Real evidnce against AGW

[Bern80]

I heard this guy on the radio last Friday. He Probably gave the most convincing argument I've heard yet opposing man made global warming. The link is to a paper he wrote on the subject. Be warned it is lenghty and deep. Of interest however are his problems with the vaunted IPCC....
APS Physics | FPS | Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered

You will note the opening paragraph from APS stating the paper was not peer-reviewed. To give some an idea of the politics behind this issue, read the following link......

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/sppi_press_release_monckton_paper_peer_reviewed.html

 

[Chris]

Quit denying climate change
Saturday, July 26, 2008 The Oregonian
David Reinhard is correct ("The climate-change debate heats up," July 24). There is not a consensus on global warming -- there is an overwhelming consensus. Every single scientific society states that global warming is happening, we are already feeling damage from the resultant climate change, and the burning of fossil fuels is the primary cause of this warming.

The publication of Christopher Monckton's paper in an online newsletter of one of 39 units of the American Physical Society Forum on Physics and Society is hardly a break in scientific ranks.

The introduction to that paper states that Monckton is not a scientist but an economist. And his article was not peer-reviewed, for had it been, it would have never been published.

There were also a number of other nonsensical statements in Reinhard's essay. The role that carbon dioxide plays in the temperature regulation of the atmosphere was described over a century ago by Svante Arrhenius of Sweden.

The science of the people who are concerned about global warming has been repeatedly shown to be correct. In fact, there are far more scientists stating that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change understated the effects and speed of the warming than are stating that the report was overly alarmist.

RAYMOND HARVEY North Portland


Article doesn't hold up


After reading David Reinhard's July 24 opinion piece, I visited the Web site of the American Physical Society (APS Physics | APS Home), the apparent source of dissenting opinions regarding the scientific consensus about humanity's contribution to global warming.

This is what I found: "American Physical Society (APS) today reaffirmed its position on climate change issued last November. 'Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.'

" . . . APS is reaffirming its policy on global warming because an article at odds with the official APS position recently appeared in an online newsletter of the APS Forum on Physics and Society, one of 39 units of APS. This newsletter is not a scientific journal of the APS, and it is not peer reviewed.

Quit denying climate change - OregonLive.com

 

[CharlestonChad]

so was it ever officially peer reviewed?

 

[Chris]

so was it ever officially peer reviewed?

No.

 

[CharlestonChad]

No.

If you're right then I won't waste my time reading it.

 

[Bern80]

If you're right then I won't waste my time reading it.

If you read the links, it was peer reviewed. Either he is lieing and went to great lengths of deceipt to give the indication that it was peer reviewed or what he is saying about the APS President haveing an agenda is true. Of course you two true believes would never believe the latter.

 

[Ravi]

It sounds like his idea of peer review is a bunch of people posting comments online. I'm pretty sure the scientific community has a different definition of peer review.

What purpose does it serve for Monckton to lie like this?

 

[TopGunna]

"Peer review"? Isn't science about trying to replicate results to test hypotheses?

 

[dilloduck]

"Peer review"? Isn't science about trying to replicate results to test hypotheses?

It used to be---now it's as political as everything else. They gotta go for that research money, you know.

 

[Bern80]

It sounds like his idea of peer review is a bunch of people posting comments online. I'm pretty sure the scientific community has a different definition of peer review.

What purpose does it serve for Monckton to lie like this?

That's the million dollar question. He sure went to some great lengths if he's lieing. He wrote a paper. Added 3000 words of clarification from what would have to be fake reviews. And wrote a letter to the president of the APS. From listening to him speak I have no reason to believe he's lieing. The facts that I understand in his paper are not really in contention. We have indeed experienced no warming in the last 7-10 years.

 

[Bern80]

If you're right then I won't waste my time reading it.

He's wrong. This is the refutation I expected of course. When people like Fred Singer or Monckton present oppossing veiws with actual science and hard evidence that flys in the face of your current belief you attempt to make up some asinine reason as to why the source is not credible, because you really can't refute the actual evidence.

 

[editec]

The strong correlation between the rising amount of CO2 in the atmosphere in the last 150 years; coupled with the same correlation to the amount of CO2 that mankind has been slowing dumping into our atmosphere at the same time; PLUS the correlation of those two factors to the rising global temperatures in the last 150 years, does make a rather convincing argument that mankind's industrial activity and reliance on carbon based machines is at least partially the explanation for global warming.

I am open to arguments which refute this theory, but to date nobody has really made an argument which entirely negates it.

I would dearly love to discover that the manmade global problem theory is entirely wrong, (I like living in a heated home and driving a car as much as the next guy) but as yet I am unconvinced that one can completely dismiss that theory.

 

[Bern80]

The strong correlation between the rising amount of CO2 in the atmosphere in the last 150 years; coupled with the same correlation to the amount of CO2 that mankind has been slowing dumping into our atmosphere at the same time; PLUS the correlation of those two factors to the rising global temperatures in the last 150 years, does make a rather convincing argument that mankind's industrial activity and reliance on carbon based machines is at least partially the explanation for global warming.

I am open to arguments which refute this theory, but to date nobody has really made an argument which entirely negates it.

I would dearly love to discover that the manmade global problem theory is entirely wrong, (I like living in a heated home and driving a car as much as the next guy) but as yet I am unconvinced that one can completely dismiss that theory.

What is so convincing aboout the man made theory? Surely you don't mean to suggest that two things happening at the same time is a scientifically convincing argument.

If that were the case then the fact that solar activity was also high during the same period should be equally convincing.

Co2 is a trace gas in the atmosphere, it makes up .0003% of the atmosphere so even if we have increased by third or half, that's less than a thousandth increase to the total atmosphere. And you are convinced to be the main drive in the temp increase, (which btw hasn;t increased in the last 7-10 years, I'd love to see the model that predicted that.)

Here is a little more about big bad CO2

NCPA - BA #256 - Who's Afraid of CO2?

Convincing?

What is so convincing about a movements spokesperson who refuses to debate the issue?

What is so convincing about a UN panel (the IPCC) that has been shown on record to have mislead people in their report?

 

[TopGunna]

What is so convincing aboout the man made theory? Surely you don't mean to suggest that two things happening at the same time is a scientifically convincing argument.

If that were the case then the fact that solar activity was also high during the same period should be equally convincing.

Co2 is a trace gas in the atmosphere, it makes up .03% of the atmosphere so even if we have increased by third or half, that's less than a thousandth increase to the total atmosphere. And you are convinced to be the main drive in the temp increase, (which btw hasn;t increased in the last 7-10 years, I'd love to see the model that predicted that.)

Yeah, it really is overly simplified. It's analogous to saying that drinking milk helps humans grow taller, therefore a tall person who drinks milk can attribute their height entirely to their milk consumption. But things like genetics, sleep patterns, other diet and lifestyle choices all influence height. To conclude that milk consumption is the cause simply because they move the same direction is extremely poor science, but that's as far as the AGW hypothesis goes.

Further compounding the problem is the fact that global temperatures are a function of THOUSANDS of variables, many of which are unknown or difficult to measure. Human height is a much more bounded problem (after all, no amount of milk-drinking will make you 10 feet tall), but we still can't predict with any accuracy how tall someone will be as a function of their milk consumption. That's the real fallacy in logic, IMHO.

 

[Ravi]

Yeah, it really is overly simplified. It's analogous to saying that drinking milk helps humans grow taller, therefore a tall person who drinks milk can attribute their height entirely to their milk consumption. But things like genetics, sleep patterns, other diet and lifestyle choices all influence height. To conclude that milk consumption is the cause simply because they move the same direction is extremely poor science, but that's as far as the AGW hypothesis goes.

Further compounding the problem is the fact that global temperatures are a function of THOUSANDS of variables, many of which are unknown or difficult to measure. Human height is a much more bounded problem (after all, no amount of milk-drinking will make you 10 feet tall), but we still can't predict with any accuracy how tall someone will be as a function of their milk consumption. That's the real fallacy in logic, IMHO.

But you might be able to predict someone's height by their ancestors' milk consumption.

 

[TopGunna]

But you might be able to predict someone's height by their ancestors' milk consumption.

Well, not with any real accuracy. I predict you are somewhere between 5 and 7 feet tall, and I've never met you.

Also, keep in mind that how much milk my dad drank as a kid in completely independent of how much milk I drink. You can't walk into a doctor's office with your newborn and say "I'm 6'1", I drank 3 glasses of milk a day growing up - my wife is 5'4", drank 2 glasses of milk growing up - how tall will my baby grow?"

Even then, you're bringing in another variable (genetics) which makes it more difficult to tease out the percentage of height tied to milk consumption.

 

[AllieBaba]

Honestly, Ravi. If you could predict a person's height by milk consumption, a person could guess my height at around 8' tall.

 

[AllieBaba]

And...I'm not 8' tall, btw.

 

[Ravi]

Well, not with any real accuracy. I predict you are somewhere between 5 and 7 feet tall, and I've never met you.

Also, keep in mind that how much milk my dad drank as a kid in completely independent of how much milk I drink. You can't walk into a doctor's office with your newborn and say "I'm 6'1", I drank 3 glasses of milk a day growing up - my wife is 5'4", drank 2 glasses of milk growing up - how tall will my baby grow?"

Even then, you're bringing in another variable (genetics) which makes it more difficult to tease out the percentage of height tied to milk consumption.

When my kids were little the doctors did predict what height they would grow to, based on what height they were at that age and the heights of me and my husband (IIFC). So while the parent's milk consumption might not be an indicator, the milk consumption of generations may be an indicator. Which is where genetics comes into play.

 

[Ravi]

Honestly, Ravi. If you could predict a person's height by milk consumption, a person could guess my height at around 8' tall.

But Allie, aren't you a cow?