Global warming crap for aaron

I wanted to start off by posting recently published paper which counters the claim that climate change is either not happening, or its not caused by man.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summ.../5876/595?rss=1

This information is published in a peer reviewed journal.

This doesnt sound the lest bit professional. IF he wants to be taken seriously, why not simply support his claims with research instead of resorting to personal attacks.

There is also no evidence to prove that anyone steered grants, or that grants swayed the research. I would be willing to be that he uses sources all the time that are funded by government grants, but why doesnt he challenge those? The bias here is obvious.

Any proof?

This guy just sounds bitter.

Next he plays the graph game. He shows one graph that shows about a 2 degree variance over a couple hundred years (Mann et. al) he then shows the bigger geological record of temp. variance.

This was done for a reason, its mean to confuse the less than critical thinking people. Its meant to make them think "its warmed naturally before, so the warming now must also be natural"

Also, he makes quite the error when talking about greenland. This further shows he really is only attempting to push an agenda because hes simply repeating talking points which are inaccurate.

The vikings never established sucessful farms in any sense of the word. The living was harsh, and the growing season short. It was just like trying to have agriculture in northern alaska. In addition, this location was isolated to 2 fjords.

Proof?

Hes making such an extrapolation from a news article alone? Hardly scientific.

I also like the southern hemisphere part because the climate change theory predicts much of the southern hemisphere will get colder since most of earths landmass is located in the north. Guess they dont teach that in meteorology school.

Right after this, he posts a table from nasa without any sort of link or hint to where the data came from. Not only is this scientifically dishonest, its quite suspicious.

Im only on page 6 and so far Ive seen enough to say this guy is no professional at all. He makes factual errors, commits logical fallacies and most of all, doesnt cite his sources.

This should lead to an automatic dismissal of all his claims.

Since the author wants to use nasa, read this nasa page:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

I tend to agree with Jimbo, from what little part of this discussion I've stumbled upon. There does seem to be some political motives on the part of that person.

Agreed

Good point, yet that confirms what he is arguing. I have experienced the same thing in academia... it's rampant. In order to get money, you HAVE to make it seem like your research is big and important. Where funds are competitive, the drive to do so is all the more compelling. Science is particularly vulnerable since (A) research is expensive and (B ) you do have a better chance of promising pie in the sky solutions or threatening doom and gloom through science... either one brings the cash. Now his evidence is based on anecdote and generalizations, but it is not far-fetched. If I've experienced the phenomenon in the history department, I refuse to believe it doesn't exist in the physical sciences.

And again, the fact that Coleman may do the same thing is irrelevant, unless of course you're arguing that he is twisting the facts here just so that he can get grant money to undermine climate change research--which would be an interesting scam as well...

Oh wait, so you doubt this?

Well, from his perspective, I can understand. If every decade there is a new scam crisis, it gets friggin' old after a while (this Coleman guy looks like he's old enough to kick his bucket soon)

Well hold on there sly... you're being shifty with the words. No one is concluding that the warming trend MUST be natural. But we are asking the question... MIGHT IT BE NATURAL? Isn't this a safe question? Are people who ask this question "less than critical thinking people?" I would argue those that ask this question are the very definition of critical thinking people. How do we know how many members of the "anthropogenic climate change consensus" are not just sheep who blindly follow... and these people we certainly cannot call "critical thinking people!"

Proof? This becomes a matter of difficulty for both sides, but especially yours. Let's assume you are correct in your characterization of the Viking settlements (I have no idea one way or the other). The fact of the matter is that we are likely dependent on archaeological evidence to verify. Often this evidence has been destroyed, lost, movied, or possibly covered in ice. Assuming that there territorial influence was indeed small as you say, that does not allow us to conclude that they had not settled more extensively. We just don't have the evidence. THe most interesting task, however, would be to check Coleman's evidence here. If there is indeed only existing evidence to support a small presence in Greenland, then we can rather safely conclude that Coleman abuses the truth. But if he has evidence of greater presence in Greenland, proof that is positive proof, you're going to look pretty silly, eh?

No, I think you misread them. Here he is trying to be clever (you have to remember that his paper was written as much to entertain as to inform/persuade). Of course this is a flaw with the paper. I recognize that. Yet on the other hand, it is not fatal. It's a tactic to maintain attention, not necessarily to distract fromt he science.

This is easily the most significant flaw of his essays; I agree. But let's not forget that we are guilty of hte same thing. Your characterization of the Vikings, for example, was uncited.



Let me get to MY point... my major concern is that this climate change may very likely be natural.... may include periods of warming and cooling... if there is one point in Coleman's papers that resonates with me, it's that the sun is by far the most volatile source of energy with the Earth's sphere of influence. A small change in the sun would be more devastating that a major change in human activity. Are we willing to risk economic growth... are we willing to risk rescuing people from poverty... for the chance that we are not even cauisng climate change.... that there is nothing we can do to hold it back? I don't like the risk... I want the questions and answers to come before solutions (no more disasters like the Ethanol Bust)

If articles like these are the basis for your conclusion, they your conclusion is logically flawed.

Proof?

Do you not think droughts, argicultural failure, flooding, more storms will not also risk economical growth?

Climate change can create more poverty

Flawed conclusion. If you used reliable sources your conclusion would not be the same

Then listen more to the right people.

The "right" people might very well be the same jerks who recommended ethanol in the first place... the "right" people are everywhere... EVERYONE thinks he is right. It's our job to sift....


As for the proof about changes in the sun, are you really serious? Please clarify... do you mean to suggest that small changes in the sun would have no impact on climates on earth? Small impact? What? What are we talking about?

As you already know, we are sure that the Earth has encountered drastic changes in the past--over and over again--long before humans ever pushed automobiles off hte assembly line, long before humans ever even existed. And those climate changes were drastic. I sure hope you don't need proof of THIS! Now what was the source of those climate change... not all of them come from the sun, I know. But some of them must have. My geography professor, whose expertise is in studying glaciers, says that glaciation cycles are far too regular to be consistenly attributable to anything other than "heliopogenic" forces (I've made up this word). It could be the shifts in the Earth's orbits that regularly bring the earth closer and further away to the sun. It could be internal forces within the sun. There are any host of answers. In all cases, the changes produced drastic effects, were natural, were unavoidable, related to the sun, etc.

So is the sun a major factor in climatic changes on planet earth? YES... don't tell me no! We have to research this. the scientists can still request grant money if their grubby little hands need to see some green (joking here, I respect both scientists and money).

Is the sun a likely factor in the current climate changes? This is where we can argue. I think there is some evidence that it is. Recent news and studies have been noting that Mars is experiencing climate change right now (here is the first random study I have about climate change on Mars... gathered in about 1 minute)

James, I would like you to conduct your rebuttal by including answers to all of the following questions somewhere in your response
(1) Do you agree or disagree that Mars is experiecing significant climate change?
(2) Is the climate change natural or anthropogenic?
(2b) On a scale from 1-10, how likely is the sun involved in whatever may (or may not) be happening on Mars?
(3) Is there any connection between the climate change on Earth and the climate change on Mars?
(4) What can conditions on Mars inform us about shared conditions and shared future for planet Earth?


I'll await your response before proceeding... in the meantime, I'm going off to write a heartwrenching story about how there are no polar bears on Mars.

You're avoiding the point... and you know it...

OF COURSE droughts, agricultural failure, flooding, more storms, etc will risk economic growth. They could not only devastate economic growth, they could devastate the entire human population. But STAY FOCUSED... the question is whether humans are to blame for climate changes that would instigate these disasters or whether nature is yet again going through another unstoppable moodswing. The question is, can we do anything about this? Can we stop it? Can we mitigate it?

If the answer is no--IF the answer is no--then we don't need to destroy our economy in advance of natural changes that will do the job for us. If, let's say 20 years from now, we realize that the Sun is going through a period of unavoidable, devastating menopause and the climate has destroyed half the population, we're going to be pretty pissed off that Al Gore's unnecessary "let's go backward campaign" killed the other 49%! (Guarantee Al Gore is part of the 1% that survives)

But all of this is just a hypothetical distraction. We need to answer the big question first before we start to tread some of the distant paths you are beginning to explore... Stay focused James...

Incorrect. We do not have sufficient knowledge to judge this stuff for ourselves. This is why we have the peer review process. Why do you avoid this so much, and why do you fail to ever post actual peer reviewed studies?

Im simply asking for proof to your claim.

People have been dying from diseases for pretty much forever. Now, does this mean every disease has the same cause? No. So we simply can sit back and point at the sun just because it may have caused such changes in the past.

I also think its insulting to think that all the climatologists out there didnt somehow think of this. If you looked at the peer reviewed data, you would see this being taken care of. How about researching "the other side" yourself instead of making me do it for you. you have been biased about this ever since the beginning and you were even doubting you professor, who works in the field with this shit.

Once again, all you read is contrarian articles. These people make it seem like the scientists all somehow FORGOT about the sun. This isnt the case.

read it all yourself here

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...-mars/#more-192

hmmm... interesting....


And one little nugget that you shall find interesting (gleaned from your source)

This person appears to be thorough and refrains from blitzing his way to conclusions... this person speaks my language!

Interesting? Is that all you have to say?

And im not sure of your actual point on the other piece.

It was interesting. Your guy seems a little bitter and haughty too, but he's pretty thorough. And he's pretty convincing from I've read so far.

Do I read peer reviewed journals? No... don't have the time. Student-teaching has kept me too busy even to take a shit some days. And in a couple weeks I'm going to lose all my library subscriptions to scholarly databases.

So I will have to rely on more accessible sources--like www.rushlimbaugh.com--for my information about global warming... for the information that I will feed my students... hahahaahahaha!!!!

Kidding of course. Back on track, I don't know what to think. I still believe that it is hard to prove this causal relationship. Are there any good studied that offer a predictive model? Ones that say, for example, "when CO2 emissions increase by X% over Y years, then global temperatures increase Z% and ocean levels rise by Q%? Observation-based correlations can be manipulated... predictions are much more convincing.

By the way, I got a private message from Funfsinn today... with a simple message, "Send to James" and a link to this article http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/200805...DjgUP5IUoEPLBIF. Aaron has probably watching this conversation--either on facebook or here at realspeech. Aaron, since you're probably reading this right now, why not just add your input?!?!

By the way, why was real speech down for so long and now it is miraculously back just as we left it a year ago???? Was it really down, or did you just want it gone so that you didn't have this time suck (that's what this place is, a guilty pleasure kind of time suck)? Why o why?

You dont have to read entire journals, but just stop reading shit by people who are unpublished and not reviewed in the field.

Argument to incredulity.

Why do you not doubt the many areas of physics that are far more debatable and controversial than this? Its simply a matter of politics. People dont want to think their actions have consequences. Thats the only reason this is even in the news.

So you think the only valid data are ones that fit your model? Science doesnt work like that aaron. Scientists know what is valid and what isnt. The dont rely on models by bystandards.

He can send it himself

This one was never down, its just fizzled out. The other one is still fubar. z13.invisionfree.com/real_speech

Well, I suppose... but it is a general standard within the sciences that any credible model should be able to both explain and predict... thus my request is hardly unreasonable


Is Aaron Funfsinn able to register for his own account here?

Predict, given nothing changes. But the weather is always changing, so it would be hard. We already predict an increase in temps, which we are seeing. I am not sure if its possible to make a model as accurate as what you are asking for, however there are models currently predicting temp and ocean level increases, im not sure if they are directly related to co2 concentration or not.

He should be able to register, again.