The death of Impartiality

Discussion in 'Environment' started by Big Fitz, Apr 24, 2010.

  1. Big Fitz
    Offline

    Big Fitz User Quit *****

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2009
    Messages:
    16,917
    Thanks Received:
    2,473
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +2,475
    So, I'm chewing through links on the Medieval Warm Period and am getting more and more discouraged. I have been finding it impossible to find sources post 1980 that has not been politicized, an agenda blog or tainted by bad science (Hockey Stick /Hansen-Mann-Jones) one way or another. I just want to get even archeological evidence and I see evidence of people pushing an agenda.

    This may just be me bemoaning the obvious that there are no honest parties in this debate anymore on any side and the truth is lying on no one's side but in the middle telling everyone to stay the hell away from them, it's not shilling for you anymore. Doing a basic search anymore yields as many paid partisans as they do sycophantic blogs, all preaching the same twist, that you can't even trust the papers they tout.

    Can anyone find non-biased, straight science (you know, the kind that doesn't try to get a predisposed result) and or historical evidence that doesn't deliberately ignore contrary evidence?

    This is just friggen ludicrous.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  2. martybegan
    Offline

    martybegan Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2010
    Messages:
    29,495
    Thanks Received:
    4,017
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +11,046
    Good luck. The core of the issue is that even if you had all the data, pure, and unfiltered I'm not sure how it would help. The Earth's climate is just too big of a system, with too many inputs in my opinion to really model with any certainty. I work with Wastewater treatment models, and those are far simpler. Still, they are good tools to determine design parameters but they have to be taken with a grain of salt.

    My primary issue with climate models is that you really only have 100-150 years of reliable direct measurements. All other are anecdotal, tree rings, ice cores, old records using crappy measurements. Trying to model a billion year old climate model on 100-150 of hard data (or even the thousands of years of anecdotal data we have) would be like trying to figure out how humans lived using a 2 second sample of a person's lifespan. If the person was sneezing during that 2 seconds you would assume peoples lives are one big series of sneezes.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  3. westwall
    Online

    westwall USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    41,033
    Thanks Received:
    7,989
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +19,803
    The only reports from officialdom from that era are tax reports that show the agricultural communities were prospering quite well. Additionally there are records from parish priests that describe the life in their parishes that also show a prosperous time. There is some good paleo climate research going on that more and more is proving that the MWP was not a regional occurance as the warmists would have us all believe. I lifted this from the c3headlinesdotcom website for one avenue of research that is going on.

    Hope it helps.

    Cheers


    The Indo-Pacific ocean area represents the warmest volume of water known to exist naturally. Soooo, is that pool of warm water the warmest it's ever been? Is it experiencing the "unprecedented" warmth that alarmists always speak of? Nope, not even close - it's "lukewarm" compared to the Roman and Medieval warming eras. (click on image to enlarge)


    Oppo et al. derived a continuous sea surface temperature (SST) reconstruction from the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool (IPWP), which they describe as "the largest reservoir of warm surface water on the earth and the main source of heat for the global atmosphere."....spans the past two millennia and, as they describe it, "overlaps the instrumental record, enabling both a direct comparison of proxy data to the instrumental record and an evaluation of past changes in the context of twentieth century trends." Reconstructed SSTs were, in their words, "warmest from AD 1000 to AD 1250 and during short periods of first millennium." From the authors' Figure 2b, adapted below, we calculate that the Medieval Warm Period was about 0.4°C warmer than the Current Warm Period
     
  4. Intense
    Offline

    Intense Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2009
    Messages:
    44,909
    Thanks Received:
    5,849
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +5,863
  5. Old Rocks
    Online

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,601
    Thanks Received:
    5,426
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,400
  6. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Thanks Received:
    5,598
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,618
    The problem is that few of us here are QUALIFIED to decide which science is unbiased.

    If you're NOT an expert in the field, how could you tell if you were being manipulated by subtle lies or half truths or outright (but honest) mistakes in the science?

    This is basically why I seldom get involved in this debates about global change. (which I insist ought to be called Global WEIRDING)

    In the first place I can't tell who is right. Can you?

    In the second, (and this is just as important) I doubt that players on either side can really predict long range outcomes based on the data.

    The butterfly effect is a fact (chaos theory) that cannot be denied

    Ignoring that fact (which both sides are basically doing) suggests to me that egos, rather than science, are in play here from both sides of this debate.
     
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2010
  7. Big Fitz
    Offline

    Big Fitz User Quit *****

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2009
    Messages:
    16,917
    Thanks Received:
    2,473
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +2,475
    This, right here, is pretty much the basis I have against any long term predictions. Once you get beyond the next set of trends, you're driving blind in the forest. The wrong decisions and chances of something unknown happening ... they destroy any predictive information you have.

    I look at hurricane maps for a classic example of how badly chaos theory throws our knowledge into a cocked hat every time. The directions diverge instantly and sometimes wider than a 45 degree angle is left within a few hours, let alone a day. How can we then say, with as little information as we have on the nature of our world we know what the weather is going to be in 15 years (usually one set of trends out if not more) 50 years, 100 years, 500 years, 1000 years, 10 millennia out. Although the most honest answer is to split the difference between the predicted extremes, this does not always work either, even when being as honest as possible because every single point changes the parameters of what is to come and you could quickly be outside anything ever dreamed.
     
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2010
  8. konradv
    Offline

    konradv Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    Messages:
    22,574
    Thanks Received:
    2,558
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Baltimore
    Ratings:
    +5,676
     
  9. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,927
    Thanks Received:
    15,706
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +25,069
    This may widen the scope of this discussion, but I see the need, desire and attempt to obtain money as the basis of the problem.

    When this emphasis replaced pride in ones work and ones character, we could no longer trust what someone says or does.

    Max Weber wrote the seminal " The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism" that '“The impulse to acquisition, pursuit of gain, of money, of the greatest possible amount of money..." was outside the goals of capitalism.
    In other words, greed is short term, while the goals capitalism combined with the 'Protestant ethic' were ongoing.

    "The breakup of this 300-year-old consensus on the work ethic began with the cultural protests of the 1960s, which questioned and discarded many traditional American virtues. The roots of this breakup lay in what Daniel Bell described in The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism as the rejection of traditional bourgeois qualities by late-nineteenth-century European artists and intellectuals who sought “to substitute for religion or morality an aesthetic justification of life.” By the 1960s, that modernist tendency had evolved into a credo of self-fulfillment in which “nothing is forbidden, all is to be explored,” Bell wrote."
    Whatever Happened to the Work Ethic? by Steven Malanga, City Journal Summer 2009

    So, why are we surprised to find that scientists, consistent with human nature, buffeted by popular culture, are as greedy as anyone else?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  10. konradv
    Offline

    konradv Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    Messages:
    22,574
    Thanks Received:
    2,558
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Baltimore
    Ratings:
    +5,676
    So, why are we surprised to find that scientists, consistent with human nature, buffeted by popular culture, are as greedy as anyone else?
    --------------------------------------------
    While that may be true, it certainly doesn't add a thing to the AGW debate. This isn't about people, but the logic. CO2 absorbs energy. More CO2, more trapped energy. Therefore, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable. "Ad hominem" criticism of scientists, doesn't do anything to the basic logic.
     

Share This Page