being
anthopogenic is probably every bit as sound & meaningful as:

; Reads Harry's regional timeseries and outputs the 1600-1992 portion
; with missing values set appropriately. Uses mxd, and just the
; "all band" timeseries
;****** APPLIES A VERY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION FOR DECLINE*********
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=
[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!'


We just haven't seen their fudge factors yet.

On 2009-11-26, Norman > wrote:
[...]
>> The peer-reviewed literature on CO2 increase being anthropogenic is
>> decades old. *This is a very very very tired skeptic myth. *If Lindzen
>> doesn't even argue the point any longer, neither should you. *Skeptics,
>> whenever possible, need to preserve some intellectual credibility. *
>>
>
> Yes, and the peer reviewed literature on all CO2 increase being
> anthopogenic is probably every bit as sound & meaningful as:
>
> ; Reads Harry's regional timeseries and outputs the 1600-1992 portion
> ; with missing values set appropriately. Uses mxd, and just the
> ; "all band" timeseries
> ;****** APPLIES A VERY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION FOR DECLINE*********
> ;
> yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
> valadj=
> [0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
> 2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
> if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!'
>
>
> We just haven't seen their fudge factors yet.

Looks interesting.

I think those numbers in the valadj array _are_ the fudge factor. You
can see where it's used further down the script:

;
; APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION
;
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,x)
densadj=densadj+yearlyadj

It looks like interpol just stretches valadj so it's the right length to
be added to densadj. Then it's just added on, and plotted on some kind
of graph in what follows.

Quite what they're up to here is hard to say for sure without a bit more
investigation. At a guess I'd say it looks rather like a script to make
a very artificially fudged graph of temperatures between 1400 and about
1999 based on tree rings.

I must say, given the amount we're paying these guys, their coding
standards are a little sloppy. Presumably full technical support for
users of these scripts was included in the price?

On Nov 27, 8:10*am, Ben C > wrote:
> On 2009-11-26, Norman > wrote:
> [...]
>
>
>
>
>
> >> The peer-reviewed literature on CO2 increase being anthropogenic is
> >> decades old. *This is a very very very tired skeptic myth. *If Lindzen
> >> doesn't even argue the point any longer, neither should you. *Skeptics,
> >> whenever possible, need to preserve some intellectual credibility. *
>
> > Yes, and the peer reviewed literature on all CO2 increase being
> > anthopogenic is probably every bit as sound & meaningful as:
>
> > ; Reads Harry's regional timeseries and outputs the 1600-1992 portion
> > ; with missing values set appropriately. *Uses mxd, and just the
> > ; "all band" timeseries
> > ;****** APPLIES A VERY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION FOR DECLINE*********
> > ;
> > yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
> > valadj=
> > [0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
> > * 2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 * * * * ; fudge factor
> > if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!'
>
> > We just haven't seen their fudge factors yet.
>
> Looks interesting.
>
> I think those numbers in the valadj array _are_ the fudge factor. You
> can see where it's used further down the script:
>
> * * ;
> * * ; APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION
> * * ;
> * * yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,x)
> * * densadj=densadj+yearlyadj
>
> It looks like interpol just stretches valadj so it's the right length to
> be added to densadj. Then it's just added on, and plotted on some kind
> of graph in what follows.
>
> Quite what they're up to here is hard to say for sure without a bit more
> investigation. At a guess I'd say it looks rather like a script to make
> a very artificially fudged graph of temperatures between 1400 and about
> 1999 based on tree rings.
>
> I must say, given the amount we're paying these guys, their coding
> standards are a little sloppy. Presumably full technical support for
> users of these scripts was included in the price?

But morality, honesty, respect for truth, and straight up transparent
science, aren't even on offer from these guys. I don't think that
after the Hadley Hack it matters how many magnitudes they fudged the
results: in the end it is their petty attitudes and their illegal and
immoral resistance to falsifiability that will sink them. Those are
easier crimes for politicians and the man in the street to understand
than even gross fudge factors in arcane formulae.

You might also consider that the fudge factors are deliberately
undocumented, and deliberately not asked about by "peer reviewere"
because everyone already knew they were crook; that's the whole point
of conducting the conspiracy in the secret e-mails now exposed rather
than in the correspondence columns of the appropriate journals, which
is what honest scientist do with controversial material.

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Bicycles at
http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/...20CYCLING.html

"flipper" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:13:38 -0500, "RichL" >
> wrote:
>
>>flipper > wrote:
>>> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 21:08:40 -0500, "RichL" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> flipper > wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 23:28:31 -0500, "RichL" >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> flipper > wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:50:37 -0500, "RichL" >
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sorry, when the vast majority of people with extensive training
>>>>>>>> in a certain field arrive at a particular conclusion, to me it's
>>>>>>>> a strong argument that they're onto something. Occam's razor and
>>>>>>>> all that. There *are* exceptions, obviously, but they're few and
>>>>>>>> far between in comparison with the bulk of science.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The entire history of science is challenging the 'bandwagon' but I
>>>>>>> suppose you'd have used the same "vast majority of people with
>>>>>>> extensive training in a certain field arrive at a particular
>>>>>>> conclusion" to say Einstein is an ignorant idiot 'denialist' for
>>>>>>> questioning the ether theory.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, the vast majority of science is not "challenging the
>>>>>> bandwagon", it's filling in those little gaps and cleaning up
>>>>>> around the margins.
>>>>>
>>>>> I didn't say "the vast majority of science." I said the "entire
>>>>> history" and examples do exist throughout the "entire history."
>>>>
>>>> You said "the entire history of science is challenging the
>>>> bandwagon", which I and most sane readers would interpret that much
>>>> different from saying there are "examples" throughout the entire
>>>> history.
>>>
>>> Well, now you and the supposedly 'sane' people know what I meant.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> Your view of science seems to have been inspired by those
>>>>>> romanticized popular accounts.
>>>>>
>>>>> No. What you call "those romanticized popular accounts" are simply
>>>>> enough to demonstrate the point because they are well known and, so,
>>>>> do not require a host of 'explanations'.
>>>>>
>>>> They're *exceptions*.
>>>
>>> No they're not, they're merely well known examples and even in your,
>>> so called, 'cleaning up around the edges', 'consensus' is NEVER a
>>> 'scientific' argument.
>>>
>>>> If you're a betting man, do you bet on the *exceptions*?
>>>
>>> I'm not placing a 'bet', I'm engaging in a debate of science.
>>>
>>>>>> You don't read very well once you're on the ropes, do you?
>>>>>
>>>>> That's a laugh coming from someone who argues about anything except
>>>>> the point at hand.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I said there
>>>>>> *are* exceptions, Einstein being a markedly obvious one.
>>>>>
>>>>> All it takes is one. Well, to anyone able to follow an example, that
>>>>> is.
>>>>
>>>> All it takes is one to do *what*?
>>>
>>> Illustrate a point.
>>>
>>>> Generalize and say "hey, even though
>>>> I really don't know much detail about this stuff, I'm gonna put my
>>>> money on the rarity rather than the commonplace?
>>>
>>> Besides it not being a 'rarity', it's only the notoriety that makes it
>>> convenient to use as an illustration, If you've chosen to 'bet' then
>>> so be it but don't then turn around and tell me you 'know' what's
>>> what.
>>>
>>>>>> Yet do you
>>>>>> know that by the end of Einstein's career he still didn't accept
>>>>>> the logical implications of quantum mechanics? He fought the tide
>>>>>> on that one too, and history proved him wrong. He was a QM
>>>>>> "denialist".
>>>>>
>>>>> Sheesh, talk about "romanticized popular accounts." He disagreed
>>>>> with the Copenhagen philosophical interpretation, still debatable,
>>>>> but it's irrelevant as my point does not depend on any 'appeal to
>>>>> authority' for your attempt at a 'poison well'.
>>>>>
>>>>> But since you bring it up, that led to the famous Bohr-Einstein
>>>>> debates and I don't recall either of them using the argument "well,
>>>>> you're just an ignorant pseudo science QM denialist for disagreeing
>>>>> with me, get the hell off this stage" nor "a poll says more agree
>>>>> with me and that proves you're wrong."
>>>>
>>>> What where Einstein went intellectually *after* the debates. It got
>>>> worse.
>>>>>
>>>>> Btw, Hawking supports the "many worlds" interpretation so I suppose
>>>>> you call him a QM "denialist" too.
>>>>
>>>> No, "many worlds" is as equally a satisfactory philosophical basis
>>>> for QM as the conventional Copenhagen interpretation is. It doesn't
>>>> attempt to defeat QM, unlike Einstein, who at various points in his
>>>> life looked for the "hidden variable". The underlying uncertainties
>>>> simply didn't sit well with him.
>>>>
>>>>> Last I checked there were a dozen, or so, actively debated
>>>>> interpretations so just exactly which one are you claiming is the
>>>>> 'logical implication' that history has 'proved right'?
>>>>
>>>> You're confused. Einstein didn't pursue a novel *interpretation* of
>>>> QM, he sought to overturn it.
>>>
>>> I knew I shouldn't have gone down this irrelevancy in the first place
>>> so I won't repeat the mistake.
>>>
>>>>>> Most of science is very mundane activity, which characterizes a lot
>>>>>> of the links that you posted earlier. The so-called
>>>>>> "breakthroughs" are rare exceptions that prove the rule,
>>>>>
>>>>> Not that it has anything to do with the discussion but it is
>>>>> interesting to note that, despite the popular use, 'exceptions' do
>>>>> not 'prove the rule' as you used the phrase.
>>>>
>>>> It's a common saying. Get over it.
>>>
>>> Well no *wonder* you don't worry about problems in the AGW conjecture.
>>> Little things like facts just aren't important compared to the "common
>>> saying."
>>>
>>> So, since people are 'commonly' wrong I am to accept that
>>> "breakthroughs" prove the rule, eh?
>>>
>>>>>> which would be obvious if you knew
>>>>>> the scientific literature well.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't need to 'read it' to know of the mundane work. I've done my
>>>>> share of it.
>>>>>
>>>>> None of which matters one whit to your appeal to authority and
>>>>> bandwagon logic fallacies.
>>>>
>>>> Do you have a publication record in areas related to global climate
>>>> research? If so, don't be shy, tell us what it is.
>>>
>>> Just exactly what part of appeal to authority and bandwagon being
>>> fallacies do you not understand?
>>>
>>>> If not, admit that your political biases lead you to your viewpoint.
>>>
>>> I 'admit' to the 'bias' of expecting things called 'science' to
>>> actually be science.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>> All you've done is admit to irrationality and 'anti-science'
>>>>>>> because "bandwagon" is never an argument and neither is appeal to
>>>>>>> authority.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unless you have in-depth scientific training in the disciplines
>>>>>> pertaining to global climate, you don't have the critical skills to
>>>>>> analyze either the pro or anti arguments in any credible detail.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am quite capable of judging the existence of a falsifiable
>>>>> hypothesis and whether it's been tested; neither of which apply to
>>>>> AGW as currently formulated.
>>>>
>>>> Illogical.
>>>
>>> Hogwash.
>>>
>>>> Just because something isn't falsifiable doesn't mean it's
>>>> incorrect.
>>>
>>> I never said it was. What I've said (in previous posts) is if you
>>> haven't made new, previously unobserved, and testable predictions
>>> capable of falsifying the conjecture then you have not yet reached the
>>> hypothesis stage, much less 'proved' anything.
>>>
>>> What I said above is the same applied to AGW. What I've said is false
>>> are the AGW *claims* of 'knowing' when it has not even reached the
>>> testable hypothesis stage.
>>>
>>>> Besides, I don't think you have the depth of knowledge or
>>>> experience in the area to sort through the conflicting claims with
>>>> any sort of credibility.
>>>
>>> "Conflicting claims" are indicative of a conjecture in flux, not of a
>>> tested, replicable, hypothesis.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> And frankly, I couldn't care less whether you 'trust' or believe I
>>>>> have any abilities whatsoever as I've never made an appeal on that
>>>>> basis and neither is it an excuse for AGW having no falsifiable
>>>>> hypothesis.
>>>>
>>>> Irrelevant.
>>>
>>> Hardly, It is the basis of science and if you think that's
>>> 'irrelevant' then you've left the realm of science.
>>>
>>>> You're like a Jesuit arguing about angels on the heads of
>>>> pins.
>>>
>>> We certainly don't need a falsifiable hypothesis for that, now do we?
>>> But that's your argument, not mine.
>>>
>>>> Reality is what it is, science attempts to describe it,
>>>
>>> True enough.
>>>
>>>> and we
>>>> simply don't rule certain areas of inquiry out of bounds
>>>
>>> *That* is *precisely* what AGW fanatics try to do.
>>>
>>>> just because it
>>>> fails to meet some arbitrary falsifiability condition.
>>>
>>> There's noting 'arbitrary' about falsifiable testing.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Is the big bang falsifiable?
>>>
>>> Why? Are you planning to challenge it and wonder if a gaggle of
>>> 'believers' will call you a heretic?
>>
>>So you're implicitly conceding
>
> If you insist I'll 'implicitly concede' you can't comprehend English.
>
>> that your position is that if a certain
>>area of research is, by its nature, not falsifiable (simply because it
>>is impossible to perform controllable experiments), not only does it
>>fall outside of the domain of science
>
> I never made any such claim regarding your supposed 'nature' of a
> thing. I said if you have not "made new, previously unobserved, and
> testable predictions capable of falsifying the conjecture then you
> have not yet reached the hypothesis stage, much less 'proved'
> anything."
>
> That is a statement of 'how far you've gone', or not gone, but not a
> claim of any particular thing 'falling outside the domain of science.'
>
> However, in general, if you can't 'observe, experiment, and test' then
> you're not using the scientific method because that's what it *is*.
>
>> but, more importantly from a
>>practical point of view, we should all close our eyes and block our ears
>>while evidence continues to accumulate,
>
> I never said a damn thing about 'closing eyes and blocking ears' to
> anything. That's what AGW 'true believers' try to enforce, namely:
> close your eyes and ears to all but our conjecture for they know not
> what they do.
>
>> until the significant
>>possibility arises in which it is too late for us to do anything about
>>it?
>
> You mean like ashes and sack cloth "The End is Near, Sinner Repent?"
> That prophet obviously thinks "evidence is mounting" and you better do
> something before it's "too late" but are you going to call that
> conclusion 'science'?
>
> People can have numerous reasons to 'believe' in something but don't
> call it science when it's not.
>
> Math can be used in science but just using math doesn't make it
> science (maybe it's numerology). Logic can be used (we hope a lot) in
> science but just being what you imagine to be 'logical' doesn't make
> it science (maybe you're philosophizing). And so on. Science is a
> specific methodology that includes observation, experimentation, and
> testing of the conjectures made, all independently replicable.
>
> Now, back to your 'closed eyes'. I never said any such thing nor did I
> say all AGW research was not science nor did I say it was all "false"
> nor did I say it was all 'disproved'. I said AGW, as currently
> formulated, had not reached the hypothesis stage.
>
> What I also said is the *claims* made are invalid because they do not
> derive from the scientific method despite there being (some) 'science'
> underneath.
>
> To wit, a conjecture about 'warp drive' may rely on a host of
> 'scientific' things, like perhaps the current understanding of gravity
> and space-time, but if the 'warp drive' conjecture is not formulated
> well enough to make testable, falsifiable, predictions then you cannot
> say you have a full blown working hypothesis. That doesn't mean you
> 'close eyes and ears' to the hope, potential, or research. It simply
> means you aren't there yet, and maybe never will be using 'that
> approach', so claims "it works" would be not only invalid but
> certainly not 'settled science', despite there being a ton of science
> underlying the conjecture.
>
> And even though your 'warp drive' may actually work some day, after
> you've done the science, just 'believing' you've got the right idea
> isn't 'science' either. That's faith.

Go get scaled, ****in' moron.