Two Thousand Years of Chinese Climate

[sexual_chocolate]

Good dog, you are tenacious! Your impersonation of a sophist chihuaha is incredibly convincing, yet your self-serving (complement?!?!?) slipperiness and wearisome rhetoric which you think passes for intelligent debate has become *COMPLETELY* transparent.

 

I doubt you will ever convince yourself of your own intelligence. If you're trying, perhaps be a little less *rigid*.

[MtnGoat]

perhaps you can do what l_b has not, and explain how you, for example, are exempt from being self serving. Your arguments that I am self serving, reveal both a viewpoint and reasons that support same.

 

Not one person has done so far. I see a lot of remarks about how having a point of view and trying to support it is self serving, but it only seems to apply when I do it.

 

It would also be cool to see an explanation about having an open viewpoint on a subject is anything *but* transparent. That's the point, I do not shirk having an agenda nor do I hide it. How do you explain your agenda?

 

[ 09-26-2002, 04:37 PM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]

[iain]

this is about as interesting as NAFTA

[j_b]

quote:

---

Not yet, takes a couple days to process a subscription to AGU. Looks like an interesting journal. Shall I let you know when I've finished reading it, or will you just switch modes to a different form of attacks?

---

exactly what I thought, you pounce on the IPCC for basing a report on data that you judge insufficient (have you read the papers presenting said data?), yet you jump at the opportunity to take a stab at the global warming hypothesis on the basis of data you can't really comment on since you have not read the paper. How is that for double standards? You can call it personal attacks, what I see is poor application of the scientific method by a critic of the climate science community.

 

quote:

---

As for asking twice, you're hardly king of responses. You have many questions waiting for you on the other thread you never answered. I ask you to be consistent here and answer some of those

---

First, I don't have the time to address your posts point by point, they are way too lengthy. Second, I take responsability for not answering some of your questions, and let my posts stand as they are. Besides, I usually don't answer what I judge beside the point (and/or diversion from the issue at hand). You can call me on it (which you did) for all I care. Finally, I mentioned my asking you twice whether or not you read the paper before you commented on it because I think it pretty well supports my hypothesis that you actually mostly care about whether it supports your conservative agenda (whether it is good science or not).

 

quote:

---

Please explain how we know *you* are free of judging evidence by your agenda, since you are very vocal in attacking me for doing this on the basis of my having a point of view and attempting to support it. That's it. That's the sum total of what you excoriate me for.

---

whenever you have evidence that I let my perpective on life unduly color my assessment of scientific ideas, let me know.

[sexual_chocolate]

It's not that you have a view and try to support it, it's the tenacious quality of your arguments. It's as if there is no room to breathe! You are seemingly so intent on discrediting any opposing viewpoint that you'll hammer away with no pause, and then when you concede a point, or agree that maybe your viewpoint isn't error-proof, it seems to carry with it such recalcitrance and pompous piety (oxymoron?)!

 

It isn't always about what's being argued about, know what I mean? And yes, you're a smart guy, but realize that you might be wrong sometimes. Humbleness and humility can be wonderful qualities....

[MtnGoat]

"exactly what I thought, you pounce on the IPCC for basing a report on data that you judge insufficient (have you read the papers presenting said data?)"

 

I'm working through it, it's a monster.

 

"yet you jump at the opportunity to take a stab at the global warming hypothesis on the basis of data you can't really comment on since you have not read the paper."

 

The abstract makes clear what the determination is, since it's close enough to show commonalities with other data for cyclic behaviour, it was worth an interesting thread. Since I am interested in the details, that's why I started a subscription.

 

Further, if you'll please note, I am taking a stab at the erroneous comment "warmer than ever", which is sufficiently proven false by more reports than just this one.

 

I'd like to ask you, have *you* read the IPCC report and data you are likewise claiming is valid?

 

"You can call it personal attacks, what I see is poor application of the scientific method by a critic of the climate science community."

 

No, I call personal attacks making comments on hidden agendas when my agenda is open for anyone to see and saying I fit data to what I think in the first place. If I did that I would neither be reading further on the methodology presented on AGU letters nor the IPCC stuff.

 

"First, I don't have the time to address your posts point by point, they are way too lengthy. Second, I take responsability for not answering some of your questions, and let my posts stand as they are."

 

Good enough. I would still be interested in your response to the few questions I summarized elsewhere however, if you have time.

 

"Finally, I mentioned my asking you twice whether or not you read the paper before you commented on it because I think it pretty well supports my hypothesis that you actually mostly care about whether it supports your conservative agenda (whether it is good science or not)."

 

If we are not to use third party evidence gathered in good faith, or to rely on summaries of reports for talking points, nothing we discuss can considered valid until we show we have indeeed read the entire body of data we are discussing.

 

I have never asked for this from you, because I expect you to comment on what you have learned from a relatively informal perspective, at least backed by some level of honest judgement, which I grant you simply from first principles, this is not reciprocated.

 

If I understand this correctly, IMO to be consistent we should no longer consider any discussion not backed by full reading of the texts in question invalid.

 

"whenever you have evidence that I let my perpective on life unduly color my assessment of scientific ideas, let me know."

 

What do you consider evidence in this case, for future reference?

[j_b]

quote:

---

The abstract makes clear what the determination is, since it's close enough to show commonalities with other data for cyclic behaviour, it was worth an interesting thread. Since I am interested in the details, that's why I started a subscription.

---

I believe the online abstract is only available to AGU members. What you posted was not the paper abstract but an interpretation of the paper by an organisation which appears to have links to the Western Fuels Association.

 

quote:

---

Further, if you'll please note, I am taking a stab at the erroneous comment "warmer than ever", which is sufficiently proven false by more reports than just this one.

---

No climate scientist believes that today is warmer than it has ever been (although it may well be the case for the past 120,000 years). There were past periods with over 10 times the modern atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Actually what you said (or rather what co2science.org said) is the following:

 

quote:

---

What it means:

The results of this study demonstrate that the so-called unprecedented warmth of the 20th century is a myth.

 

Indeed, the warmth of this period was but a manifestation of naturally-induced regularly-recurring conditions similar to those experienced in prior millennia.

---

the second sentence is confusing enough to leave the reader with the message that 2000 years ago global climate was warmer than at present and that today's warming is entirely due to natural causes similarly to the Chinese example of 2000 years ago. And we know this is not true for a number of reasons (climate in China versus global climate and natural variability does not exclude human caused variability). So at best the interpretations are disingenuous.

 

quote:

---

I'd like to ask you, have *you* read the IPCC report and data you are likewise claiming is valid?

---

I have not read the entire report but I have read and discussed the literature on which it is based for over a decade.

 

quote:

---

If we are not to use third party evidence gathered in good faith, or to rely on summaries of reports for talking points, nothing we discuss can considered valid until we show we have indeeed read the entire body of data we are discussing.

 

I have never asked for this from you, because I expect you to comment on what you have learned from a relatively informal perspective, at least backed by some level of honest judgement, which I grant you simply from first principles, this is not reciprocated.

---

the authors of the paper in all likelyhood are in good faith, co2science.org in all likelyhood is not. So don't present the paper findings through the glasses of an anti-global warming hypothesis organisation and expect to be granted the mantle of scientific objetivity.

 

quote:

---

If I understand this correctly, IMO to be consistent we should no longer consider any discussion not backed by full reading of the texts in question invalid.

---

you can discuss anything with whatever level of knowledge you possess but don't be surprised when someone object to your claims of presenting scientific findings whereas in fact you are presenting a biased interpretation. And don't forget rule #1, don't over-interpret the results(cover your ass).

[Fence_Sitter]

i herd that the I.C.P.3.R.2D.2 found out that if you smoke pot an drink O.E. 800 you will laugh lots...and that the real casue of global warming was all of the bicyle grease that you selfish cyclist get on teh road...if evaporates and then turns into a noxious gas that depletes the ozone... you herd it here first...

 

[ 09-26-2002, 07:58 PM: Message edited by: Fence Sitter ]

[Fairweather]

Impressions and Stereotypes. If the (human causation) global warming alarmists weren't so closely allied with fringe groups and socialist/anarchist causes around the world, their positions might receive a more moderate and considered reception. I realize that it is these fringe groups who cling to this science and use it as a mechanism to advance their causes, and that the climate scientists who subscribe to HCGW are (mostly) sincere. But they should do more to distance themselves from radicals and radical ideas and promote a more gradual/long term social/economic change. In the view of many, including myself, Kyoto was indeed a radical idea. (And worthless to boot!)

 

If humans are in fact responsible for a measure of global warming, it has yet to be proven to me... and millions of others. And when I see lefties as the primary promoters of HCGW theory, I simply "tune out". I suspect the most moderate presentaion of the science will win the hearts and minds of the general population. Not the side that hysterically presents its story as "fact" before all the "facts" are in.

 

Spend $1,000,000,000,000 of American tax dollars on "a hunch"?? A "what if" proposition?? That will never fly. As I see it, the burden of proof falls on those who want us to change our way of life.

[E-rock]

Fairweather, I think you make some interesting points but I also think youmay be pointig the blame at the wrong people. The earth scientists who are performing this sort of research couldn't care one way or the other what radical lefties and politcal anarchists think or say. They don't have money in their NSF grants to wage public opinion campaigns that would promote their arguements or distance them from radicals.

 

In general, interpretations in the Earth Sciences tend to be some of the most conservative of all the sciences. Modern Cosmology wouldn't be where it is today if guys like Stephen Hawking were as chicken shit as geologists can be. I think that the people that you consider to be left-wing wackos on this site are actually much closer to the middle than you realize.

[Fence_Sitter]

wrong e-rock! ...scientist as a rule of thumb are 95% liberal hippes...given that it is easy to interpolate that they have an agenda...not that i give a shit...casue one way or another shit aint gonna change especially form bantering on some fucking website...if you are that ocncerned go bitch to your poloticians i'm sure they are used to long winded trite bull shit comming from people that make up 90% of their statistics...

[MtnGoat]

"this is not really deserving of an answer because this is the usual 'climate scientists are self-serving unless I like what they say'."

 

Oh is it? Where did I say that? The assumptions you inject into many of your points here are constant.

 

I did not claim the report that initiated this thread, contains claims about anthro warming, only *specifically* that this and other data shows warming proponents who claim "warmest ever" are wrong. I did not claim the authors intended this as a comment on antro warming directly, which you also imply. I challenge you to read this thread and find where I claim the authors have a position on anthro warming, rather than are reporting their findings on cylclical patterns.

 

Further, I did not comment that climate scientists are self serving unless I say. I used sarcasm to point out that *anyone* with a point of view they believe in is necessarily self serving while they support it. I never ever claimed only those I say are self serving, because I believe everyone is. That is the point of having a point of view and striving to support it.

 

I welcome comments and arguments, but I strive to avoid injecting comments you did not make into arguments, instead I ask you to clarify.

 

"I find it interesting that once in a while you endorse a piece of data wholeheartedly, whereas you claim to be dubious of every other data set which does not go your way."

 

Are we now supposed to not criticize data we think is flawed? Am I supposed to ignore what I agree with and support what I am not convinced of, to prove I have no agenda when I and everyone else does have an agenda?

 

"Your motives and methods are transparent."

 

I should hope so, putting forth a point of view and trying to support it is what we each do.

 

[ 09-26-2002, 12:11 PM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]

[iain]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fence Sitter:

wrong e-rock! ...scientist as a rule of thumb are 95% liberal hippes...

---

Perhaps you'd like to ask the scientists at Monsanto about this. Also the word "hunch" insults the years of work put into trying to solve this complicated issue. It doesn't help anything.

 

The planet has been very much hotter in the past. No one who has done any work in this field denies this. It is the on-again/off-again evidence of our impact on our atmosphere that keeps this issue alive. The chemistry linking our effluence to atmospheric change is there. From the information I've read, I think there is a reasonable correlation between increases in our atmospheric effluence with rapid climate change, but I'm open to a change of opinion. I think the burden of proof is on us to demonstrate that we are NOT the cause of this problem.

 

Many of us, I'm sure, would be so happy to drop the issue once there is proof that we are not on the cusp of a uncontrollable feedback cycle of rampant climate change due to our activities. This isn't a classic environmentalist issue. It is not about saving the spotted owl, it's about keeping our quality of life. It's about keeping America's grainbelt from becoming a potential dustbowl. It's about America potentially losing its world power status due to loss of environmental resources. It's about avoiding horrific weather systems and widespread fire much more devasting than we have seen before. It's about a lot of things that have nothing to do with the environmentalist agenda.

 

No wonder this thread is so annoying. (based on reading my post )

 

[ 09-27-2002, 08:34 AM: Message edited by: iain ]

[RobBob]

This thread is annoying because those posting on both sides of the issue on this thread do not know how to SUMMARIZE!!!

 

It is an interesting issue, however, precisely because

 

1. humans tend to over-estimate their influence on the universe (it's an ego thing).

2. humans have a very hard time sorting out trends that transcend human history.

 

Hell, I don't want humanity to change the climate. But I also want to get at the real facts. And I have this sneakin' suspicion that one good volcanic eruption can have more effect on climate than 100 years of human activity.

[RobBob]

If we are in fact changing the planet's climate as a result of our human activities, who among us could be against these modest proposals, which would yield results in just a generation or two:

 

1) institute mass spaying/neutering programs in nations whose indiginous populations are still growing.

 

2) on a worldwide basis, eliminate automobiles, and the internal combustion engine, immediately.

[iain]

1. humans tend to over-estimate their influence on the universe (it's an ego thing).

 

Who is saying anything about the universe? We're talking about influencing the thin film of slime around the planet that keeps us comfortable.

 

2. humans have a very hard time sorting out trends that transcend human history.

 

That much is certain.

 

Hell, I don't want humanity to change the climate. But I also want to get at the real facts. And I have this sneakin' suspicion that one good volcanic eruption can have more effect on climate than 100 years of human activity.

 

Exactly. Volcanism like that seen in the Mesozoic is orders of magnitude greater than our effluence. I don't think we would like living in the Mesozoic. All I'm saying is we need to know how the machinery works before we discount it as irrelevant. It very well could be, but it's worth investing money in the situation, in my opinion. Otherwise we should screw it all since we will eventually be decked by another meteorite like the one marking the K-T extinction boundary.

 

[ 09-27-2002, 08:36 AM: Message edited by: iain ]

[Fence_Sitter]

[iain]

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

Originally posted by RobBob:

If we are in fact changing the planet's climate as a result of our human activities, who among us could be against these modest proposals, which would yield results in just a generation or two:

 

1) institute mass spaying/neutering programs in nations whose indiginous populations are still growing.

 

Whatever, Adolf.

 

2) on a worldwide basis, eliminate automobiles, and the internal combustion engine, immediately.

 

Had the automobile not come in to being, cities would not have been designed in such a way as to need an automobile to get from A to B, and walking, bicycling, or mass transit would be far more prevalent and reasonable means of getting around. Remember that GM (and other auto makers as well?) had an interesting habit of buying light rail systems all over the country and then decommissioning them?

 

Obviously, the internal combustion engine has many valuable applications, and eliminating it altogether goes too far. Things like air travel or long-distance trips are not things anyone would give up. Eliminating a great percentage of the short-distance, day-to-day driving, though, would be huge.

 

[ 09-27-2002, 09:37 AM: Message edited by: Dr Flash Amazing ]

[iain]

Good book on the layout of cities based on auto use is "The Old Neighborhood" by Ray Suarez. He has a pretty funny account of trying to go to a baseball game w/o using a car.

[MtnGoat]

"No climate scientist believes that today is warmer than it has ever been (although it may well be the case for the past 120,000 years)."

 

What climate scientists believe is one thing, what is said here, and other less formal places this debate occurs, another. If I have removed the "hottest ever" claim from discussion here, that was the intent.

 

"the second sentence is confusing enough to leave the reader with the message that 2000 years ago global climate was warmer than at present"

 

It was, we've already established the "warmest ever" claims are false.

 

"and that today's warming is entirely due to natural causes similarly to the Chinese example of 2000 years ago."

 

That's what we're discussing here, and from the evidence of the cyclical nature of the global climate, we can see precisely what scientists convinced of warming must prove is not natural.

 

Whatever "inferences" a reader gets from reading the *facts* about variability, from this study and numerous others with similar results, are entirely legitimate because fact is, climate changes all the time, none of us argues that (apparently) and according to you neither do any climate scientists.

 

"And we know this is not true for a number of reasons (climate in China versus global climate and natural variability does not exclude human caused variability)."

 

We do not "know" this is true, else it would be proven and settled. Further, non one here nor in the article is claiming natural variability excludes human caused variabilty. Only that "warmest ever" can be taken off the table as evidence of warming in both professional and informal circles.

 

[ 09-27-2002, 09:58 AM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]

[iain]

2

 

[ 09-27-2002, 09:55 AM: Message edited by: iain ]

[RobBob]

Hey, DFA, if the situation's dire, maybe the heavy cutbacks are warranted. Nobody's ever called me Adolf before...

 

MeatGoat, still haven't gotten the brevity msg, have ya? You might win some supporters if ya just CONDENSE IT!

[MtnGoat]

Not going to go the bite size route except where it makes sense to me, one can always just skip 'em. Is this short enough?

[MtnGoat]

"I think the burden of proof is on us to demonstrate that we are NOT the cause of this problem."

 

Proving a negative had never been a standard of science, for good reason. The burden is fully on proponents to prove it is occurring.