Global Warming Con Job?

WaltBennett wrote:

<quoted text>
Of course you know, I dispute almost all of that.
This is what I am trying to find a way to overcome. I think we are all past the point of being entertained by arguing back and forth and getting nowhere.
Whatever 'this' is, we are all in it together. Our opinions won't matter when the effects come.
As conscientious citizens of the planet (which I presume we all are), we owe it to ourselves to make as much sense of this as we can.
That is why I want to really see us be as honest as possible about our sourcing, to really work at being as un-biased as possible and to basically seek common ground.
I greatly appreciate world's offer to do exactly that, and I sense that he means it.

well i tried to start getting common ground by talking about the sun and then progressing onto other aspects and am yet ot get an ongoing reply - do you not want to proceed with that discussion?

MDJ wrote:

<quoted text>explain how weather is not part of climate.

What I have consistently said is that they are different disciplines. A climate scientist is not responsible for giving Seattle the 5-day forecast.

Nor is a meteorologist responsible for tracking CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

Different disciplines.

MDJ wrote:

<quoted text> PS, the original portions of my post are still true even if you don't want to admit it.

If you mean that climate scientists dicker with the models to justify applying for grants, and for no useful scientific purpose, you will need to reliably source that.

If you want me to believe that you know what goes on 'on the inside' better than the average person does, you will need to make that case.

I am fairly certain I have spent a lot more time than you have, reading the reports from these scientists.(If I am wrong about that I apologize). I have developed an understanding of many of the processes which converge to produce a climate science observation.

And I want to remind you, modeling is a small piece of climate science. It happens to be the part which most interests policy makers, but taken as a part of the overall field of climate science, it is a narrow slice.

One thing to keep in mind: any modeling starts with data. Gathering and analyzing data is what the vast majority of climate scientists do.

WaltBennett wrote:

<quoted text>
If you mean that climate scientists dicker with the models to justify applying for grants, and for no useful scientific purpose, you will need to reliably source that.
If you want me to believe that you know what goes on 'on the inside' better than the average person does, you will need to make that case.
I am fairly certain I have spent a lot more time than you have, reading the reports from these scientists.(If I am wrong about that I apologize). I have developed an understanding of many of the processes which converge to produce a climate science observation.
And I want to remind you, modeling is a small piece of climate science. It happens to be the part which most interests policy makers, but taken as a part of the overall field of climate science, it is a narrow slice.
One thing to keep in mind: any modeling starts with data. Gathering and analyzing data is what the vast majority of climate scientists do.

but often the data available to them is either incomplete, innacurate or of long enough duration to be meaningful. As a consequence the data of which models are based on is flawed and as such the models are flawed which is proven by the models yet being unable to get it right.

For example on temperature records often they are typically in heat sink cities rarely in the ocean and often not entirely reliable which as a result produces amplfied temperature results. The list could go on.

theworldasweknowit wrote:

<quoted text>
but often the data available to them is either incomplete, innacurate or of long enough duration to be meaningful. As a consequence the data of which models are based on is flawed and as such the models are flawed which is proven by the models yet being unable to get it right.
For example on temperature records often they are typically in heat sink cities rarely in the ocean and often not entirely reliable which as a result produces amplfied temperature results. The list could go on.

The way forward is for us to stick to narrowly focused issues, and to present our references for our positions.

Ideally, we will evaluate each others' positions and come to a meeting on what we can agree on.

I owe you a response on the sun, and it is coming.

I'd like to pose a question for all of you global warming critics out there.

Are you demanding that when it comes to proving that man is the cause of global warming (or at least a main contributer), that the data must be 100% accurate?

Joie de vivre wrote:

I'd like to pose a question for all of you global warming critics out there.
Are you demanding that when it comes to proving that man is the cause of global warming (or at least a main contributer), that the data must be 100% accurate?

If a model is to be reliable the data must be accurate. The less accurate the data the less accurate the model. Since there are many data sets that go into each model the inaccuracies are cumulative. If you have 10 data sets and all are 90% accurate the end result is only 34.9% accurate.(this assumes that each data set is equally importnat in the equation/program and it is only used once). Hardly something I would want to try to put forward a coherant theory that could cost the global econonmy trillions of dollars. So i guess the quick answer is yes it should be as accurate as possible and if the end number is less than 90% then it is trash and they should keep their mouths shut.(Keep in mind that paternity testing such as is going on with the N.Smith baby looks at far more variables and is considered not a match for child support, custody etc if it is less than a 98% match).

WaltBennett wrote:

<quoted text>
The way forward is for us to stick to narrowly focused issues, and to present our references for our positions.
Ideally, we will evaluate each others' positions and come to a meeting on what we can agree on.
I owe you a response on the sun, and it is coming.

The way forward is for you to admit that the case for GW is not ironclad and there are inconsistancies in the data and models that bring into question the net results. The basic premise for our disagreement other than the pompus way that you frame many of your posts). Then we can discuss the relitive merits of GHG reductions vrs. the costs in dollars and standard of living for the world. I am not against GHG and pollution control in general, just for doing it for the wrong reasons and at a greater cost than we need to incurr.

MDJ wrote:

<quoted text>If a model is to be reliable the data must be accurate. The less accurate the data the less accurate the model. Since there are many data sets that go into each model the inaccuracies are cumulative. If you have 10 data sets and all are 90% accurate the end result is only 34.9% accurate.(this assumes that each data set is equally importnat in the equation/program and it is only used once). Hardly something I would want to try to put forward a coherant theory that could cost the global econonmy trillions of dollars. So i guess the quick answer is yes it should be as accurate as possible and if the end number is less than 90% then it is trash and they should keep their mouths shut.(Keep in mind that paternity testing such as is going on with the N.Smith baby looks at far more variables and is considered not a match for child support, custody etc if it is less than a 98% match).

I don't think we're talking about a paternity test...last time I checked we were talking about climate. But to use your example, you mention that it looks at "far more variables." Now the idea I want to expand on is, when anyone is doing research on a subject he/she does not go to just ONE source. The same idea goes for climate models, which Walt mentioned before. Each model serves a purpose. Just because they do not all coincide does not make them inaccurate. Rarely is anything 100%. Except for maybe my tests (had to throw that in there...haha)The more models,sources, etc that a person uses the more accurate their information ends up being because they exhaust all sources and "variables" (to use your word) to prove their case.

Asking for a climate scientist to be 100% when they are predicting environmental occurances years into the future is silly. I think it's more important for them to prove to us they've used all the technology and sources out there to prove their theory.

MDJ wrote:

<quoted text>The way forward is for you to admit that the case for GW is not ironclad and there are inconsistancies in the data and models that bring into question the net results. The basic premise for our disagreement other than the pompus way that you frame many of your posts). Then we can discuss the relitive merits of GHG reductions vrs. the costs in dollars and standard of living for the world. I am not against GHG and pollution control in general, just for doing it for the wrong reasons and at a greater cost than we need to incurr.

What's relitive? Do you mean relative?

As for pompous posts MDJ,
Walt is not the only one guilty of such things. You continue to argue with your "I'm right and you're wrong and there's nothing you can do about it" attitude. Meanwhile, Walt seems to show at least some interest in actual mature and intelligent debate as, most definitely, has theworldasweknowit.

I think the idea of the post (waltbennet's) that you commented with your "pompous" attitude was meant as a plea to start the argument over, and begin debating in a mature manner. Your posts seem to exacerbate the problem that it seems the main posters on here want to get away from.

Joie de vivre wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't think we're talking about a paternity test...last time I checked we were talking about climate. But to use your example, you mention that it looks at "far more variables." Now the idea I want to expand on is, when anyone is doing research on a subject he/she does not go to just ONE source. The same idea goes for climate models, which Walt mentioned before. Each model serves a purpose. Just because they do not all coincide does not make them inaccurate. Rarely is anything 100%. Except for maybe my tests (had to throw that in there...haha)The more models,sources, etc that a person uses the more accurate their information ends up being because they exhaust all sources and "variables" (to use your word) to prove their case.
Asking for a climate scientist to be 100% when they are predicting environmental occurances years into the future is silly. I think it's more important for them to prove to us they've used all the technology and sources out there to prove their theory.

There is still the level of accuracy question. If a model is using data that is 60% accurate then the net result is going to be flawed from the gitgo. The underlying lack of long term accurate data to base a model on translates to a conclusion that can't help but be false. If our tech isn't sufficient to get accurate data then it doesn't matter that they used the best available, it is still not accurate. I think it is silly to ask business and the country to change the way they live, work, and play for years to come costing trillions of dollars and degrading our standard of living is silly based on something that is less than 90%.(The most optimistic models show only a 90% chance that man is driving GW. Since even that model doesn't say that it is ALL amns fault, hell even walt doesn't say that!, this means that the correlation is less than 90%). Throw into the mix that the majority of climotoligists say that the earth will warm even if we shut down all industry and the entire line of reasoning to support a Kyoto like accord/treaty becomes very silly indeed.

Joie de vivre wrote:

<quoted text>
What's relitive? Do you mean relative?

Na, relitive is how we spell it in the hills of KY. When are they gonig to get a spell checker for this thing.

Joie de vivre wrote:

As for pompous posts MDJ,
Walt is not the only one guilty of such things. You continue to argue with your "I'm right and you're wrong and there's nothing you can do about it" attitude. Meanwhile, Walt seems to show at least some interest in actual mature and intelligent debate as, most definitely, has theworldasweknowit.
I think the idea of the post (waltbennet's) that you commented with your "pompous" attitude was meant as a plea to start the argument over, and begin debating in a mature manner. Your posts seem to exacerbate the problem that it seems the main posters on here want to get away from.

Suggest you reread some posts. I'm not the one who says "all opinions must be backed up with links, quotes, and bibliograghies" like this is a term paper. He also refuses to accept even the most common sense items, such as compound error theory, and insist that there is nothing to debate. The world is warming, man is causeing it and you are full of dodo.(that last is not an exact quote but it is in the spirit of his posts). I don't make comments like "I have faith in the inginuity of amaerica to find a sollution" nor do I accuse anyone who disagrees with having a lask of faith in the same. When asked what he thought woould be a good solution. That is pompus. Perhaps you should look up the word if you believe that a simple "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude is pompus.

Joie de vivre wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't think we're talking about a paternity test...last time I checked we were talking about climate. But to use your example, you mention that it looks at "far more variables." Now the idea I want to expand on is, when anyone is doing research on a subject he/she does not go to just ONE source. The same idea goes for climate models, which Walt mentioned before. Each model serves a purpose. Just because they do not all coincide does not make them inaccurate. Rarely is anything 100%. Except for maybe my tests (had to throw that in there...haha)The more models,sources, etc that a person uses the more accurate their information ends up being because they exhaust all sources and "variables" (to use your word) to prove their case.
Asking for a climate scientist to be 100% when they are predicting environmental occurances years into the future is silly. I think it's more important for them to prove to us they've used all the technology and sources out there to prove their theory.

PS a paternity test is a lot less important to the world as a whole yet it has a higher standard of proof, according to you, than the climatoligists theories and models. Don't you think that is just a little silly considering the stakes??

MDJ wrote:

<quoted text>The way forward is for you to admit that the case for GW is not ironclad and there are inconsistancies in the data and models that bring into question the net results. The basic premise for our disagreement other than the pompus way that you frame many of your posts). Then we can discuss the relitive merits of GHG reductions vrs. the costs in dollars and standard of living for the world. I am not against GHG and pollution control in general, just for doing it for the wrong reasons and at a greater cost than we need to incurr.

You continue to post as though only you are capable of realizing this amazing fact that GW science is flimsy.

It is anything but. GW is real, many measurements taken over many years come as close as possible to conclusively proving that 20th century warming is man-made and will continue for centuries.

As for models, you don't know the first thing about them, yet you sit there and declare them to be no more than 35% reliable. You seem to be totally unaware that the simulations made in the late 1980s which came closest to matching actual conditions in the 1990s were very accurate in predicting the temperature change which was later measured.

You seem totally unaware that models have been run to reproduce historical periods in the 20th century, also with good accuracy.

You seem to completely fail to understand the purpose of the models. They are a guide for policy makers, nothing more. They are not meant to 'prove' that the earth will warm; that is a given, based on our continued CO2 emissions. An absolute given.

I cannot have a discussion with you where there is no way for us to agree on a baseline.

Call me pompous all you like: you continue to assume you know things that you don't know.

Doesn't 'pompous' accurately describe that behavior?

MDJ wrote:

<quoted text>Throw into the mix that the majority of climotoligists say that the earth will warm even if we shut down all industry and the entire line of reasoning to support a Kyoto like accord/treaty becomes very silly indeed.

I am going to sound like a broken record, but once again you don't know what you are talking about.

I am serious about this: we cannot have a discussion if you are to remain so fast and loose with the facts.

The point about continued warming is that there is FUTURE warming built-in because CO2 is so persistent, and because even when we reduce emissions,the oceans will simply bleed some of their stored-up CO2 content (one third of all CO2 emissions end up in the oceans).

What a kamikaze view to say "well, there will be continued warming no matter what we do, so why do anything?"

...because there is still time to affect the rapidity and degree of future warming.

Simple as that. There is still time left to make an important difference.

Fortunately, I am becoming increasingly optimistic that we will, in fact, face this challenge.

Let the naysayers stand on the sideline,as long as they don't get in the way.

Joie de vivre wrote:

I'd like to pose a question for all of you global warming critics out there.
Are you demanding that when it comes to proving that man is the cause of global warming (or at least a main contributer), that the data must be 100% accurate?

If someone told you there was a 90% chance that the jet you were getting on would make it to you destination ... would you get on?

Keep in mind: there is NO DOUBT - NONE - among the vast majority of climate scientists (NOT those who dabble in climate, those who work in it every day) that the earth is warming, that man-emitted CO2 is the cause, and that we have only seen the merest beginning of this trend.

This 90% stuff is politics, pure and simple.

928 research papers queried which contained either the phrase "global warming" or "climate change". How many dissented from the above?

Zero.