Two Thousand Years of Chinese Climate

[MtnGoat]

how bored must you be, to keep reading these boring threads?

[allthumbs]

You have it wrong. I read the first sentence then try to snap myself out of the daze.

[MtnGoat]

wow. that short term memory loss must make renting movies really easy, just grab anything and wether you've seen it or not it's new all over again!

[allthumbs]

I don't watch movies...I watch sunsets and read.

 

[ 09-25-2002, 06:17 PM: Message edited by: trask ]

[Fence_Sitter]

i think that greenhouse gasses actually decrease the temperature...the real cause of global warming is jerky farts! oh-boy-oberto...corporate bastards!

[allthumbs]

[j_b]

check this out!

 

http://www.co2science.org/journal/2002/v5n39c2.htm

 

do you notice something?

 

so why would MtnGoat not volunteer the link? who is co2science.org exactly?

 

quote:

---

Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide & Global Change [

http://www.CO2science.org]

 

The Center claims to "disseminate factual reports and sound commentary on new developments in the world-wide scientific quest to determine the climatic and biological consequences of the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content." The Center is led by two brothers, Craig and Keith Idso. Their father, Sherwood Idso, is affiliated with the Greening Earth Society [Western Fuel Association]; the Center also shares a board member (Sylvan Wittwer) with GES. Both Idso brothers have been on the Western Fuels payroll at one time or another.

 

Spin: Increased levels of CO2 will help plants, and that's good.

 

Funding: The Center is extremely secretive of its funding sources, stating that it is their policy not to divulge it funders. There is evidence for a strong connection to the Greening Earth Society (ergo Western Fuels Association).

---

found at: http://www.ucsusa.org/index.html

(follow the 'global warming' link then 'prominent skeptic organizations' link.

 

..... the obfuscating goes on ....

[MtnGoat]

I didn't post that link because they were not the source of the report, Geophys letters was. Still my bad, for not posting every one of my references and doing proper attribution.

 

Now to the meat of this angle on the data, the "who pays" fallacy. Science and good practice is independent of who pays. While individual practitioners can and do have other agendas, the winnowing of good process takes it all out in the wash.

 

I'm reading the IPCC report regardless of the fact it is generated by folks whom I suspect of injecting ideology into their science, because looking at their methodology and data will reveal any bias. The C02.org folks present data from a third party that will likewise be reviewed for process and method.

 

Just like the Sierra club presents data it thinks supports it's positions, CO2.org presents the data they think valid. Each side has it's own agenda yet both use data that must pass review in order to be valid. Since the Sierra club thinks it is saving the earth, they present what they feel is beneficial to their viewpoint, since C02.org thinks it's all baloney, as do I (but I am willing to take a look, again), they present theirs.

 

"Who pays" arguments are a diversionary argument designed to minimize the role of the review of good process and actual data. Attack the data if you can and it's process, who supported the work is a non issue that comes out in the wash when inspected for process, method, and repeatability.

 

If we want to waste our time making value judgements about various organization and their agenda instead of using good method to look at their results, all we're doing is arguing about how may CO2 angels can dance on the head of a pin instead of getting on with empirical analysis.

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

There are C02 angels?!

 

They must be very small, to fit more than one of them on the head of a pin!

[j_b]

quote:

---

I didn't post that link because they were not the source of the report

---

no you didn't because you wanted to give yourself and your point of view legitmacy. Do you actually have a subscription to GRL?

 

quote:

---

Now to the meat of this angle on the data, the "who pays" fallacy. Science and good practice is independent of who pays. While individual practitioners can and do have other agendas, the winnowing of good process takes it all out in the wash.

---

we are not talking about the science but on the reporting of it. I have not read the paper but I can already tell you are overreaching on its implications as pointed out by Sayjay. The fact there were warmer times in the past is obvious but it does not mean that current warming is only due to natural forcing.

 

quote:

---

"Who pays" arguments are a diversionary argument designed to minimize the role of the review of good process and actual data. Attack the data if you can and it's process, who supported the work is a non issue that comes out in the wash when inspected for process, method, and repeatability

---

again I have not read the paper (have you?) but I doubt it was published with the intent of refuting the global warming hypothesis. I have no need to be alarmed by their results. It is, however, important to know 'who pays' to interpret the science.

 

quote:

---

If we want to waste our time making value judgements about various organization and their agenda instead of using good method to look at their results

---

Again I doubt the authors have much to do with co2science.org.

'value judgement'? right. The Western Fuel Association tells me that spewing CO2 in the environnment is good and I should not be a little tickled by how self serving it sounds? give me a break, will ya?

[MtnGoat]

"The Western Fuel Association tells me that spewing CO2 in the environnment is good and I should not be a little tickled by how self serving it sounds? give me a break, will ya?"

 

So now you're going to claim organizations that have a point of view and try to support it are self serving? What insight! Can you perhaps find me a group of people for any argument or position who are not self serving?

 

[ 09-26-2002, 11:35 AM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]

[j_b]

quote:

---

So now you're going to claim organizations that have a point of view and try to support it are self serving? What insight! Can you perhaps find me a group of people for any argument or position who are not self serving?

---

this is not really deserving of an answer because this is the usual 'climate scientists are self-serving unless I like what they say'. 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. Your motives and methods are transparent. Again I did not attack the paper (i did not endorse it either, I have not read it, have you?), I only point out the way it is used by oil industry supporters.

[Dave_Schuldt]

Warmer climate = less skiing. THAT SUCKS!!!!!

[dbconlin]

Has anyone seen any of the (numerous) comparisons of prominent mountains, where they show a picture of glacial extent and snow/ice coverage 50 years ago and then today. It's scary and extremely relevant to those of us climbers who so happen to enjoy a little snow and ice.

 

I don't want to get too much into a fight here, and the personal attacks are getting a little carried away, but there's one thing I want to point out, and, no, I don't really have any data to back it up. Here goes: No one is denying that we are in a warming cycle; neither is anyone denying that warming cycles have happened repeatedly during the earth's history and completely naturally/non-anthropogenically (because what is "natural" anyway). But since the industrial revolution and more recently with the invention of the automobile and our increasing dependence on fossil fuels, the warming trend has (apparently) sharply increased. For the speed of glacial retreat, polar ice cap dissolution, and melting of alpine snow- and ice-fields to happen naturally, I find, to be highly unlikely.

 

While I don't claim to have "proved" anything, how can this not be compelling enough evidence?

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

quote:

---

Originally posted by dbconlin:

Has anyone seen any of the (numerous) comparisons of prominent mountains, where they show a picture of glacial extent and snow/ice coverage 50 years ago and then today. It's scary and extremely relevant to those of us climbers who so happen to enjoy a little snow and ice.

 

I don't want to get too much into a fight here, and the personal attacks are getting a little carried away, but there's one thing I want to point out, and, no, I don't really have any data to back it up. Here goes: No one is denying that we are in a warming cycle; neither is anyone denying that warming cycles have happened repeatedly during the earth's history and completely naturally/non-anthropogenically (because what is "natural" anyway). But since the industrial revolution and more recently with the invention of the automobile and our increasing dependence on fossil fuels, the warming trend has (apparently) sharply increased. For the speed of glacial retreat, polar ice cap dissolution, and melting of alpine snow- and ice-fields to happen naturally, I find, to be highly unlikely.

 

While I don't claim to have "proved" anything, how can this not be compelling enough evidence?

---

If you're MtnGoat, it's not compelling evidence until it's been exhaustively verified and cross-referenced. So unless you've got iron-clad documentation, don't bother.

[Fence_Sitter]

warmer climate means that we are climbing rock 365! and there will be a new 5.13b route up everest!

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

Well, the sumbitch better be bolted, dammit.

[Fence_Sitter]

hell yeah man...you and me DFA and our bosch's...we'll have sherpas up there to jsut help us carry all the 1.5 million bolts (one every what? 2 feet or so?)

 

[ 09-26-2002, 02:21 PM: Message edited by: Fence Sitter ]

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

Sounds about right. The Doctor figures, what with the altitude and all, the pitches will have to be about twenty feet long. Say you run it out and make it four bolts per pitch, plus anchors; that'll save some weight.

[Fence_Sitter]

shit man with teh steroids they be puttin in our beef by then...we can run up 5.13 at 28,000

 

 

[ 09-26-2002, 02:28 PM: Message edited by: Fence Sitter ]

[sexual_chocolate]

Damn. Almost 3 hours has gone by since Mtgoat's last post on such a contentious topic. How unlike him, not getting the immediate *last word*.

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

Word is he's replacing the asterisk key on his keyboard which wore out from his *prodigious* overuse thereof.

[vegetablebelay]

The left is getting a little pissy....

[j_b]

quote:

---

If you're MtnGoat, it's not compelling evidence until it's been exhaustively verified and cross-referenced.

---

I wish it were true. For one it does not appear he did too much verifying of the Yang paper he was commenting on before he endorsed it (I mean co2science.org was commenting on). I am still waiting to hear whether he actually read the paper (I asked twice without a response). And two, I doubt it will ever be compelling evidence if it goes against his political agenda.

[MtnGoat]

"I am still waiting to hear whether he actually read the paper (I asked twice without a response)."

 

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?

 

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, if you are going to rag on me for not answering yours. We'll see. Turning away from the innate implications of how you validate a political system you support is something I see often.

 

"And two, I doubt it will ever be compelling evidence if it goes against his political agenda."

 

So basically your approach here to opposition to your beliefs, is slander?

 

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.

 

Presumably if you present evidence for your point of view, and it all represents a similar slant, that's because it's consistent and true, hence your belief in it. When I do it, it's evidence of an agenda I must be trying to fool people with. Presumably, there is no possibility of anyone believing something different from you without hidden reasons of some kind.

 

Have I claimed anyone should not test what I put forth? nope. Have I attacked you personally by making comments about what you "really" want or do, or your agenda? Nope.

 

The tactic here, again, is to play the agenda game, whose agenda where for what reasons, with the implication that the accuser has no agenda or that their viewpoint is the only one that can be held without having an agenda. That's simply false.

 

I'm not sure who granted *your* agenda freedom from being called one, but it doesn't wash with me. If you want to play the agenda game, you must first admit yours poisons your positions as much as any agenda does anyone elses. There is nothing pure and saintly and non-agenda-like by claiming someone else has an agenda, when we all do.

 

I'll be waiting for all the answers, since you're suddenly very hot on responses and all. Lets see it.

 

[ 09-26-2002, 04:03 PM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]