Saintsreport.com Forums
home Steve Gleasons Website
Saints Report News Saints Super Forum Everything Else Board Political Discussion Board Fantasy Football Board Tech Board SaintsReport Affiliate Merchandise Gameday Board Behind the Levee New Orleans Hornets Board Twitter Outdoor Boards Video Games Board Smack Board Music Board College Sports Board SR Live Chat Room Contribute to our site costs Become a subscribing SR member

Do you want to remove the ads? Support the site by becoming a subscribing member.


Go Back   New Orleans Saints - Saints Report - Message Boards > GENERAL > Political Discussion Board

Old 05-11-2010, 04:58 PM   #76
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 10,512
mister pc is a true Saintmister pc is a true Saintmister pc is a true Saintmister pc is a true Saint
mister pc is a true Saintmister pc is a true Saintmister pc is a true Saintmister pc is a true Saintmister pc is a true Saintmister pc is a true Saintmister pc is a true Saintmister pc is a true Saint
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjcouvi View Post
No, that's not what I wrote. I believe that any law that would have a significant positive impact on the environment would be so intrusive that it would likely lead to violent uprising and perhaps even war. A few minor taxes on fossil fuels and subsidies for alternative energy won't be inspiration enough for violence--but it will also do little to nothing for the environment.
i guess it depends on your definition of significant. perhaps i misunderstood, but it seemed to me that you were basically saying any measures the government takes to even the playing field between renewable energy and fossil fuel will result in a violent uprising. It seemed like you identified two scenarios: complete government inaction (the "peaceful" way) or any government intervention (resulting in war and instability).


Quote:
I don't want to maintain a fossil fuel based economy. I don't like oil having power over our national interests. But a couple subsidies and taxes here and there aren't going to change that. Making the cost truly prohibitive is the only way to significantly dampen the use of fossil fuels. As I said before, I believe that this would require unprecedented cooperation between governments worldwide (not going to happen anytime soon) along with economic crisis inducing taxes and regulations.
subsidies and taxes can definitely have an impact. one example is we can subsidize hybrid technology on cars so the hybrid model is the same price as the non-hybrid model. Provide tax credits for businesses that use renewable energy. Tax companies that produce large amounts of pollution. its an idea pretty similar to cap and trade. fossil fuel becomes more expensive, renewable becomes cheaper. Aggressively fund R & D for renewable energy like we did during the race to put a man on the moon. There are many ways government actions can catalyze the shift to renewable energy without causing a breakdown of society.



Quote:
Nope, I never said that.




Again, if we want government regulation to help fix the environment it would have to be done in a way that prevents a significant portion of people from using fossil fuels. This would have an enormous impact on the transportation and production of goods and services (most notably food). This has the potential to cause so much more economic hardship and human suffering than anything that pollution may bring about.




I agree. Our transition to alternative energy would be far less painful if we rid the oil companies of their subsidies.



I don't understand the hostility. You seem to be afraid of a sensible solution to peace and prosperity.

May The Free Market bless your soul.
lol, you're all right dude. not trying to be hostile i just have difficulty when smart people take a position that i think is unreasonable. its a false premise to say that the only way government could facilitate a transition to domestic energy is by taking measures that will cripple the economy and cause a civil war. the free market cannot be entrusted to plan ahead for the nation's best interests. its not sentient or infallible. The free market is what brought us to the brink of an economic meltdown. it doesnt care about energy independence either. Somethings actually need to be planned out to be achieved. sometimes you have to put intention and action into seeing the results rather than sitting back and saying "the free market will sort it all out". i apologize if my tone was not as tactful as it should have been, just have a strong disagreement here.
mister pc is offline Reply With Quote


0 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
Old 05-11-2010, 07:05 PM   #77
For Yorkshire man
 
AndyG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Leeds, UK
Age: 55
Posts: 4,754
AndyG 50K Burger ClubAndyG 50K Burger ClubAndyG 50K Burger ClubAndyG 50K Burger ClubAndyG 50K Burger Club
AndyG 50K Burger ClubAndyG 50K Burger ClubAndyG 50K Burger ClubAndyG 50K Burger ClubAndyG 50K Burger ClubAndyG 50K Burger ClubAndyG 50K Burger ClubAndyG 50K Burger ClubAndyG 50K Burger ClubAndyG 50K Burger ClubAndyG 50K Burger ClubAndyG 50K Burger ClubAndyG 50K Burger Club
Quote:
Originally Posted by bergeaux View Post
Here ya go. A scientific paper that confirms that the lack of understanding of all factors means that climate models are not accurate.

"On the Accuracy with which the Lower Boundary Conditions can be
Determined in Numerical Models of the Atmosphere"

A scientific paper written by Gerhard Kramm and Ralph Dlugi, both academics and scientists.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0911/0911.2286.pdf

From the abstract:



I will assume that these two academic scientist's motives and scientific credentials will be attacked. But of course, if the same is done of the pro-AGW scientists, we are "not educated enough" to question them.

Even though A LOT more money is at stake in saying that global warming is real than saying it's not. A climate alarmist will get money, a climate realist will be marginalized. But don't look at that, look at what the pro-AGW people say! It's all about the money only if it's against their stance.
Ok, I'll play - it's the least I can do after criticizing posters various for not posting anything of substance.

Looking at the quote you provided from the abstract, my first question was 'sufficient degree of accuracy for what purpose?' so I opened the paper to try and find out.

The first thing I notice is that there is no publication title or header, which leads me to think it might not be a published paper. Googling the title turns up a couple of links, the first of which is at Cornell's archive:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0911.2286

This reveals the paper was submitted in Dec 2009, but there's no reference to it being published, so at this point I don't think it's a reviewed or published paper.

A look at the complete abstract supports this hypothesis:

Quote:
Since the prediction of climate is mainly considered as a prediction of second kind, it is indispensable to assess the accuracy with which these boundary conditions can be determined so that we can find a reasonable answer, whether climate is predictable with a sufficient degree of accuracy or not. Therefore, our contribution is mainly focused on the accuracy with which the fluxes of sensible heat and water vapor, required for predicting the lower boundary conditions in numerical models of the atmosphere using the coupled set of energy and water flux balance equations for the Earth’s surface, can be determined. The parameterization schemes for the interfacial sublayer in the immediate vicinity of the Earth’s surface and for the fully turbulent layer above presented and discussed here document that an appreciable degree of uncertainty exists. It is shown that the great uncertainty inherent in the universal functions of the Monin-Obukhov similarity laws on which the parameterization schemes for the fully turbulent atmospheric surface layer are based is reflected by the considerable scatter in the results of sophisticated field campaigns. This uncertainty affects also the results for the gradient-Richardson number, the turbulent Prandtl number, Prt , and the turbulent Schmidt number, Sc t ,q , (and the turbulent Lewis-Semenov number, LSt ,q ) for water vapor used in such parameterization schemes. It is argued that the inherent uncertainty prevents that climate is predictable with a sufficient degree of accuracy.
The English is terribly mangled, but that's not unusual in my experience - many journals require papers to be submitted in English, and for many authors English is not their first language. What I would expect is that the authors would get someone to tidy it up a bit before submission - I did just that for a fellow student's paper once. I'd expect this one to be rejected on those grounds alone, whatever it's other merits. This suggests a certain lack of savoir faire on the part of the authors, which does them no credit.

I can't tell from the abstract whether the accuracy of climate predictability being evaluated is in the context of, for example, global warming, short-range weather forecasting, long-range weather forecasting, or something else entirely.

I do recall there is a famous paper "Deterministic Non-Periodic Flow" by Edward Lorentz (1963), describing a numerical model of cellular convection, which was one of the first published examples of chaos theory, though this was not appreciated at the time. All the solutions to the model were unstable and non-periodic. The last line of the paper's abstract (I looked it up) is "The feasibility of long-range weather prediction is examined in the light of these results.". He concluded that precise long-term weather forecasts were impossible.

It struck me that your quote would fit Lorentz's conclusions too, but Lorentz says nothing about climate change. In fact, while detailed forecasting (which way will the wind blow at the Superdome, noon, next week) is completely impossible, useful predictions can be made - like my cricket match today being rained off.

In other words, without knowing what the intended purpose is, there's no point in reading further, as it's impossible to say whether it's even relevant.

As you have introduced this paper, I assume you feel it supports your case. Please can you describe the type(s) of climate predictability being discussed, particularly with respect to timescales, and in general how the paper shows that there is insufficient accuracy for that purpose?
__________________
"Against stupidity the very gods themselves contend in vain." - Friedrich Schiller

Last edited by AndyG; 05-11-2010 at 07:14 PM.
AndyG is offline Reply With Quote


4 out of 4 members found this post helpful.
Old 05-11-2010, 09:05 PM   #78
More than 15K posts served!
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Now
Age: 48
Posts: 18,536
Expatriate Prestigious Platinum Club MemberExpatriate Prestigious Platinum Club MemberExpatriate Prestigious Platinum Club MemberExpatriate Prestigious Platinum Club MemberExpatriate Prestigious Platinum Club MemberExpatriate Prestigious Platinum Club MemberExpatriate Prestigious Platinum Club MemberExpatriate Prestigious Platinum Club MemberExpatriate Prestigious Platinum Club MemberExpatriate Prestigious Platinum Club MemberExpatriate Prestigious Platinum Club MemberExpatriate Prestigious Platinum Club MemberExpatriate Prestigious Platinum Club MemberExpatriate Prestigious Platinum Club MemberExpatriate Prestigious Platinum Club Member
Expatriate Prestigious Platinum Club MemberExpatriate Prestigious Platinum Club MemberExpatriate Prestigious Platinum Club MemberExpatriate Prestigious Platinum Club MemberExpatriate Prestigious Platinum Club MemberExpatriate Prestigious Platinum Club MemberExpatriate Prestigious Platinum Club MemberExpatriate Prestigious Platinum Club MemberExpatriate Prestigious Platinum Club MemberExpatriate Prestigious Platinum Club MemberExpatriate Prestigious Platinum Club MemberExpatriate Prestigious Platinum Club MemberExpatriate Prestigious Platinum Club MemberExpatriate Prestigious Platinum Club MemberExpatriate Prestigious Platinum Club Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by krazy9000 View Post
Again, you keep bringing up things that were debunked using the SCIENTIFIC METHOD. If you want to say AGW isn't happening, you have to come up with evidence to the contrary. This is how science works. As of now, the amount of scientific data/evidence is OVERWHELMINGLY on the side of AGW. Try as they may, the "sceptics" can't prove it wrong, they can only point to "scandals" and "conspiracies" as evidence as to why it isn't happening. You can't just sit there and say AGW isn't happening because 10 years from now we just MIGHT have better equipment that shows it isn't happening.
By your logic, once the majority of scientists believe one way, then everyone has to stop and follow them if they cannot immediately prove otherwise. The world would still be flat and everything rotating around it if that was the case. These debunked things may yet again be debunked, but only if someone is willing or has reason to challenge them.

FWIW, I've never said man isn't contributing to global climate change. I've only challenged the assertion that we know enough to say for sure how this will work out. We may not have that long or it may become a moot point when the earth reacts in a manner to counter our activity. There are just too many variables for what we know now and to believe otherwise is to ignore history with full on arrogance.
Expatriate is offline Reply With Quote


2 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
Old 05-12-2010, 11:50 AM   #79
Hi
 
mjcouvi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,920
mjcouvi is a true Saintmjcouvi is a true Saintmjcouvi is a true Saintmjcouvi is a true Saintmjcouvi is a true Saint
mjcouvi is a true Saintmjcouvi is a true Saintmjcouvi is a true Saintmjcouvi is a true Saintmjcouvi is a true Saintmjcouvi is a true Saintmjcouvi is a true Saintmjcouvi is a true Saintmjcouvi is a true Saintmjcouvi is a true Saintmjcouvi is a true Saintmjcouvi is a true Saint
Quote:
Originally Posted by mister pc View Post
subsidies and taxes can definitely have an impact. one example is we can subsidize hybrid technology on cars so the hybrid model is the same price as the non-hybrid model. Provide tax credits for businesses that use renewable energy. Tax companies that produce large amounts of pollution. its an idea pretty similar to cap and trade. fossil fuel becomes more expensive, renewable becomes cheaper. Aggressively fund R & D for renewable energy like we did during the race to put a man on the moon. There are many ways government actions can catalyze the shift to renewable energy without causing a breakdown of society.
Do you think that something like cap and trade alone will have a significant positive impact on the environment? I think that we can agree that it won't. I realize that's not even your argument, I just want to be sure. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you consider cap and trade (or regulation of similar scope) a small step in the much grander transition to a healthier environment. You must ask yourself how this first small step evolves into something that will actually help the environment on a large scale. The obvious path is to slowly change the tax rates and subsidies in a way that continues to make fossil fuel more and more expensive and certain alternative fuel sources more and more viable. If you play that out you will realize that however slow government mandate tries to ease us through the transition, there will come a point where resistance is met. That resistance, in my mind, will come at a level of taxation/subsidization that does not even approach the level necessary to truly help our environment. If government mandate pushes past that point of first resistance and into what would be necessary for true positive environmental impact, it seems likely that the resistance would manifest in violence.

Perhaps you believe that the government should stop before they reach the point of such resistance and consider it a success that such inroads have been made towards a healthier environment. After all, some alternative energy sources will have been placed on a more level playing field and we can just let the market take it from there. Unfortunately you have had politicians select from where to take money and where to give it. Maybe the alternative fuel choices they selected weren't even economically sustainable (or environmentally friendly for that matter). So now you are in a bad position--your taxes/subsidies alone weren't enough to help the environment and your artificially-propped-up fossil fuel alternatives won't even work in the long run. Why not allow humanity's natural evolution to lead us through to a new solution? It is not necessary to use force.

As far as the federal government giving our tax dollars to R&D--philosophically I am against it. But I don't see it as a huge problem if a few hundred million dollars of our federal tax dollars go to funding some research and development. I start to have a problem when entire industries are propped up. Ethanol is a great example. It's not economically or environmentally friendly yet we have all these farmers who are paid to grow corn for ethanol. The Hybrid industry is another. If Hybrid technology is so great, why does the government have to help pay for every vehicle? That's not sustainable. Not to mention that the extent of the positive environmental impact of hybrid technology is very debatable. Again, philosophically I am against it because it is immoral, but the continued dispersion of federal R&D money is certainly economically sustainable and it might even be in the best interest of the people. Go ahead and give a university or private company a little boost to their research fund if they are capable of developing something to better humanity, but don't help them sell the damn thing.

When it comes to helping the environment the effort of the people should be centered on ending current unfair fossil fuel subsidies and bringing our troops home now so as to end our wars in the land of oil.

I hope we can strive to become a more fair and just society by repealing oppressive laws, not by adding new ones.

Last edited by mjcouvi; 05-12-2010 at 12:00 PM.
mjcouvi is offline Reply With Quote


Old 05-12-2010, 12:13 PM   #80
Very Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 1998
Age: 52
Posts: 13,507
Shawn is a true SaintShawn is a true SaintShawn is a true SaintShawn is a true Saint
Shawn is a true SaintShawn is a true SaintShawn is a true SaintShawn is a true SaintShawn is a true SaintShawn is a true SaintShawn is a true SaintShawn is a true SaintShawn is a true SaintShawn is a true SaintShawn is a true SaintShawn is a true SaintShawn is a true SaintShawn is a true Saint
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyG View Post
Ok, I'll play - it's the least I can do after criticizing posters various for not posting anything of substance.

Looking at the quote you provided from the abstract, my first question was 'sufficient degree of accuracy for what purpose?' so I opened the paper to try and find out.

The first thing I notice is that there is no publication title or header, which leads me to think it might not be a published paper. Googling the title turns up a couple of links, the first of which is at Cornell's archive:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0911.2286

This reveals the paper was submitted in Dec 2009, but there's no reference to it being published, so at this point I don't think it's a reviewed or published paper.

A look at the complete abstract supports this hypothesis:

The English is terribly mangled, but that's not unusual in my experience - many journals require papers to be submitted in English, and for many authors English is not their first language. What I would expect is that the authors would get someone to tidy it up a bit before submission - I did just that for a fellow student's paper once. I'd expect this one to be rejected on those grounds alone, whatever it's other merits. This suggests a certain lack of savoir faire on the part of the authors, which does them no credit.

I can't tell from the abstract whether the accuracy of climate predictability being evaluated is in the context of, for example, global warming, short-range weather forecasting, long-range weather forecasting, or something else entirely.

I do recall there is a famous paper "Deterministic Non-Periodic Flow" by Edward Lorentz (1963), describing a numerical model of cellular convection, which was one of the first published examples of chaos theory, though this was not appreciated at the time. All the solutions to the model were unstable and non-periodic. The last line of the paper's abstract (I looked it up) is "The feasibility of long-range weather prediction is examined in the light of these results.". He concluded that precise long-term weather forecasts were impossible.

It struck me that your quote would fit Lorentz's conclusions too, but Lorentz says nothing about climate change. In fact, while detailed forecasting (which way will the wind blow at the Superdome, noon, next week) is completely impossible, useful predictions can be made - like my cricket match today being rained off.

In other words, without knowing what the intended purpose is, there's no point in reading further, as it's impossible to say whether it's even relevant.

As you have introduced this paper, I assume you feel it supports your case. Please can you describe the type(s) of climate predictability being discussed, particularly with respect to timescales, and in general how the paper shows that there is insufficient accuracy for that purpose?
This is an excellent post. I would have simply said, "I honestly don't understand what their point is, which sounds dismissive. Very well said, sir.
Shawn is offline Reply With Quote


0 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
Old 05-12-2010, 12:19 PM   #81
What Does That Mean?
 
UncleDoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: T-town
Age: 43
Posts: 1,473
UncleDoug is marching in
UncleDoug is marching inUncleDoug is marching inUncleDoug is marching inUncleDoug is marching inUncleDoug is marching inUncleDoug is marching inUncleDoug is marching inUncleDoug is marching inUncleDoug is marching inUncleDoug is marching inUncleDoug is marching inUncleDoug is marching inUncleDoug is marching in
Quote:
Originally Posted by krazy9000 View Post
That doesn't mean you sit here and say every thing we know is false. You have to assume that what you know now is what it is.
Exactly and it is those Assumptions that people are and can reasonably disagree about, since they are Assumptions.

assumption |əˈsəm(p) sh ən|noun
1 a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, WITHOUT PROOF
UncleDoug is offline Reply With Quote


0 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
Old 05-13-2010, 06:42 PM   #82
For Yorkshire man
 
AndyG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Leeds, UK
Age: 55
Posts: 4,754
AndyG 50K Burger ClubAndyG 50K Burger ClubAndyG 50K Burger ClubAndyG 50K Burger ClubAndyG 50K Burger Club
AndyG 50K Burger ClubAndyG 50K Burger ClubAndyG 50K Burger ClubAndyG 50K Burger ClubAndyG 50K Burger ClubAndyG 50K Burger ClubAndyG 50K Burger ClubAndyG 50K Burger ClubAndyG 50K Burger ClubAndyG 50K Burger ClubAndyG 50K Burger ClubAndyG 50K Burger ClubAndyG 50K Burger Club
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyG View Post
As you have introduced this paper, I assume you feel it supports your case. Please can you describe the type(s) of climate predictability being discussed, particularly with respect to timescales, and in general how the paper shows that there is insufficient accuracy for that purpose?
Bump FAO Bergeaux.
__________________
"Against stupidity the very gods themselves contend in vain." - Friedrich Schiller
AndyG is offline Reply With Quote


Old 05-21-2010, 05:59 AM   #83
For Yorkshire man
 
AndyG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Leeds, UK
Age: 55
Posts: 4,754
AndyG 50K Burger ClubAndyG 50K Burger ClubAndyG 50K Burger ClubAndyG 50K Burger ClubAndyG 50K Burger Club
AndyG 50K Burger ClubAndyG 50K Burger ClubAndyG 50K Burger ClubAndyG 50K Burger ClubAndyG 50K Burger ClubAndyG 50K Burger ClubAndyG 50K Burger ClubAndyG 50K Burger ClubAndyG 50K Burger ClubAndyG 50K Burger ClubAndyG 50K Burger ClubAndyG 50K Burger ClubAndyG 50K Burger Club
Bump II for Bergeaux - in celebration of his latest new climate change thread. I'd still like answers to the questions I posted earlier, but Bergeaux has evidently moved on to other things.

In the circumstances, I can only conclude that the evidence Bergeaux presented in this thread is completely useless within his context of proving global warming is a myth (or something along those lines).

Either that or he's posted it either without reading it or without understanding it. As the answer to the first question I posed can be found halfway down the first page of the paper, and as the 'mangled English' to which I referred seems (weirdly) to be confined to the paper's abstract, I'm inclined to believe he hasn't read a word of it, as both points could have been addressed immediately. I was also pleased to find references to several papers by Lorentz early in the paper, especially as they were not the one I mentioned

The predictive models used in climate change research are a big point of concern for those who think the evidence for global warming is not convincing. It follows that if the paper stands up to scrutiny, its findings should be a very significant piece of evidence in their favour - which is one reason why I'm interested. Another is that I have a little experience in iterative computer modelling (but not climate modelling) so I might be able to get my head around issues relating to robustness in a broad sense.

However, if one of the forum's more prolific climate change posters can't explain the point of his own post, even in farly broad terms, I can only draw the conclusions stated above - that it was posted unread, or not understood. Garbage either way, until there is evidence to the contrary.
__________________
"Against stupidity the very gods themselves contend in vain." - Friedrich Schiller
AndyG is offline Reply With Quote


1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
Old 05-21-2010, 09:13 AM   #84
Our new Saints fan!
 
bergeaux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 15,546
bergeaux has disabled reputation
Thanks for the bump.

I really don't think I need to address the attacks on me or the science that has been presented. If you have concerns or think that the paper was not conclusive or coherent, I disagree and I leave the decision up to others to make a decision on that themselves. You are not going to convince me of what you say because I think your analysis is quite a bit off-base and appears pre-determined. And that probably means I will not convince you. You stated your opinion, that should be good enough for others to read the paper and decide for themselves.

However, I will follow the request of several pro-AGW posters and I'll add my latest climate related post to this thread:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...694484,00.html

Very well researched article that explains how climate science got to where it is. It's very long (7 pages!), but does a fair handed job of describing what has been going on. It takes shots at the climate realists (my term for the commonly referred to skeptics) and explains how the defensiveness of the climate establishment has weakened the case for climate science as well as created the uncertainty that the public now has about climate science.

Some interesting quotes:

From page 1

Quote:
Although a British parliamentary inquiry soon confirmed that this was definitely not a conspiracy, the leaked correspondence provided in-depth insight into the mechanisms, fronts and battles within the climate-research community.
From page 5:

Quote:
However, an inquiry conducted by the British parliament came to a very different conclusion. "The leaked e-mails appear to show a culture of non-disclosure at CRU and instances where information may have been deleted to avoid disclosure," the House of Commons' Science and Technology Committee announced in its findings on March 31.
(Wanted to point out to those that might think that this is an attack on the climate scientists, this article is NOT that. It's pretty balanced.)



Quote:
The fronts in the climate debate have long been etched in the sand. On the one side there is a handful of highly influential climate researchers, on the other a powerful lobby of industrial associations determined to trivialize the dangers of global warming. This latter group is supported by the conservative wing of the American political spectrum, conspiracy theorists as well as critical scientists.
(more to point out that they are not fond of the anti-establishment scientists)

Quote:
The aim of the industrial lobby was to focus as much as possible on the doubts about the scientific findings. According to a strategy paper by the Global Climate Science Team, a crude-oil lobby group, "Victory will be achieved when average citizens recognize uncertainties in climate science." In the meantime, scientists found themselves on the defensive, having to convince the public time and again that their warnings were indeed well-founded.
(and more)

Here are a few tidbits from the story that give you an idea of the storyline:

Quote:
Nonetheless, scientists have tried to apply pressure on the media if they disagreed with the way stories were reported. Editorial offices have been inundated with protest letters whenever news stories said that the dangers of runaway climate change appeared to be diminishing.
Quote:
And worried that any uncertainties in their findings might be pounced upon, the scientists desperately tried to conceal such uncertainties.

...

Jones and Mann had a huge influence over what was published in the trade press. Those who controlled the journals also controlled what entered the public arena -- and therefore what was perceived as scientific reality.

...

[Mann] therefore demanded that the enemy be stopped in its tracks. The "hockey team" launched a powerful counterattack that shook Climate Research magazine to its foundations. Several of its editors resigned. Vociferous as they were, though, the skeptics did not have that much influence. If it turned out that alarmist climate studies were flawed -- and this was the case on several occasions -- the consequences of the climate catastrophe would not be as dire as had been predicted...

Yet there were also limits to the influence had by Mann and Jones, as became apparent in 2005, when relentless hockey stick critics Ross McKitrick and Stephen McIntyre were able to publish studies in the most important geophysical journal, Geophysical Research Letters (GRL). "Apparently, the contrarians now have an 'in' with GRL," Mann wrote to his colleagues in a leaked e-mail. "We can't afford to lose GRL."
Some summary points the article:

Quote:
Immense public scrutiny made life extremely difficult for the scientists. On May 2, 2001, paleoclimatologist Edward Cook of the Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory complained in an e-mail: "This global change stuff is so politicized by both sides of the issue that it is difficult to do the science in a dispassionate environment." The need to summarize complex findings for a UN report appears only to have exacerbated the problem. "I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC, which were not always the same," Keith Briffa wrote in 2007. Max Planck researcher Martin Claussen says too much emphasis was put on consensus in an attempt to satisfy politicians' demands.
Quote:
Climatological findings will probably remain ambiguous even if further progress is made. Weingart says it's now up to scientists and society to learn to come to terms with this. In particular, he warns, politicians must understand that there is no such thing as clear results. "Politicians should stop listening to scientists who promise simple answers," Weingart says.
Like I said it's a 7 page article, and worth reading through.
__________________
Do you know why you're here on Earth?
bergeaux is offline Reply With Quote


1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
Old 05-21-2010, 10:04 AM   #85
Stop Resisting!
 
SWJJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Shreveport
Posts: 21,150
SWJJ Prestigious Platinum Club MemberSWJJ Prestigious Platinum Club MemberSWJJ Prestigious Platinum Club MemberSWJJ Prestigious Platinum Club MemberSWJJ Prestigious Platinum Club Member
SWJJ Prestigious Platinum Club MemberSWJJ Prestigious Platinum Club MemberSWJJ Prestigious Platinum Club MemberSWJJ Prestigious Platinum Club MemberSWJJ Prestigious Platinum Club MemberSWJJ Prestigious Platinum Club Member
Wow, great article. Kinda damning on the CRU. I have often felt there was data that did not fit what the AGW were telling us that was kept from the public. Deleting files and data that contridicts your "conclusion" is NOT "good science"
__________________
“It's easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled.”

~Mark Twain
SWJJ is offline Reply With Quote


Old 05-21-2010, 10:07 AM   #86
Stop Resisting!
 
SWJJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Shreveport
Posts: 21,150
SWJJ Prestigious Platinum Club MemberSWJJ Prestigious Platinum Club MemberSWJJ Prestigious Platinum Club MemberSWJJ Prestigious Platinum Club MemberSWJJ Prestigious Platinum Club Member
SWJJ Prestigious Platinum Club MemberSWJJ Prestigious Platinum Club MemberSWJJ Prestigious Platinum Club MemberSWJJ Prestigious Platinum Club MemberSWJJ Prestigious Platinum Club MemberSWJJ Prestigious Platinum Club Member
It's clear ya read and understood this article. However I think andyg made it clear you did not read and understand the previously referred to paper.

I score this round:

andyg 9
bergeaux. 9




Time for round 2!!
__________________
“It's easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled.”

~Mark Twain
SWJJ is offline Reply With Quote


1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
Old 05-21-2010, 11:45 AM   #87
Our new Saints fan!
 
bergeaux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 15,546
bergeaux has disabled reputation
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoweigh View Post
This is an open letter from 255 members of the US National Academy of Sciences, including 11 Nobel laureates, decrying the "recent escalation of political assaults on scientists in general and on climate scientists in particular." It's a good read.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NAS members
[When] conclusions have been thoroughly and deeply tested, questioned, and examined, they gain the status of "well-established theories" and are often spoken of as "facts."

For instance, there is compelling scientific evidence that our planet is about 4.5 billion years old (the theory of the origin of Earth), that our universe was born from a single event about 14 billion years ago (the Big Bang theory), and that today's organisms evolved from ones living in the past (the theory of evolution). Even as these are overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, fame still awaits anyone who could show these theories to be wrong. Climate change now falls into this category: There is compelling, comprehensive, and consistent objective evidence that humans are changing the climate in ways that threaten our societies and the ecosystems on which we depend.
(emphasis mine)
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/328/5979/689
I just happened to run across this study on the NAS journal publication (the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science) in March of this year that has confirmed the Medieval Warming Period and identified the Roman Warming Period as the warmest on record, including today's temperatures.

This study uses a new seashell technique that is much more accurate than tree rings. I found it originally here:

http://www.thegwpf.org/the-observato...esent-day.html

and the source study can be found on the NAS website here:

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/20...22107.full.pdf

The culmination of the research confirms the MWP in the Iceland area and proves that there have been warmer periods than the current temperatures in the past that were not catastrophic to the climate.



How can the NAS journals be publishing studies that conflict with establishment climate science that they defend? Because it wasn't the NAS that defended it. It was simply some members of the NAS expressing a flawed opinion.
__________________
Do you know why you're here on Earth?
bergeaux is offline Reply With Quote


1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
Old 05-21-2010, 01:01 PM   #88
Vesti le procè flamber
 
tenordas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1997
Location: Houston via New Jersey, New Orleans, Baton Rouge, Dallas, Abilene, Oklahoma City, & San Antonio
Posts: 10,222
tenordas is a true Sainttenordas is a true Sainttenordas is a true Sainttenordas is a true Sainttenordas is a true Sainttenordas is a true Saint
tenordas is a true Sainttenordas is a true Sainttenordas is a true Sainttenordas is a true Sainttenordas is a true Sainttenordas is a true Sainttenordas is a true Sainttenordas is a true Sainttenordas is a true Sainttenordas is a true Sainttenordas is a true Sainttenordas is a true Saint
Thanks for the new thread and links, Bergeaux. I find it interesting to note that Lindzen referes to this "open letter" and points out that the majority of the NAS members who signed it are not involved nor have expertise in the field of climatology.
tenordas is online now Reply With Quote


1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
Old 05-21-2010, 04:21 PM   #89
Our new Saints fan!
 
bergeaux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 15,546
bergeaux has disabled reputation
Quote:
Originally Posted by tenordas View Post
Thanks for the new thread and links, Bergeaux. I find it interesting to note that Lindzen referes to this "open letter" and points out that the majority of the NAS members who signed it are not involved nor have expertise in the field of climatology.
I'm guessing you meant the below thread and thanks, I'm trying!

http://www.saintsreport.com/forums/s...d.php?t=163228
__________________
Do you know why you're here on Earth?
bergeaux is offline Reply With Quote


Old 05-25-2010, 07:44 AM   #90
Our new Saints fan!
 
bergeaux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 15,546
bergeaux has disabled reputation
As I stated before (and was told I was wrong), the public sentiment is turning against Global Warming as science or hype.

This is an article by the NY Times (admittedly liberal paper), so it really tries to portray it as a "misunderstanding" of the public and tries to defend the AGW theory by highlighting the academic establishment's comments about the problem. But the facts of the article are clear. Polls are dropping fast in Europe for AGW where the facts are being reported a LOT more than here in the US. The press here has tried harder to downplay the scandals and scoffed at the stories. Despite that, polls are still shifting here in the US, although not as sharply. What also could be attributing to the difference here in the US is that more people here had been skeptical already.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/25/sc...25climate.html

Quote:
A survey in February by the BBC found that only 26 percent of Britons believed that “climate change is happening and is now established as largely manmade,” down from 41 percent in November 2009. A poll conducted for the German magazine Der Spiegel found that 42 percent of Germans feared global warming, down from 62 percent four years earlier.
Quote:
The lack of fervor about climate change is also true of the United States, where action on climate and emissions reduction is still very much a work in progress, and concern about global warming was never as strong as in Europe. A March Gallup poll found that 48 percent of Americans believed that the seriousness of global warming was “generally exaggerated,” up from 41 percent a year ago.
__________________
Do you know why you're here on Earth?
bergeaux is offline Reply With Quote


reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:08 AM.



Saintsreport.com - New Orleans Saints News, Info & Community! All marks, logos and images related to the Saints are the property of the New Orleans Saints, the NFL and NFL Properties. We are in no way affiliated with the New Orleans Saints or the NFL. All commentary and original artwork, ©1997-2016 SaintsReport.com, owned and operated by Andrus Whitewing, DBA Saints Report,LLC. All rights reserved. Copying of original columns prohibited without a return link and credit given. Teasing articles is ok.



Some of the Photos and pictures used throughout the site are copyright © Michael C. Hebert and are used with the permission of Michael C. Hebert and the New Orleans Saints.




Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0