A probabilistic quantification of the anthropogenic component...

They are only irrelevant when you are issuing forth propaganda. When you are pursuing scientific endeavors they are totally relevant.

That's why you ignore them, science isn't important to you...propaganda is.

I suggest you review Scientific Ethics.

Your assertions are without merit, support or relevance.



Trakar- I specifically asked you about your thoughts on Mann's use of the upside down Tiljander proxy. without it Mann08 is only valid to the mid 1600's. likewise for the much vilified Yamal proxy series that was purposely left unupdated because the more complete series does not show the hockeystick uptick. Westwall is correct in questioning your ethics when you unabashedly accept inferior data, inferior methodologies and inferior conclusions simply because they agree with your point of view.

do you agree with the use of the upside down Tiljander series?

do you agree with the continued use of proxy series like Yamal which have updates that have not been included because it weakens the preferred results?

do you agree with methodologies that hide poor validation, such as those typically employed by Michael Mann? or more recently by Gergis?


you constantly claim to be a fervent follower of the scientific method yet you continue to promote papers that have major unresolved flaws even after those flaws have been pointed out.
 
why do you keep hand waving away my legitimate concerns?

it seems that when I ask you about a specific problem you just change the subject.

Unfortunately, the concerns you raise are irrelevent to the issues the thread is discussing. If you wish to discuss science relevant to this thread I will be happy to address and discuss them. If you simply want to continue to try and derail this thread into a discussion of irrelevent blog pseudoscience distortions and politicized confabulations, it shouldn't surprise you that your "problems" are acknowleged for what they are and dismissed.

...if you dont want to discuss the weaknesses of GW 'science', why do you respond to my posts?

I am more than willing to discuss any properly identified and recognized climate science 'weaknesses.' Merely stating that "science is the problem" is not an appropriately identified weakness in mainstream AGW evidences, theories or understandings. IOW, I've no problem discussing scientific interpretation, perspective, or error within and through the accepted and generally understood mainstream framework of scientific principle, theory and history. But I'm not interested in exploring the potential implications of every uncompellingly supported conspiraboggle-distraction that politically oriented extremist blogs dream up, at least not in threads that I create to discuss other issues.

If there are specific issues that you wish to discuss with me, start a thread on those issues. If you demonstrate the desire and capacity to maintain a mature level of considered discussion, I will, as my history affirms, be happy to enjoin that discussion.





They are only irrelevant when you are issuing forth propaganda. When you are pursuing scientific endeavors they are totally relevant.

That's why you ignore them, science isn't important to you...propaganda is.

I suggest you review Scientific Ethics.

Now Walleyes, how many years have I asked when you are going to present a paper refuting what is being presented at the AGU by real scientists? You keep saying you have proof that all of these scientists are frauds, yet you never present that proof here or at the Fall Conferance.
 
Not what I stated or believe, please try to address the discussion at hand, not the strawman distractions and irrelevancies you seem to prefer to talk about.




Again, not what I've stated, and irrelevant to the issue at hand. Science is refuted or corrected by science, not political blogosphere ramblings, common-nonsense anecdotes or pseudoscience conspiracy mythos. Good science is always open-arm welcome in science journals provided it presents good evidences, solid methodology and repeatable results. If you cannot present such in support of your contentions there is a good reason for that lacking. You are welcome to resort to black helicopter and tin-foil hat conspiracies to explain away such, but this is not science, and is not compelling.



why do you keep hand waving away my legitimate concerns?

it seems that when I ask you about a specific problem you just change the subject.

I brought up Mann08 and the use of upside down Tiljander. it also used one of the other famously corrupt tree ring series. without the inclusion of one or the other of these controversial proxies there is no significance that can be derived from the reconstruction. do you consider this 'good evidence, solid methodology and repeatable results'?

I brought up the suspicious inclusion of unpublished papers in the IPCC reports and you simply ignore it. if you dont want to discuss the weaknesses of GW 'science', why do you respond to my posts?

Ian, there have been many, many studies done since the original Mann study. Using many, many differant proxies. All have confirmed his original study and refined it. Mistakes were made along the way and corrected. None of the mistakes changed the basic shape of the graph, and all confirmed that it is now warmer than it has been in at least 1600 years, and probably longer than that.

This has been linked to many times by myself and others. You don't like what the scientists have to say, your problem. Just don't try that gambit of stating that they are not saying it, or that most scientists disagree with the conclusions that Mann stated, when the truth is exactly the opposite.



Old Rocks- the last time we discussed this you put up Mann08 as proof but then ignored my rebuttal statements. even Gavin Schmidt of Real Climate admitted that Mann08 could not be validated beyond ~1650 without Yamal and Tiljander. so your claim of 1600 years is total BS. but you will run away only to make the same claim in some future thread.
 
Climate in northern Europe reconstructed for the past 2,000 years: Cooling trend calculated precisely for the first time

The international research team used these density measurements from sub-fossil pine trees in northern Scandinavia to create a sequence reaching back to 138 BC. The density measurements correlate closely with the summer temperatures in this area on the edge of the Nordic taiga; the researchers were thus able to create a temperature reconstruction of unprecedented quality. The reconstruction provides a high-resolution representation of temperature patterns in the Roman and Medieval Warm periods, but also shows the cold phases that occurred during the Migration Period and the later Little Ice Age.

In addition to the cold and warm phases, the new climate curve also exhibits a phenomenon that was not expected in this form. For the first time, researchers have now been able to use the data derived from tree-rings to precisely calculate a much longer-term cooling trend that has been playing out over the past 2,000 years. Their findings demonstrate that this trend involves a cooling of -0.3°C per millennium due to gradual changes to the position of the sun and an increase in the distance between the Earth and the sun.

"This figure we calculated may not seem particularly significant," says Esper, "however, it is also not negligible when compared to global warming, which up to now has been less than 1°C. Our results suggest that the large-scale climate reconstruction shown by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) likely underestimate this long-term cooling trend over the past few millennia."


So the evidence from this region is for a Milankovic cooling of about 0.6 C in the last 2000 years. Reversed completely in the space of 150 years. Mann validated.
 
They are only irrelevant when you are issuing forth propaganda. When you are pursuing scientific endeavors they are totally relevant.

That's why you ignore them, science isn't important to you...propaganda is.

I suggest you review Scientific Ethics.

Your assertions are without merit, support or relevance.




Really? Science deals in facts not Truth. Truth and morality is the realm of religion. Below are just TWO of the hundreds of blogs and other internet postings dealing with the "morality" of global warming.



re·li·gion (r-ljn) KEY

NOUN:


Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

IDIOM:
get religion Informal
To become religious or devout.
To resolve to end one's immoral behavior.




A Moral Climate: The Ethics of Global Warming — Earth Ministry

http://greenplanetethics.com/wordpress/ethics-of-solar-power-and-global-warming/
 
The ever boring "We're all gonna die" global warming thread.

I said it before I'll say it again

If the earth is a few degrees warmer nothing is going to happen.
 
Unfortunately, the concerns you raise are irrelevent to the issues the thread is discussing. If you wish to discuss science relevant to this thread I will be happy to address and discuss them. If you simply want to continue to try and derail this thread into a discussion of irrelevent blog pseudoscience distortions and politicized confabulations, it shouldn't surprise you that your "problems" are acknowleged for what they are and dismissed.



I am more than willing to discuss any properly identified and recognized climate science 'weaknesses.' Merely stating that "science is the problem" is not an appropriately identified weakness in mainstream AGW evidences, theories or understandings. IOW, I've no problem discussing scientific interpretation, perspective, or error within and through the accepted and generally understood mainstream framework of scientific principle, theory and history. But I'm not interested in exploring the potential implications of every uncompellingly supported conspiraboggle-distraction that politically oriented extremist blogs dream up, at least not in threads that I create to discuss other issues.

If there are specific issues that you wish to discuss with me, start a thread on those issues. If you demonstrate the desire and capacity to maintain a mature level of considered discussion, I will, as my history affirms, be happy to enjoin that discussion.





They are only irrelevant when you are issuing forth propaganda. When you are pursuing scientific endeavors they are totally relevant.

That's why you ignore them, science isn't important to you...propaganda is.

I suggest you review Scientific Ethics.

Now Walleyes, how many years have I asked when you are going to present a paper refuting what is being presented at the AGU by real scientists? You keep saying you have proof that all of these scientists are frauds, yet you never present that proof here or at the Fall Conferance.





Well, olfraud if you knew anything about how the AGU (and all other scientific groups for that matter) are run you would know that they CHOOSE who gets to present at the meetings. If they don't like your POV they don't let you speak.
 
Well, olfraud if you knew anything about how the AGU (and all other scientific groups for that matter) are run you would know that they CHOOSE who gets to present at the meetings. If they don't like your POV they don't let you speak.

Please provide evidence that any solid, field relevant, journal published or submitted, science perspective, has ever been rejected from presentation at the annual AGU conference. As an additional point of curiosity, how do you square this personal opinion of yours with the fact that several climate contrarians/deniers (Lindzen, Michaels, etc.) have presented lectures at previous AGU conferences?
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top