Temperature Record of The Week From CO2Science.org

[_Coggins7]

ABSTRACT: Only anthropogenic forcing of climate, however, can explain the recent anomalous warming in the late 20th century.

Guess you missed that bit, Scooter.

That particular opinion, as held by Mann et al, is the very position that has no general support in the literature and has been discredited by a number of researchers, as the essays and links I provided, which you did not read, make clear.


Snipped juvenile posturing...

http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=799

Wow. Your response to a research paper by two well respected doctors published in peer-reviewed science jounals and hosted by a government science agency is to post blithering from a Corporate and Consumer Advocacy group? Even worse, the two articles from Globalwarming.org lack any sources or links to supportive evidence.

Here are the corporate shills who run the dubious Globalwarmin.org, a project of the Cooler Heads Coalition, a consortium of think tanks:

Alexis de Tocqueville Institution

Americans for Tax Reform

American Legislative Exchange Council

American Policy Center

Association of Concerned Taxpayers

Center for Security Policy

Citizens for a Sound Economy

Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow

Competitive Enterprise Institute

Consumer Alert

Defenders of Property Rights

Fraser Institute, Canada

Frontiers of Freedom

George C. Marshall Institute

Heartland Institute

Independent Institute

Istituto Bruno Leoni, Italy

JunkScience.com

National Center for Policy Analysis

National Center for Public Policy Research

Pacific Research Institute

Seniors Coalition

60 Plus Association

Small Business Survival Committee

All conservatine/libertarian in nature, and therefore, of course, all questionable. No need to read, study, or think beyond your little CNN box coffee.

Your above comments were just another ad hominem circumstantial of the kind that has become the olny refuge the Left has remaining from the actual evidence. The fact that a think tank or private researchers may be financed by various corporations that would be devastated (as would the entire world economy) by Kyoto like changes in lifestyle and economic structure, has no necessary bearing upon the strength of the arguments brought to the table. It might, but there is no particular reason to think so, as a corporation, such as Exxon, for example, has even more incentive to be truthful with its arguments and data than it does to be deceptive. It is they, after all, that would be substantially effected.

Just because money comes from a corporation doesn't necessarily mean that that money is used in a way that that corporation might like it to be used. I find it interesting that you place unquestioned trust in interested government agencies such as NAS (which has affirmed the hockey stick graph, in opposition to just about everybody else who has looked at it, thus clearing away that pesky Medieval Warm Period from climatic history) whose money comes with politically interested strings attached, but have no tolerance for corporate funding of general research.

Snipped more adolescent posturing...

Let's look at some of the names being tossed about in your little response, shall we?

The first bit of BS you posted lists Dr. Hans von Storch, Professor at the Meteorological Institute of the University of Hamburg, and Director of the Institute of Coastal Research at the GKSS Research Centre in Geesthacht, Germany. Your article stats that Dr. von Storch disproved or denied the relevence and accuracy of the "hockey stick" model. This claim is an outright falsehood.

Dr. Hans von Storch's paper to the US House of Representitives Comittee on Energy and Commerce, July 19, 2006.

Dr. von Strotch not only validates the "hokey stick" model, he revised it it with better modeling, and now endorses it.

Most of those who went to the same High School you're still attending will find this all very amusing, but if what you have written here does not indicate a reading comprehension problem, it does indicate a vigorous tendentiousness that makes serious discourse with you virtually impossible.

Here is Von Storch's previous dismantling of the fictitious hockey stiick:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/a ... eytype=ref

And here some salient text from the summery from his congressional testimony in 2006 italicized by me:

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prome ... rcehvs.pdf

The regression-type methods of the so-called “hockey-stick” studies of Mann,
Bradley and Hughes (MBH) suffer from a number of problems, which should have
been addressed before the “hockey-stick” was elevated to an authoritative
description of the temperature history of the past 10000-2000 years.


The claim by the IPCCC TAR that there is reliable evidence that climate is
beginning to change due to human action was based on a number of different lines
of argument, which are insensitive to the validity of the MBH studies.

The present debate about the validity of the hockey-stick is of marginal
relevance for the detection of present anthropogenic climate change. The
major problems are not of statistical nature but are related to the social
practice of climate change science.

Aspects of quality-control in the process of climate science

- Parts of climate change science, in particular paleo-climatic reconstructions have
suffered from gate keeping and incestuous usage of reviewers.
- Editors and science managers have failed to ensure reproducibility of key results.
- Nature and Science have a bias towards “interesting results”.
- In the IPCC process experts assess their own work.
Climate change science has suffered from the limiting action of gate keepers
and a public preference of “interesting results”. Climate change science should
provide stakeholders with a broad range of options and not narrow this range
to a reduced number of options preferred by certain worldviews.
3. Climate change science in the cultural context.
- The concept of anthropogenic climate change is not new in western culture.
- Climate change science is post-normal, i.e., it goes along with high uncertainties
and high relevance. Thus, the boundaries between value-driven agendas and
curiosity-driven science get blurred.
There is considerable influence of extra-scientific agendas on the scientific
process of climate change studies. The process of climate change studies needs
to be analysed and accompanied by social and policy scientists.

Now, you're claim that Storch "validates the "hockey stick" model, he revised it it with better modeling, and now endorses it." is of course, a flat footed deception (and even if correct Coffee, the GCMs are cannot predict climate decades or centuries in the future, anymore than they can predict global weather patters a few days from now. They are mental exercises, and nothing more. They are not empirical climate science, and it is precisely in that area that AGW has failed to make its case in any area).

As the eminent physicist Freeman Dyson mentioned in a talk to the American Physical Society (Dyson, 1999):

The bad news is that the climate models on which so much effort is
expended is unreliable. The models are unreliable because they still use fudge-factors rather
than physics to represent processes occurring on scales smaller than the grid-size. … The
models fail to predict the marine stratus clouds that often cover large areas of ocean. The
climate models do not take into account the anomalous absorption of radiation revealed by
the Atmospheric Radiation Measurements. This is not a small error. If the ARM are correct,
the error in the atmospheric absorption of sunlight calculated by the climate models is about
28 watts per square metre, averaged over the whole Earth, day and night, summer and
winter. The entire effect of doubling the present abundance of carbon dioxide is calculated to
be about four watts per square metre. So the error in the models is much larger than the
global warming effect that the models are supposed to predict. Until the ARM were done,
the error was not detected, because it was compensated by fudge-factors that forced the
models to agree with the existing climate. Other equally large errors may still be hiding in
the models, concealed by other fudge-factors. Until the fudge-factors are eliminated and the
13
computer programs are solidly based on local observations and on the laws of physics, we
have no good reason to believe the predictions of the models. … They are not yet adequate
tools for predicting climate. … We must continue to warn the politicians and the public,
‘Don’t believe the numbers just because they come out of a supercomputer.’”
Eugene Parker, a leading solar physicist, has said: “The inescapable conclusion is that

As to Storch's more recent 2006 testimony, you've seen the summery. Oh, I understand, you cherry picked this statement:

Based on the scientific evidence, I am convinced that we are facing anthropogenic climate
change brought about by the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

Dr. Storch is welcome to his personal opinion, and that is the personal opinion of a majority of climate scientists. It is not the opinion of a smaller but rapidly growing mass of skeptics, many of them eminent. Keep in mind that very few are claiming that 20th century warming has no human component at all; they just understand that the present empirical evidence cannot detect it against the truly colossal background noise of natural causes.

Now, does Dr. Storch say about the now defunct hockey stick what you put in his mouth? Let's have a look.

Nevertheless, attempts like those by MBH are useful and should be explored. They may provide
useful estimates. The problem with MBH was that the result was presented by the IPCC and
others in a manner so that one could believe a realistic description of historical temperature
variations had successfully been achieved. The NRC report published in June 2006 has made
clear that such a belief was incorrect.

I could provide numerous examples such as the above, in which Storch makes clear that the methodology of the Mann study was deeply flawed. He then says the following:

I conclude that the claim of “detection of anthropogenic climate change” is valid
independently of which historical temperature reconstruction one chooses to believe in.

In other words, whether the hockey stick exists or not (and a mountain of other analysis, as I posted (or do you require much more bandwidth utilized in posting a larger smattering of the exentsive demolition of Mann's shoddy attempt at Lysenkoism?) indicates that it does not, and the long understood MWP is real) Storch believes that AGW can be detected regardless through other methods of analysis.

Nowhere in this text, nor anywhere on his website, do I detect any alteration in his conclusions about Mann et al.

Of specific interest should be this, from the same testimony:

What is the current scientific consensus on the conclusions reached by Drs. Mann, Bradley and
Hughes? What are principal scientific criticism of their work and how significant are they?
Has the information needed to replicate their work been available? Have other scientists been
able to replicate their work?

• There is no consensus on the claims (which?) made by MBH. The main critique is that the
method is suffering from a too large loss of variability on long time scales.
• No, the information required for replication was not made available in a suitable manner.
The original publication in “nature” did not provide this information and was obviously
published without careful review of the methodology.
• Yes, the details of the method were finally determined, among others by Bürger et al.,
who checked a wide range of combinations of details – which all gave widely different
results.

Further, a rather substantial body of other equally competent earth scientists don't agree with Storch that AGW is detectable at all, among whom would be leaders in the field such as Fred Singer, Roger C. Balling ((a world authority on climate science), Richard Lindzen, and many others.

What you don't seem to understand is that there is no consensus in climate science on AGW. Most believe its occurring to some degree, but many of these, like Storch, would be more than willing to separate their personal convictions or opinions from what nature is actually saying, and what nature has said so far is that the present warming (which, by the way, ended almost a decade ago) is well within natural variation, and the human footprint cannot be detected.

Storch's problem isn't with AGW (which he believes in and which the author of one of the essays I posted or linked to, makes very clear in his own text) but with the infant nature of paleoclimatic modeling and Mann's poor methodology and slipshod math. There's also another problem with the manner in which Mann's work was "peer" reviewed, but no matter.

There is a ongoing, and vigorous debate in the earth sciences regarding AGW, not the "consensus" claimed by the talking heads in the mainstream media from where people like you get their opinions of the world and its phenomena.

I think there very probably may be a human component to the warming of the last century...but so utterly tiny that it is completely lost in the background of natural causes. What is the cause? An ongoing thaw out from the Little Ice Age, driven primarily by solar activity, ocean dynamics, or both.

No, Coffee, the Marxist fantasies of a leveled, regimented, equalized, mediocratized world that stand, to a great extent, behind the fraud of AGW will not prevail, and I do believe the corner has been turned on the debate. The empirics are becoming just to overwhelming. In just a few more years, we'll be back to global cooling, or Dioxin, or white sugar, or whatever the cultural Marxists and neo-Primitivists can recycle next.


Now Junior, turn off Jackass and get back to your homework. You didn't so much as read even a smidgen of the texts I posted and linked to; only enough to Cherry Pick a few phrases you believed you could use if you were just clever enough, to duck and cover. The best you can do, along with the rest of the dreary and desperate Left, is point out the use of evil corporate money (and many AGW skeptics receive no such money, while some have and some do) and run as hard and fast as you can away from the substance of the debate.

Our conversation, is, for all intents and purposes, ended.

[_Mr. Coffee]

Here are the corporate shills who run the dubious Globalwarmin.org, a project of the Cooler Heads Coalition, a consortium of think tanks:

With the exception of the fair-tax advocacy groups, damned near every single organization you just listed is a corporate/buisness rights lobbvy group.

All conservatine/libertarian in nature, and therefore, of course, all questionable. No need to read, study, or think beyond your little CNN box coffee.

Ok, then show me one single liberal information source I have posted, Scooter. You keep making accusations against me about political bias, so I challenge you to show where I have demonstrated such.

Put up or shut up time, shitbird.

Our conversation, is, for all intents and purposes, ended.

So besides your retarded dipshittery about "the hockey stick had minor flaws that have been subsequently correect, that means all AGW is false" argument, you are now conceading the entire debate to me.

Thanks for the concession, Scooter. You suck at debate and fail at life in general.

[_Coggins7]

Here are the corporate shills who run the dubious Globalwarmin.org, a project of the Cooler Heads Coalition, a consortium of think tanks:

With the exception of the fair-tax advocacy groups, damned near every single organization you just listed is a corporate/buisness rights lobbvy group.

All conservatine/libertarian in nature, and therefore, of course, all questionable. No need to read, study, or think beyond your little CNN box coffee.

Ok, then show me one single liberal information source I have posted, Scooter. You keep making accusations against me about political bias, so I challenge you to show where I have demonstrated such.

Put up or shut up time, shitbird.

Our conversation, is, for all intents and purposes, ended.

So besides your retarded dipshittery about "the hockey stick had minor flaws that have been subsequently correect, that means all AGW is false" argument, you are now conceading the entire debate to me.

Thanks for the concession, Scooter. You suck at debate and fail at life in general.

Move on...nothing to see here (did anyone notice this individual actually debating anything or responding in a serious critical manner to my lengthy post above?)

[_Mr. Coffee]

Move on...nothing to see here (did anyone notice this individual actually debating anything or responding in a serious critical manner to my lengthy post above?)

As if your continous abuse of logic, debate fallacies, and massive wall of ignorance warrent any such effort.


Once again I'll ask you to show evidence of where I have EVER shown any political bias what so ever, you dishonest little troll.

Again I will ask you to show evidence to back your AGW claims that aren't mired in falsehoods and your tired "minor errors in one thing means everything is wrong" BS.


So, either cowboy the “F” up and debate like you mean it or take your little ball and go home like the sad little boy you are, Scooter.

[_Mister Scratch]

Move on...nothing to see here (did anyone notice this individual actually debating anything or responding in a serious critical manner to my lengthy post above?)

As if your continous abuse of logic, debate fallacies, and massive wall of ignorance warrent any such effort.


Once again I'll ask you to show evidence of where I have EVER shown any political bias what so ever, you dishonest little troll.

Again I will ask you to show evidence to back your AGW claims that aren't mired in falsehoods and your tired "minor errors in one thing means everything is wrong" BS.


So, either cowboy the “F” up and debate like you mean it or take your little ball and go home like the sad little boy you are, Scooter.

This probably comes as no surprise, but I agree with Coffee, Loran. I have never seen you present a compelling case beyond this, "There are a few errors in the methodology, and so the whole thing is a hoax!!!" Moreover, you yourself have conceded that there is no good reason to totally jettison AGW, since the rationale behind your "hoax" argument is the fact that scientists disagree on some details. Thus, it is not correct to say, "AGW is a hoax." It is far more correct to say, "Scientists disagree on some things." You have adopted a position that would be like saying, "We shouldn't warn people away from cigarettes, since scientists are still learning about the positive benefits of smoking."

I would love to see you address Coffee's concerns, Loran, but fear that you will just throw up your hands in defeat, as you have done so many other times.

[_Coggins7]

This probably comes as no surprise, but I agree with Coffee, Loran. I have never seen you present a compelling case beyond this, "There are a few errors in the methodology, and so the whole thing is a hoax!!!" Moreover, you yourself have conceded that there is no good reason to totally jettison AGW, since the rationale behind your "hoax" argument is the fact that scientists disagree on some details. Thus, it is not correct to say, "AGW is a hoax." It is far more correct to say, "Scientists disagree on some things." You have adopted a position that would be like saying, "We shouldn't warn people away from cigarettes, since scientists are still learning about the positive benefits of smoking."

I would love to see you address Coffee's concerns, Loran, but fear that you will just throw up your hands in defeat, as you have done so many other times.

First, Coffee has no concerns except to spew his Moveon.org bigotry at anyone who disagrees with him. He is not a worthy or serious philsoophical opponent, so I will not be speaking to him any further.

As for your Scratch, you clearly have more in common with Coffee than you suspect. One is you ilimitable ignorance of the AGW issue, which, despite the plethora of evidence, reports, papers, essays, and links I've provided in post after post on this issue, you have failed to absorb and digest. You have clearly never educated yourself on this issue past what you hear on the CBS Evening News or The Discovery Channel.

I have never made any argument of the form "There are a few errors in the methodology, and so the whole thing is a hoax". AGW was an ideology, a leftist secular religious myth, and a hoax before Michael Mann. There are a small mountain of reasons why AGW is a thin reed, and Mann's methodological problems are only one particular among many. AGW, in any case, doesn't rise of fall on Mann and his debunked graphs; they rise or fall on the empirical evidence of the matter. Neither you or Coffee can debate me coherently on this for the simple reason that neither of you have clearly ever digested and understood the arguments of AGW critics.

What then, Scratch, is the empirical scientific evidence such that I should believe human indistrial activity could plausibly be altering the climate of this planet?

I don't consider this premise plausible on its face, even without any scientific evidence one way or the other; I think its patently preposterous (as are overpopulation fears coming historically from the same people holding to the same ideology), but the evidence will out. Where is it?

[_Mr. Coffee]

First, Coffee has no concerns except to spew his Moveon.org bigotry at anyone who disagrees with him. He is not a worthy or serious philsoophical opponent, so I will not be speaking to him any further.

Show us one instance of me posting ANYTHING in ANYTHREAD that came from those liberal slackwits at Moveon.Org, Scooter.

Then show any post, anywhere on this forum where I have demonstrated a liberal bias.


If you cannot then I demand that you retract your statement publically.



It doesn't matter what the Screw you believe, shitbird. You can believe that rainbows and fairy farts induce global cooling, but untill you show evidence you are wrong. You have failked time and again to show evidence from either an unbiased source, a credible source, or an intellectually honest source. You have also failked in presenting any counter arguement based on other's sources in either an unbuased or intellectually honest fashion.


Scooter, you are a lying douchebag of the highest order. Every time you post on this subject I will be there to show others the flaws in your arguements, your sources, and your blatently obvious personal ideology.


Step up, son. Welcome to school.

[_Coggins7]

It doesn't matter what the Screw you believe, shitbird. You can believe that rainbows and fairy farts induce global cooling, but untill you show evidence you are wrong. You have failked time and again to show evidence from either an unbiased source, a credible source, or an intellectually honest source. You have also failked in presenting any counter arguement based on other's sources in either an unbuased or intellectually honest fashion.

Scooter, you are a lying douchebag of the highest order. Every time you post on this subject I will be there to show others the flaws in your arguements, your sources, and your blatently obvious personal ideology.

My conviction about Coffee's leftist ideological sympathies are inferred from just about everything he's written. The verification of those convictions are in the drug usage that has fueled the above post.

That is kind of a "liberal" thing, after all...

[_Mister Scratch]

This probably comes as no surprise, but I agree with Coffee, Loran. I have never seen you present a compelling case beyond this, "There are a few errors in the methodology, and so the whole thing is a hoax!!!" Moreover, you yourself have conceded that there is no good reason to totally jettison AGW, since the rationale behind your "hoax" argument is the fact that scientists disagree on some details. Thus, it is not correct to say, "AGW is a hoax." It is far more correct to say, "Scientists disagree on some things." You have adopted a position that would be like saying, "We shouldn't warn people away from cigarettes, since scientists are still learning about the positive benefits of smoking."

I would love to see you address Coffee's concerns, Loran, but fear that you will just throw up your hands in defeat, as you have done so many other times.

First, Coffee has no concerns except to spew his Moveon.org bigotry at anyone who disagrees with him.

How is that any different from your ad nauseum anti-Leftists rants?

He is not a worthy or serious philsoophical opponent, so I will not be speaking to him any further.

He already pointed out that he has far more formal education than you do. It seems you rely on this "he/she isn't serious" crutch an awful lot, Loran.

As for your Scratch, you clearly have more in common with Coffee than you suspect. One is you ilimitable ignorance of the AGW issue, which, despite the plethora of evidence, reports, papers, essays, and links I've provided in post after post on this issue, you have failed to absorb and digest. You have clearly never educated yourself on this issue past what you hear on the CBS Evening News or The Discovery Channel.

I would be the first to admit that I am no expert on this issue. However, it seems clear that your "education" on this issue is equally suspect. It appears that you rely almost entirely on "corporate shills" or far right-wing news outlets for your views. It seems, in short, that you have not bothered to examine the evidence for yourself, and instead prefer to use others' work as a crutch for your own thinking, hence your long, practically plagiarized posts.

I have never made any argument of the form "There are a few errors in the methodology, and so the whole thing is a hoax".

I clearly remember a prior thread in which you made precisely that argument.

AGW was an ideology,

Was?

a leftist secular religious myth,

Do you consider the anti-tobacco movement also to be "a leftist secular religious myth"? (And this phrase is precisely the reason why I believe your hatred of all things Leftist are essentially a means by which you can bolster your faith in the LDS Church.)

and a hoax before Michael Mann. There are a small mountain of reasons why AGW is a thin reed, and Mann's methodological problems are only one particular among many. AGW, in any case, doesn't rise of fall on Mann and his debunked graphs; they rise or fall on the empirical evidence of the matter. Neither you or Coffee can debate me coherently on this for the simple reason that neither of you have clearly ever digested and understood the arguments of AGW critics.

Well, is this sort of like how you cannot debate me on matters related to Mormonism? Or is it simply a function of the fact that there is little to no empirical evidence that supports your faith?

What then, Scratch, is the empirical scientific evidence such that I should believe human indistrial activity could plausibly be altering the climate of this planet?

Personally, I don't know, and readily admit to that fact. I also readily admit to the fact that your rhetorical techniques have been demonstrated time and time again to be dubious, tendentious, and dishonest.

I don't consider this premise plausible on its face, even without any scientific evidence one way or the other; I think its patently preposterous (as are overpopulation fears coming historically from the same people holding to the same ideology), but the evidence will out. Where is it?

Where is the evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon's historicity? Your claims all become dubious in light of the fact that you are hypocritical in your application of intellectual and scientific standards. This is rather like your dumping on repression of academic freedom, and yet giving a free pass to BYU. You like to wave your finger around, claiming that everyone else is an "ideologue," but how do you explain your own extreme bias? What are your standards, Loran, and are you willing to apply them fairly?

[_Bond...James Bond]

From the gun control debate I'd say Coffee is sounding rather conservative.