Resignation over flawed paper "debunking" man-made global warming

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
bluefrog said:
Fuck yeah Barfo, nice job.
Click to expand...

Denny just embarrassed barfo, lol dude chill. Medical Journals and Science journals are often wrong and have to retract their findings. Part of the scientific method is standing up to scrutiny.

Denny is 100% right on this one. Barfo ignores a very reasonable counterargument made by CERN, NASA, and the UN.
 
barfo said:
You wouldn't be skeptical. You search out and trumpet any evidence that supports your pre-determined conclusion, and you reject all evidence that is counter to it. That's not skepticism.



S2 is a text book?



I see your problem. You don't understand the difference between experts and students.

barfo
Click to expand...

I don't have a predetermined conclusion. That's the difference between good science and politicized science. I have little doubt the earth has been warming since the last ice age and that people are seeing this in their observations. It's "the science is settled" declarations that I disagree with. I don't reject any evidence, but I am skeptical of evidence used to make absolute claims when there are alternate viable explanations and evidence.

The Atlas is a text book. Published by a text book publisher.

Hey Nik, I wrote about computer models. I did several for the USGS.
 
huevonkiller said:
Denny just embarrassed barfo, lol dude chill. Medical Journals and Science journals are often wrong and have to retract their findings. Part of the scientific method is standing up to scrutiny.
Click to expand...

I was just taking a jab at your post cheer leading for Denny. This is a sports site and trash-talking is par for the course but post like these don't contribute anything to a discussion on science.

huevonkiller said:
Denny is 100% right on this one. Barfo ignores a very reasonable counterargument made by CERN, NASA, and the UN.
Click to expand...
C'mon show your work, man. I'd be very interested in seeing the "very reasonable counterargument made by CERN, NASA, and the UN."
 
bluefrog said:
I was just taking a jab at your post cheer leading for Denny. This is a sports site and trash-talking is par for the course but post like these don't contribute anything to a discussion on science.
Click to expand...


I was just taking a fun jab at your fun jab. :dunno:

C'mon show your work, man. I'd be very interested in seeing the "very reasonable counterargument made by CERN, NASA, and the UN."
Click to expand...

Isn't Denny already doing that for me? Looks like he has this locked up, fams.
 
Last edited:
bluefrog said:
Why do you post hight politicized articles on Global Warming?
Click to expand...

Because the issue IS politics, not science. The IPCC is a panel of politicians. Al Gore is a politician.

It's a big deal when the science isn't truly settled, yet influential policy makers want to do good at absurd cost based on that science.

Kyoto was designed to kill our economy. Get it?
 
And I've tried to be cordial about things. Public figures like the stiff, Al Gore, are fair game!
 
Denny Crane said:
Because the issue IS politics, not science. The IPCC is a panel of politicians. Al Gore is a politician.
Click to expand...

This is just not true. There are many scientists on the IPCC panels. There are also politician because the IPCC is mainly concerned with policy concerning Climate Change. There are even people on the anti-agw side in the IPCC. John Christy, a big AGW skeptic has contributed to several IPCC reports.

Denny Crane said:
It's a big deal when the science isn't truly settled, yet influential policy makers want to do good at absurd cost based on that science.
Click to expand...

I've pointed out time and again that there are vested interests in disproving AGW. There are millions of dollars spent on PR and studies specifically to disputer AGW. A few groups that have spent millions of dollars to influence policy:
Exxon
American Enterprise Institute
American Legislative Exchange Council
Frontiers of Freedom Institute
George C. Marshall Institute
Heartland Institute
 
Those amounts pale in comparison to the grants given the other side.

The contributors to the IPCC reports gripe openly about the politicians ignoring their input and writing whatever they want.
 
Irena-Sendler-story-Nobel-Peace-Prize.jpg
 
Denny Crane said:
Those amounts pale in comparison to the grants given the other side.
Click to expand...

You complain about AGW supporter`s supposed end game but completely ignore the other side`s agenda. Double standard much?

Denny Crane said:
The contributors to the IPCC reports gripe openly about the politicians ignoring their input and writing whatever they want.
Click to expand...

I`ve never read anything that supports this. It`s a different argument than you were making before. It`s tiring trying to keep up with the goal posts.
 
bluefrog said:
I`ve never read anything that supports this. It`s a different argument than you were making before. It`s tiring trying to keep up with the goal posts.
Click to expand...

not as tiring as keeping up with huevonkiller's...um...posts? I guess that's what you could call them. Now THAT is exhausting.
 
Denny Crane said:
Those amounts pale in comparison to the grants given the other side.
Click to expand...

Bob gets $1000 from selling crack. John gets $100,000 from working as an astronaut. Therefore, John is 100 times more criminal than Bob is?

barfo
 
SlyPokerDog said:
Irena was up for the Nobel Peace Prize...
Click to expand...

One wonders why she was (supposedly) considered in 2007. If she's all that, what kept the committee from awarding her the prize in any of the 40+ years that passed between the end of WWII and 2007?

barfo
 
barfo said:
One wonders why she was (supposedly) considered in 2007. If she's all that, what kept the committee from awarding her the prize in any of the 40+ years that passed between the end of WWII and 2007?

barfo
Click to expand...

it couldn't have been anything to do with Al Gore winning it that year and a need to discredit global climate change/or how we pollute too much.
 
barfo said:
One wonders why she was (supposedly) considered in 2007. If she's all that, what kept the committee from awarding her the prize in any of the 40+ years that passed between the end of WWII and 2007?

barfo
Click to expand...

Only god can change a climate.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
Only god can change a climate.
Click to expand...

How many gods does it take to change a climate?

A: [your joke can appear here, send $100 to PO Box 47, Grand Rapids, MI 34923]

barfo
 
barfo said:
How many gods does it take to change a climate?

A: [your joke can appear here, send $100 to PO Box 47, Grand Rapids, MI 34923]

barfo
Click to expand...

42.
 
Denny Crane said:
And I've tried to be cordial about things.
Click to expand...

I will give you props for that. You are a gentleman and a scholar. Well, maybe not a scholar. But definitely a gentleman. And if I've said some things that either were interpreted as less than cordial, or were intended as less than cordial, or both, my bad.

Public figures like the stiff, Al Gore, are fair game!
Click to expand...

Agree completely. Although he looks a lot less stiff these days than he did back in 2000.

barfo
 
barfo said:
Bob gets $1000 from selling crack. John gets $100,000 from working as an astronaut. Therefore, John is 100 times more criminal than Bob is?

barfo
Click to expand...

I guess I picked a bad illustration. Obviously, since John is suckling at the public teat for his income, he is infinitely more criminal than Bob, who is an ongoing victim of unconstitutional government interference upon his right to accumulate wealth through his own efforts.

barfo
 
bluefrog said:
Do you see a pro-AGW bias in your field of study?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean by "pro-AGW" (I don't think in acronyms even though I'm a government contractor) But if you're asking me whether or not people in the natural sciences have biases and predispositions towards certain conclusions then, sure, I think a lot of scientists are like a lot of people in other walks of life. Whether they mean to or not, they have pre-conceived notions and tend to look for things that back up those pre-conceived notions.

Bias aside, as far as real, measurable sea level rise goes ... it's real for a lot of places, but actually measuring it is much more complex than just "filling up a bathtub and setting a water level." For one thing Lower-low water and higher-high water are variable day-to-day and year-to-year, it's affected by La Nina-El Nino oscillation events, lunar perigee and apogee, plate tectonics, erosion/accretion, storm overwash events, etc. But on average there has definitely been a slight increase in sea-level since regular tidal-guage monitoring began (approximately 0.5-2 cm/yr increase since the mid twentieth century). Now here's the rub, just because I can give you a trend line, doesn't mean that sea level is rising everywhere (hell, it's dropping in certain places!) and just because something has been measured doesn't mean that it's significant on a geologic time-scale -- one hundred years is a blink of the eye really -- what we have are hypotheses and some statistical correlation between increased carbon dioxide levels and a slight raising of the mean temperature of the earth over a very short geologic time scale. So what's concerning to me isn't that the earth is warming or that ocean levels are rising slightly it's the rate of change that that seems aberrant when compared to cooling/warming events in the past.

Does that mean that human consumption of hydrocarbons is absolutely causing a reduction in polar ice and glaciers worldwide? I really don't know, I'm not a climatologist, but what I can tell you is that I think a lot of the "science" is being politicized by people outside of the scientific community (by both liberals and conservatives) From my own studies based on analyzing hundreds of LANDSAT scenes normalized for tide, there's definitely a pattern of subsidence and inundation along the barrier islands of the gulf coast and numerous atolls in the central pacific. In other places, like the Pacific Northwest coastline there's generally so much accretion from sediment and enough tectonic uplift that in most cases whatever sea level rise is occurring is either imperceptible over the last 30 years or there's even a slight increase in certain landform types like estuarine beach and ocean beach, it's very tough to generalize or extrapolate these sorts of observations without doing a systematic survey and analysis of a random stratified sample of the rest of the world's coastlines (good luck with that!).

I'll give you my personal opinion however, I do believe that the "imminent disaster" presentation of the data is being overblown by certain people in an attempt to shock people into changing their behavior; what looks to me like a 300-500 year problem is being compressed into a 50 to 100 years to put it on a human time scale, probably because a "crisis" on a semi-geologic time scale isn't going to get anybody to act. To me that's the real travesty; valid scientific inquiry is probably being co-opted and overstated by people with an agenda (on the left) and in the end they will probably end up completely discrediting studies by "crying wolf," trying to go for a slam dunk.

What's really needed in my opinion is real monitoring instead of just relying on deterministic and stochastic modelling, which is almost always based on data with huge gaps: lack of reliable accretion/erosion data, lack of tidal gauge data in many locations, lack of high precision LiDAR DEM (digital elevation models) coverage, etc.

So whatever the case, I can state frankly that I don't really give a damn whose fault it is for a gradual warming of the globe; roughly 75% of the earth's population lives within 10 feet of sea level and if sea level rises a meter by 2090 (a median estimate in most sea level rise models) then that's a very expensive problem for an over-populated world to have.
 
Last edited:
Interesting stuff Denny, incidentally that trendline you posted is kind of misleading, there's so much noise in sample that small and frankly, it's not really statistically significant (sort of like polling 2 people about voting tendencies and then extrapolating that to the populace at large). For instance if the tidal data in the Pacific is being analyzed then you need enough data to capture several ENSO cycles -- because each ENSO is different in intensity, duration and frequency. I'm not saying that trendline you posted is false, but whomever created it should know better. However the composite imagery you showed jives with most of the data I've looked at.
 
Nikolokolus said:
Interesting stuff Denny, incidentally that trendline you posted is kind of misleading, there's so much noise in sample that small and frankly, it's not really statistically significant (sort of like polling 2 people about voting tendencies and then extrapolating that to the populace at large). For instance if the tidal data in the Pacific is being analyzed then you need enough data to capture several ENSO cycles -- because each ENSO is different in intensity, duration and frequency. I'm not saying that trendline you posted is false, but whomever created it should know better. However the composite imagery you showed jives with most of the data I've looked at.
Click to expand...

You're talking about the temperature graph (I called it sinusoidal)?

I posted it in response to Julius saying this was a particularly hot summer/year. It was meant to show 2009 was a very cold year.

My comment about it looking like a sine wave was coincidental. Obviously, the time frame of the chart is tiny, and I would not extrapolate that it's similar over geologic time frames.

BTW, we didn't have a summer in San Diego last year. We have what we call May Gray and June Gloom, typically. The normal pattern is the marine layer is gone for the 4th of July through about October. Last year, we had grey skies and chilly weather from mid-January on, and I don't recall any 80 degree days at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PapaG
Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
crandc
crandc
PapaG
Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming
Replies
18
Views
2K
BLAZER PROPHET
B
Denny Crane
New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism
2 3 4
Replies
106
Views
7K
huevonkiller
huevonkiller
Eastoff
More metadata on man-made climate change
2 3
Replies
89
Views
4K
Denny Crane
Denny Crane
B
Watervapor, not Greenhouse gasses, caused 1/3 of the "global warming" in the 90s
Replies
11
Views
708
BLAZER PROPHET
B

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top