USA Today: Could we be wrong about global warming?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Six steps, just like the Scientific Method which you ignore in this thread. :biglaugh:

Make it about me, mobes23. Don't take on Carlin's work, or the CO2 versus temp data from the last ten years.

You're making it about you because (a) you don't understand this stuff and (b) rather than admit it (or, God forbid, spend the time to understand it), you ignore what's been posted.

The CO2 data has been addressed. Didn't I mention that before? Could've sworn I did. If not, go back and re-read this thread.

Carlin's work? I'll take a look at it when I get the chance, but it already feels like anything I say will be a waste of time. You've made your agenda (science be damned) and you'll ignore anything that contradicts your love for him. Honestly, I kind of hope I agree with him just so that you'll clam up.
 
OneGraph.jpg


Scientific method.
 
Lol. Minstrel, you killed me with that. John Denver was the topper. I'm logging off for the night and that was a brilliant way to end the day.
 
I am barfo. Or is he barfo? I can't tell by the actual post.

barfo

We are the barfo of the universe
no less than the trees and the stars;
we have a right to post here.
And whether or not it is clear to you,
no doubt the universe is warming as it should.

Therefore be at peace with Gore,
whatever you conceive Him to be.
And whatever your labors and aspirations,
in the noisy confusion of S2,
keep peas in your bowel.

With all its sham, drudgery, and broken links,
it is still a beautiful internets.
Be cheerful. Strive to be happy.

barfo
 
Aw, the clown brigade is now dancing in circles trying to shout down a naysayer by making jokes at my expense.

My point is proven.

Nice job, "scientists".

barfo
 
Aw, the clown brigade is now dancing in circles trying to shout down a naysayer by making jokes at my expense.

My point is proven.

Nice job, "scientists".

Yes, jokes that tease other people are totally uncalled-for. Only a totally classless person would do that. ...Or someone trying to bury an opposing point of view...


So what are you trying to suppress, BarfoG?

:)
 
Yes, jokes that tease other people are totally uncalled-for. Only a totally classless person would do that. ...Or someone trying to bury an opposing point of view...



So what are you trying to suppress, BarfoG?

:)

You and the other minstrels have made your point. The debate is over.
 
I think there's a serious lack of understanding in this thread of what economists do. It's a broad and diffuse field of study. It can range from political philosophy to game theory. The common thread in all fields of economics is the ability to ask a question, design a framework to answer it and then analyze the data to arrive at a conclusion. Whether the question is one of science, politics, psychology or commerce doesn't matter. Economics is a framework for analysis.

I see no reason why this particular analyst couldn't address global warming. As an employee of the EPA, he certainly has access to the requisite data.
 
I think there's a serious lack of understanding in this thread of what economists do. It's a broad and diffuse field of study. It can range from political philosophy to game theory. The common thread in all fields of economics is the ability to ask a question, design a framework to answer it and then analyze the data to arrive at a conclusion. Whether the question is one of science, politics, psychology or commerce doesn't matter. Economics is a framework for analysis.

I see no reason why this particular analyst couldn't address global warming. As an employee of the EPA, he certainly has access to the requisite data.

Indeed, an economist should be able to analyze data. However, science isn't just data analysis. If it were, then we wouldn't need scientists and we could just rely on economists. As I said, I respect economists. But they aren't climate scientists, and they shouldn't pretend to be.

barfo
 
Indeed, an economist should be able to analyze data. However, science isn't just data analysis. If it were, then we wouldn't need scientists and we could just rely on economists. As I said, I respect economists. But they aren't climate scientists, and they shouldn't pretend to be.

barfo

When you analyze a fixed set of variables it is. That's my point. He didn't create a model for how the climate works; he looked at historical data, compared it to registered CO2 levels and couldn't find a correlation. It's pretty basic stuff.
 
When you analyze a fixed set of variables it is. That's my point. He didn't create a model for how the climate works; he looked at historical data, compared it to registered CO2 levels and couldn't find a correlation. It's pretty basic stuff.

I've skimmed his document now, it is quite a bit more extensive than that. It wouldn't take 98 pages to report on whether two variables were correlated. He's clearly playing scientist.

Which is fine, of course. It's a free country. But the government shouldn't be obliged to fund him or publish him in his hobby.

barfo
 
Truly do not have the time to give those 98 pages a hard read, but after a quick skim I actually thought it looked like a decent analysis that raised interesting questions. I can't say that I received it like I would a scientific paper -- it's more of a policy paper that (at first glance) seemed to have a good number of references to the underlying hard science. The point of it wasn't to establish a nonlink between CO2 and global warming so much as to take a look at the scientific literature and raise issues generated from that to question the link. Bottomline, I thought it was interesting on its own merits.

In terms of the aspect that caused it to be newsworthy (the supposed coverup by the Obama administration), I think that's pretty much a bunch of hooey. First off, if one of my employees went off task, refused to go back on task and then made a public issue of it I would want to fire his ass. If he were a whistleblower (identifying some legal wrong and publicly raising awareness), that would be one thing. In this case, he disagreed with a perfectly legal decision and raised a stink. If he wants to have a public editorial opinion, he has the wrong job. In fact, I'd guess he'll use the notoriety from this and do that if he hasn't already.

Second, I'm guessing that addressing this draft document directly would have seriously interfered with the EPA's regulatory process. Regulatory procedures (public notice, comment periods, etc.) are grueling and long. Once a decision is made to proceed in a given direction, it takes a lot of time (legally required wait periods, not just bureaucratic nonsense) to get policies implemented. Judging from the dates of the emails and the draft document, Carlin submitted the report only a couple weeks before a decision point. Given (a) it is not his job to decide EPA priorities/policies and (b) he gave his superiors only three weeks tops to even consider a 98 page report (with crazy number of references), I don't think the EPA's response was outlandish. That said, I would hope they give it a close look and address it in the next regulatory cycle.

For what it's worth, I'm not discarding the fact that addressing this draft doc could help direct policies in hugely beneficial ways (namely accurately addressing global warming while simultaneously minimizing negative economic impact.) However, it's not realistic to think the Obama's appointees in the EPA should turn on a dime and neglect other high priorities. (Yes, this may be your high priority, but reasonable people can differ on which projects are highest priority.) I noticed on one of the last pages that the doc that three earlier drafts had been submitted during the Bush era (two in 2007, one in 2008). It would be interesting to know why those had been rejected because the Bush EPA team would have had a lot more time to be review.
 
Truly do not have the time to give those 98 pages a hard read, but after a quick skim I actually thought it looked like a decent analysis that raised interesting questions. I can't say that I received it like I would a scientific paper -- it's more of a policy paper that (at first glance) seemed to have a good number of references to the underlying hard science. The point of it wasn't to establish a nonlink between CO2 and global warming so much as to take a look at the scientific literature and raise issues generated from that to question the link. Bottomline, I thought it was interesting on its own merits.

In terms of the aspect that caused it to be newsworthy (the supposed coverup by the Obama administration), I think that's pretty much a bunch of hooey. First off, if one of my employees went off task, refused to go back on task and then made a public issue of it I would want to fire his ass. If he were a whistleblower (identifying some legal wrong and publicly raising awareness), that would be one thing. In this case, he disagreed with a perfectly legal decision and raised a stink. If he wants to have a public editorial opinion, he has the wrong job. In fact, I'd guess he'll use the notoriety from this and do that if he hasn't already.

Second, I'm guessing that addressing this draft document directly would have seriously interfered with the EPA's regulatory process. Regulatory procedures (public notice, comment periods, etc.) are grueling and long. Once a decision is made to proceed in a given direction, it takes a lot of time (legally required wait periods, not just bureaucratic nonsense) to get policies implemented. Judging from the dates of the emails and the draft document, Carlin submitted the report only a couple weeks before a decision point. Given (a) it is not his job to decide EPA priorities/policies and (b) he gave his superiors only three weeks tops to even consider a 98 page report (with crazy number of references), I don't think the EPA's response was outlandish. That said, I would hope they give it a close look and address it in the next regulatory cycle.

For what it's worth, I'm not discarding the fact that addressing this draft doc could help direct policies in hugely beneficial ways (namely accurately addressing global warming while simultaneously minimizing negative economic impact.) However, it's not realistic to think the Obama's appointees in the EPA should turn on a dime and neglect other high priorities. (Yes, this may be your high priority, but reasonable people can differ on which projects are highest priority.) I noticed on one of the last pages that the doc that three earlier drafts had been submitted during the Bush era (two in 2007, one in 2008). It would be interesting to know why those had been rejected because the Bush EPA team would have had a lot more time to be review.

It is basically an extremely detailed meta-analysis, which has a place in both science and policy. The FDA, for example, acts on meta-analysis papers when reviewing pharmaceuticals. A meta-analysis can find trends that are not picked up in specific studies. Avandia and correlated risk of cardiac arrest is a recent example of this. Avandia now has a death warning on its label. It should not have been suppressed.
 
I've skimmed his document now, it is quite a bit more extensive than that. It wouldn't take 98 pages to report on whether two variables were correlated. He's clearly playing scientist.

Which is fine, of course. It's a free country. But the government shouldn't be obliged to fund him or publish him in his hobby.

barfo

He drafted an extremely detailed meta-analysis of existing data, which is well in line of what an economist/analyst should do for his job. Calling this a "hobby" seems just plain stupid, especially when one apparently doesn't even know what meta-analysis is. You to be saying that the only information that should be funded is information that has an answer prior to the questions being written. We have a propaganda film with proven lies in it that is mandatory in many high schools around the country to "educate" the children, yet this report you dismiss because a physics major from Cal Tech, who I guess knows a bit about science, analyzed large groups of existing data and found no correlation.
 
Including at least 600 scientists, who recently signed a declaration criticizing the whole global warming argument.

Try putting some perspective on your post.

How many scientist out there are there? Millions. So 600 out of millions of scientist think it is bunk. That's just great. I'll get right on taking that seriously.

How many of these scientist actually study the atmosphere and global warming?

Are these actually scientist with a degree, or people that call themselves scientist?

Why do they feel it is bogus? If they feel they have a legitimate argument, then post their evidence and back it up.

Lastly, the issue is not "Black and White". There are many theories that fall somewhere in the middle, such as that global warming is a natural process, which doesn't really fall in any of these camps.
 
He drafted an extremely detailed meta-analysis of existing data, which is well in line of what an economist/analyst should do for his job. Calling this a "hobby" seems just plain stupid, especially when one apparently doesn't even know what meta-analysis is.

One doesn't?

You to be saying that the only information that should be funded is information that has an answer prior to the questions being written.

I to be saying nothing of the sort.

We have a propaganda film with proven lies in it that is mandatory in many high schools around the country to "educate" the children,

Are you arguing that two wrongs make a right? That since Al Gore got some things wrong, the EPA should publish some other wrong stuff to balance it out?

yet this report you dismiss because a physics major from Cal Tech, who I guess knows a bit about science, analyzed large groups of existing data and found no correlation.

I guess he knows a bit about science. I'm more inclined to believe the findings of those who know more than a bit.

barfo
 
Nails it:

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Global+warming+religion+First+World+urban+elites/1835847/story.html

Global warming is the new religion of First World urban elites

Geologist Ian Plimer takes a contrary view, arguing that man-made climate change is a con trick perpetuated by environmentalists

By Jonathan Manthorpe, Vancouver SunJuly 28, 2009

Ian Plimer has outraged the ayatollahs of purist environmentalism, the Torquemadas of the doctrine of global warming, and he seems to relish the damnation they heap on him.

Plimer is a geologist, professor of mining geology at Adelaide University, and he may well be Australia's best-known and most notorious academic.

Plimer, you see, is an unremitting critic of "anthropogenic global warming" -- man-made climate change to you and me -- and the current environmental orthodoxy that if we change our polluting ways, global warming can be reversed.

It is, of course, not new to have a highly qualified scientist saying that global warming is an entirely natural phenomenon with many precedents in history. Many have made the argument, too, that it is rubbish to contend human behaviour is causing the current climate change. And it has often been well argued that it is totally ridiculous to suppose that changes in human behaviour -- cleaning up our act through expensive slight-of-hand taxation tricks -- can reverse the trend.

But most of these scientific and academic voices have fallen silent in the face of environmental Jacobinism. Purging humankind of its supposed sins of environmental degradation has become a religion with a fanatical and often intolerant priesthood, especially among the First World urban elites.

But Plimer shows no sign of giving way to this orthodoxy and has just published the latest of his six books and 60 academic papers on the subject of global warming. This book, Heaven and Earth -- Global Warming: The Missing Science, draws together much of his previous work. It springs especially from A Short History of Plant Earth, which was based on a decade of radio broadcasts in Australia.

That book, published in 2001, was a best-seller and won several prizes. But Plimer found it hard to find anyone willing to publish this latest book, so intimidating has the environmental lobby become.

But he did eventually find a small publishing house willing to take the gamble and the book has already sold about 30,000 copies in Australia. It seems also to be doing well in Britain and the United States in the first days of publication.

Plimer presents the proposition that anthropogenic global warming is little more than a con trick on the public perpetrated by fundamentalist environmentalists and callously adopted by politicians and government officials who love nothing more than an issue that causes public anxiety.

While environmentalists for the most part draw their conclusions based on climate information gathered in the last few hundred years, geologists, Plimer says, have a time frame stretching back many thousands of millions of years.

The dynamic and changing character of the Earth's climate has always been known by geologists. These changes are cyclical and random, he says. They are not caused or significantly affected by human behaviour.

Polar ice, for example, has been present on the Earth for less than 20 per cent of geological time, Plimer writes. Plus, animal extinctions are an entirely normal part of the Earth's evolution.

(Plimer, by the way, is also a vehement anti-creationist and has been hauled into court for disrupting meetings by religious leaders and evangelists who claim the Bible is literal truth.)

Plimer gets especially upset about carbon dioxide, its role in Earth's daily life and the supposed effects on climate of human manufacture of the gas. He says atmospheric carbon dioxide is now at the lowest levels it has been for 500 million years, and that atmospheric carbon dioxide is only 0.001 per cent of the total amount of the chemical held in the oceans, surface rocks, soils and various life forms. Indeed, Plimer says carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, but a plant food. Plants eat carbon dioxide and excrete oxygen. Human activity, he says, contributes only the tiniest fraction to even the atmospheric presence of carbon dioxide.

There is no problem with global warming, Plimer says repeatedly. He points out that for humans periods of global warming have been times of abundance when civilization made leaps forward. Ice ages, in contrast, have been times when human development slowed or even declined.

So global warming, says Plimer, is something humans should welcome and embrace as a harbinger of good times to come.

jmanthorpe@vancouversun.com
 
This guys sounds like the anti-Al Gore. What we need are people who don't have flipping agendas.
 
Plimer is a geologist, professor of mining geology at Adelaide University, and he may well be Australia's best-known and most notorious academic.

Oooh, a professor of mining geology. Why, he must understand... how to extract rocks from the earth. Kind of a different subject, isn't it?.

Isn't it odd that the climate change deniers keep trotting out these people who don't have relevant scientific backgrounds?

It is, of course, not new to have a highly qualified scientist saying that global warming is an entirely natural phenomenon with many precedents in history.

Highly qualified scientist, ha ha ha.

He says atmospheric carbon dioxide is now at the lowest levels it has been for 500 million years, and that atmospheric carbon dioxide is only 0.001 per cent of the total amount of the chemical held in the oceans, surface rocks, soils and various life forms.

If he were an actual scientist, he'd realize that the CO2 held in the oceans, surface rocks, soils, and various life forms is not relevant to the question of whether there is too much CO2 in the atmosphere.

barfo
 
Indeed, Plimer says carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, but a plant food. Plants eat carbon dioxide and excrete oxygen.

Nice gem. I like how this is presented as a revelation. "You know that 'CO2' thing that you've been hearing so much about? Why, it's nothing but plant food. No, really...it's true! Makes you re-think everything, doesn't it? Eh? Who's afraid of plant food?"

Water is also "plant food." Most land-based life forms don't do well when their atmosphere becomes too much water. If you don't believe me, submerge your puppy or cat in the bathtub for a few hours and see how they do inhaling pure "plant food."

This has established his climate science bonafides beyond reproach for me.
 
Oooh, a professor of mining geology. Why, he must understand... how to extract rocks from the earth. Kind of a different subject, isn't it?.

Isn't it odd that the climate change deniers keep trotting out these people who don't have relevant scientific backgrounds?



Highly qualified scientist, ha ha ha.



If he were an actual scientist, he'd realize that the CO2 held in the oceans, surface rocks, soils, and various life forms is not relevant to the question of whether there is too much CO2 in the atmosphere.

barfo



Sorry Barfo, but you apparently have no clue about who's qualified and who's not. if the guy wasn't an astrologer ragging on astrology, you'd be arguing he's not qualified. Your argument is meaningless and without merit.

Geology is strongly related, if not the origin, of a number of sciences. They find fossils in old rocks. Digging up ice cores is a geologist's kind of thing to do. The guy not only studies the chemical makeup of the rocks he digs up (Earth is 3rd rock from the sun, you know, it is a rock), he studies their temperatures, too.

And geology is one of few sciences that studies these things and relates them to geologic time periods, unlike Rev. Gore and his kool-aid drinking flock who are fixated on a couple hundred years.

But yeah, if the guy wasn't an astrologer ragging on astrology, how could he possibly be qualified?
 
Nice gem. I like how this is presented as a revelation. "You know that 'CO2' thing that you've been hearing so much about? Why, it's nothing but plant food. No, really...it's true! Makes you re-think everything, doesn't it? Eh? Who's afraid of plant food?"

Water is also "plant food." Most land-based life forms don't do well when their atmosphere becomes too much water. If you don't believe me, submerge your puppy or cat in the bathtub for a few hours and see how they do inhaling pure "plant food."

This has established his climate science bonafides beyond reproach for me.

As opposed to, say, carbon monoxide which isn't plant food and is a pollutant.
 
I don't pretend to be a climatologist, but isn't water vapor by far the biggest "greenhouse gas"? Why is one worried about CO2 vice methane or water vapor? Is it because a bunch of CFCs were banned in the 80's, so there's not as much "bad stuff" poking holes in the ozone layer?

But let's not kid ourselves, the policy aspects are the reasons this is being fought.

And just from a couple articles I've read, we (as Americans) have had a decreasing rate of CO2 addition over the last 5 years, while China's has increased by around 10% each year. Why, if what we're doing's working for us, do we have to have mandated that our car liberty taken away for something that's probably not that much better, when we already have a trend downward, and the rest of the trying-to-be-industrialized world isn't really caring about this?
 
I don't pretend to be a climatologist, but isn't water vapor by far the biggest "greenhouse gas"? Why is one worried about CO2 vice methane or water vapor? Is it because a bunch of CFCs were banned in the 80's, so there's not as much "bad stuff" poking holes in the ozone layer?

But let's not kid ourselves, the policy aspects are the reasons this is being fought.

And just from a couple articles I've read, we (as Americans) have had a decreasing rate of CO2 addition over the last 5 years, while China's has increased by around 10% each year. Why, if what we're doing's working for us, do we have to have mandated that our car liberty taken away for something that's probably not that much better, when we already have a trend downward, and the rest of the trying-to-be-industrialized world isn't really caring about this?

Yep. It's economic suicide to radically alter our greenhouse gas output while China and India does nothing. We radically increase our cost basis and become non-competitive overnight. I'm sure to try to keep industry here we create massive tariffs which only deepens our economic slide. Great stuff. Really terrific. You have to love lawmakers who don't bother to understand the implication of their own legislation.
 
Yep. It's economic suicide to radically alter our greenhouse gas output while China and India does nothing. We radically increase our cost basis and become non-competitive overnight. I'm sure to try to keep industry here we create massive tariffs which only deepens our economic slide. Great stuff. Really terrific. You have to love lawmakers who don't bother to understand the implication of their own legislation.

Assuming that greenhouse gas is in fact causing global warming, this is the very definition of the tragedy of the commons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
 
Assuming that greenhouse gas is in fact causing global warming, this is the very definition of the tragedy of the commons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

Yep, it's a classic game theory conundrum. The solution is to create a cartel among the good actors against the bad one. In other words, charge China and India a tariff on their goods tagged to their greenhouse gas output.
 
Yep, it's a classic game theory conundrum. The solution is to create a cartel among the good actors against the bad one. In other words, charge China and India a tariff on their goods tagged to their greenhouse gas output.

Agreed. Throw incentives/disincentives out there so that the bad behaviour is no longer worth it to 'em.
 
Sorry Barfo, but you apparently have no clue about who's qualified and who's not. if the guy wasn't an astrologer ragging on astrology, you'd be arguing he's not qualified. Your argument is meaningless and without merit.

Geology is strongly related, if not the origin, of a number of sciences. They find fossils in old rocks. Digging up ice cores is a geologist's kind of thing to do. The guy not only studies the chemical makeup of the rocks he digs up (Earth is 3rd rock from the sun, you know, it is a rock), he studies their temperatures, too.

And geology is one of few sciences that studies these things and relates them to geologic time periods, unlike Rev. Gore and his kool-aid drinking flock who are fixated on a couple hundred years.

But yeah, if the guy wasn't an astrologer ragging on astrology, how could he possibly be qualified?

Is ragging on climate science the goal here? Because if so, anyone on the internets is perfectly qualified to do so. You don't need a mining geologist for that. Rag on!

Qualifications only matter if you are relying on expert opinion (as opposed to carefully studying the matter in question yourself, or just making uninformed assumptions). If you are going to rely on expert opinion, it makes sense to pay more attention to those with the most expertise, and less attention to those who aren't expert.

You reject the actual experts in climate science, yet trot out this mining geologist as an expert. That would be bad decision-making if you were relying upon his opinion. But of course you aren't - you've selected this "expert" because he agrees with the opinion you already had. The fact that you have to select experts that aren't really expert to buttress your case is pretty good evidence that you are, technically speaking, wrong about all of this.

Or, of course, it is a giant conspiracy involving thousands of scientists, in which case you'd be right to reject them all as experts. I'd be concerned about that possibility, but I'm too busy worrying about the ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF GOLD that was under WTC7 and how Obama was born in Kenya and how the Rockefellers are secretly creating a one-world government.

barfo
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top