Pathological Science

[DougMacG]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203935604577066183761315576.html
...
Consider the case of global warming, another system of doomsaying prophecy and faith in things unseen.

As with religion, it is presided over by a caste of spectacularly unattractive people pretending to an obscure form of knowledge that promises to make the seas retreat and the winds abate. As with religion, it comes with an elaborate list of virtues, vices and indulgences. As with religion, its claims are often non-falsifiable, hence the convenience of the term "climate change" when thermometers don't oblige the expected trend lines. As with religion, it is harsh toward skeptics, heretics and other "deniers." And as with religion, it is susceptible to the earthly temptations of money, power, politics, arrogance and deceit.

This week, the conclave of global warming's cardinals are meeting in Durban, South Africa, for their 17th conference in as many years. The idea is to come up with a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, which is set to expire next year, and to require rich countries to pony up $100 billion a year to help poor countries cope with the alleged effects of climate change. This is said to be essential because in 2017 global warming becomes "catastrophic and irreversible," according to a recent report by the International Energy Agency.

Yet a funny thing happened on the way to the climate apocalypse. Namely, the financial apocalypse.

The U.S., Russia, Japan, Canada and the EU have all but confirmed they won't be signing on to a new Kyoto. The Chinese and Indians won't make a move unless the West does. The notion that rich (or formerly rich) countries are going to ship $100 billion every year to the Micronesias of the world is risible, especially after they've spent it all on Greece.

Cap and trade is a dead letter in the U.S. Even Europe is having second thoughts about carbon-reduction targets that are decimating the continent's heavy industries and cost an estimated $67 billion a year. "Green" technologies have all proved expensive, environmentally hazardous and wildly unpopular duds.

All this has been enough to put the Durban political agenda on hold for the time being. But religions don't die, and often thrive, when put to the political sidelines. A religion, when not physically extinguished, only dies when it loses faith in itself.

That's where the Climategate emails come in. First released on the eve of the Copenhagen climate summit two years ago and recently updated by a fresh batch, the "hide the decline" emails were an endless source of fun and lurid fascination for those of us who had never been convinced by the global-warming thesis in the first place.

But the real reason they mattered is that they introduced a note of caution into an enterprise whose motivating appeal resided in its increasingly frantic forecasts of catastrophe. Papers were withdrawn; source material re-examined. The Himalayan glaciers, it turned out, weren't going to melt in 30 years. Nobody can say for sure how high the seas are likely to rise—if much at all. Greenland isn't turning green. Florida isn't going anywhere.

The reply global warming alarmists have made to these dislosures is that they did nothing to change the underlying science, and only improved it in particulars. So what to make of the U.N.'s latest supposedly authoritative report on extreme weather events, which is tinged with admissions of doubt and uncertainty? Oddly, the report has left climate activists stuttering with rage at what they call its "watered down" predictions. If nothing else, they understand that any belief system, particularly ones as young as global warming, cannot easily survive more than a few ounces of self-doubt.

Meanwhile, the world marches on. On Sunday, 2,232 days will have elapsed since a category 3 hurricane made landfall in the U.S., the longest period in more than a century that the U.S. has been spared a devastating storm. Great religions are wise enough to avoid marking down the exact date when the world comes to an end. Not so for the foolish religions. Expect Mayan cosmology to take a hit to its reputation when the world doesn't end on Dec. 21, 2012. Expect likewise when global warming turns out to be neither catastrophic nor irreversible come 2017.

And there is this: Religions are sustained in the long run by the consolations of their teachings and the charisma of their leaders. With global warming, we have a religion whose leaders are prone to spasms of anger and whose followers are beginning to twitch with boredom. Perhaps that's another way religions die.

[Body-by-Guinness]

Seven Eight Warning Signs of Junk Science
I’ve written before about scientific error cascades and the pernicious things that happen when junk science becomes the focus or rationale of a political crusade.

The worst example of this sort of thing in my lifetime, and arguably in the entire history of science, has been the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) panic. Now that the wheels are falling off that juggernaut, I’m starting to hear ordinary people around me wonder how I knew it was bullshit and hot air so much in advance…


Some of the answer to that is complicated and not easily replicable. I happened to have the right sort of knowledge base to know that, for example, specific AGW-panicker claims about historical climate were impossible to reconcile with primary evidence – wine grapes grown at 59 degrees north around the year 1000, that sort of thing. This motivated me to dig for other problems with their narrative well before they were really on the public’s radar.

But a lot of it was more general. I’ve seen a lot of “scientific” panics ginned up from nonexistent or scanty evidence over the last several decades. There’s a pattern to these episodes, a characteristic stench that becomes recognizable after a while. I’ll describe some of the indicia, which I’ve culled from episodes like the Alar scare, the ozone-hole brouhaha, the AIDS panic (are you old enough to remember when it was predicted to become endemic among heterosexuals in the U.S.?), acid rain, and even the great global cooling flap of 1975.

So. Here is a non-exclusive list of seven eight symptoms to watch out for:

Science by press release. It’s never, ever a good sign when ‘scientists’ announce dramatic results before publishing in a peer-reviewed journal. When this happens, we generally find out later that they were either self-deluded or functioning as political animals rather than scientists. This generalizes a bit; one should also be suspicious of, for example, science first broadcast by congressional testimony or talk-show circuit.

Rhetoric that mixes science with the tropes of eschatological panic. When the argument for theory X slides from “theory X is supported by evidence” to “a terrible catastrophe looms over us if theory X is true, therefore we cannot risk disbelieving it”, you can be pretty sure that X is junk science. Consciously or unconsciously, advocates who say these sorts of things are trying to panic the herd into stampeding rather than focusing on the quality of the evidence for theory X.

Rhetoric that mixes science with the tropes of moral panic. When the argument for theory X slides from “theory X is supported by evidence” to “only bad/sinful/uncaring people disbelieve theory X”, you can be even more sure that theory X is junk science. Consciously or unconsciously, advocates who say these sorts of things are trying to induce a state of preference falsification in which people are peer-pressured to publicly affirm a belief in theory X in spite of private doubts.

Consignment of failed predictions to the memory hole. It’s a sign of sound science when advocates for theory X publicly acknowledge failed predictions and explain why they think they can now make better ones. Conversely, it’s a sign of junk science when they try to bury failed predictions and deny they ever made them.

Over-reliance on computer models replete with bugger factors that aren’t causally justified.. No, this is not unique to climatology; you see it a lot in epidemiology and economics, just to name two fields that start with ‘e’. The key point here is that simply fitting historical data is not causal justification; there are lots of ways to dishonestly make that happen, or honestly fool yourself about it. If you don’t have a generative account of why your formulas and coupling constants look the way they do (a generative account which itself makes falsifiable predictions), you’re not doing science – you’re doing numerology.

If a ‘scientific’ theory seems tailor-made for the needs of politicians or advocacy organizations, it probably has been. Real scientific results have a cross-grained tendency not to fit transient political categories. Accordingly, if you think theory X stinks of political construction, you’re probably right. This is one of the simplest but most difficult lessons in junk-science spotting! The most difficult case is recognizing that this is happening even when you agree with the cause.

Past purveyers of junk science do not change their spots. One of the earliest indicators in many outbreaks of junk science is enthusiastic endorsements by people and advocacy organizations associated with past outbreaks. This one is particularly useful in spotting environmental junk science, because unreliable environmental-advocacy organizations tend to have long public pedigrees including frequent episodes of apocalyptic yelling. It is pardonable to be taken in by this the first time, but foolish by the fourth and fifth.

Refusal to make primary data sets available for inspection. When people doing sound science are challenged to produce the observational and experimental data their theories are supposed to be based on, they do it. (There are a couple of principled exceptions here; particle physicists can’t save the unreduced data from particle collisions, there are too many terabytes per second of it.) It is a strong sign of junk science when a ‘scientist’ claims to have retained raw data sets but refuses to release them to critics.

It would be way, way too easy to list the ways these symptoms have manifested with respect to the AGW panic. It’s a more useful exercise for the reader to think back and try to recognize them in previous junk-science flaps. Go and learn. And don’t get fooled again.

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=3974#more-3974

[Body-by-Guinness]

Very polemic, well annotated b!tch slapping of panic mongers:

http://cfact.org/pdf/ClimateDepot_A-Z_ClimateRealityCheck.pdf

[JDN]

Somebody said on this forum a while ago that this is a good year for weather and climate disasters.  Obviously NOT.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/07/2011-is-record-year-for-1b-disasters-in-u-s/?hpt=hp_t2

[Body-by-Guinness]

And this anecdote is related to pathological science how? Perhaps it instead demonstrates there are more people building in more places expecting more recompense for poor siting decision while more media is available to document the results? There was a flood in a Virginia neighborhood earlier this year that lead to residents calling for tens of millions of dollars in remediation. I remember watching one news report where a resident complained "the same thing happened here eight years ago; how many times do we have to get flooded out before somebody fixes the problem?" My response: don't buy land on a flood plain and you won't have to worry about regularly being flooded out.

As that may be, an alternate explanation from that denier bastion, University of Wisconsin, Madison:

http://www.news.wisc.edu/20095

[Body-by-Guinness]

Grist for the mill for those who associate disparate occurrences with doomstruck consequences:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/correlation-or-causation-12012011-gfx.html

[Chuck B]

Woof,

In all this discussion of global warming I fail to see any real talk about the underlying science which is where I think that people should concentrate and not on a lot of extraneous noise.  The bottom line is that the law of conservation of energy hasn't changed so IN - OUT still equals ACCUMULATION.  Accordingly if you change the rate at which energy leaves the planet, then you accumulate heat which we see as a temperature rise.  Greenhouse gases do exist of which carbon dioxide is one.  The infrared absorption spectra of water vapor and carbon dioxide, while similar, do not completely overlap which means that increases in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will lead to increased absorption of infrared light. 

If you add this all up, it surely means that this is something that bears careful study and not ridicule.  Furthermore the facts that I just related are completely independent of such things as an odd heavy snowfall in April, climategate, or what Michelle Bachman and Exxon think about the topic.

Chuck

[G M]

It's obviously not so simple, or the climate wouldn't have such historic extremes in either direction, Chuck.

[Chuck B]

Woof,

Actually what I described is absolutely that simple.  That there are other forces that affect the climate and add noise to the signal is not in doubt.  Saying that there are other forces at work does not invalidate what I just said.  To do that, you need to address my points.

Chuck

[G M]

Chuck,

If manmade global warming was real, why would the evidence need to be falsified? I'm pretty sure one need not fake real things.

[Chuck B]

Woof,

What is the false evidence?  Anyway, can you address the scientific underpinnings or not?  That cannot be faked which is why it should be the starting point of all such discussions.

Chuck

[G M]

Climate is complex. Sometimes it's warmer, sometimes it's colder. As far as climategate, the fearmongers pretending to be scientists conspired to hide unfavorable data that threatened their panic for pay scheme. Pretty sure that's not part of the scientific method.

[G M]

http://www.dailytech.com/Climatologists+Trade+Tips+on+Destroying+Evidence+Evangelizing+Warming/article23368.htm

Climatologists Trade Tips on Destroying Evidence, Evangelizing Warming
Jason Mick (Blog) - November 25, 2011 5:12 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Penn State researcher and his CRU/IPCC colleague treated AGW like a religious "cause" despite warnings from peers

Anthropogenic global warming is a fascinating hypothesis that mankind may be able to systematically increase the Earth's temperature in the long term by burning deposits of hydrocarbon fuels.  But the key thing to note is that despite the intriguing premise, little definitive information has been determined in this field even as politicization runs rife.  In fact, researchers are still struggling to explain why warming has stalled in the last decade even as levels of carbon dioxide -- supposedly the most important greenhouse gas have rose.

I. Climatologists "Pull an Enron", Shred the Evidence

The recent University of California, Berkley "BEST" study -- perhaps the most comprehensive climate change investigation to date -- was blasted by AGW proponents.  They were upset that the study -- funded in part by the charity of a major oil entrepreneur -- highlighted the fact that temperatures had flat lined over the past decade, and were more upset still that the study suggested that other factors like sea currents could have driven the warming that occurred in the 1960s-1990s.

But newly reportedly leaked emails reveal that accusations of bias are perhaps a bit of projection.  The new emails include discussions that sound as shocking or more so as the infamous "Climategate" emails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU).

The new emails revisit embattled climate researcher-cum-AGW evangelist Phil Jones, a scientist working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

In one email Professor Jones explains to researchers how to best hide their work to prevent anyone from being able to replicate it and find errors:


I've been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process.  Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden.  I've discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.

Of course Phil Jones and his supporters will likely claim that the emails were taken out of context of some larger more appropriate discussion.  But as a researcher it's pretty damning to make comments that even would seem to imply that you were engaging in trying to suppress peer review of questionable data -- academic fraud.

Particularly trouble is the phrase "cover yourself", which suggest a conspiratorial, political undertone to what is supposed to be a transparent field of research.

The emails contain outright requests for the destruction of professional communications regarding research in an effort to cover up public scrutiny of public flaws.  The leaks add yet another humiliating scandal to Pennsylvania State University as they implicate prominent Penn State climatologist Michael Mann even more directly than the last release. 

Writes the Professor Jones to Professor Mann:


Mike, can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4 [UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 4th Assessment]?  Keith will do likewise. … We will be getting Caspar [Ammann] to do likewise. I see that CA [the Climate Audit Web site] claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!


Michael Mann (left) and Phil Jones (right) appear to share tips on how to best destroy damaging climate evidence. [Image Sources: (left) PSU (right) Chris Bourchier / Rex Features]

Some professors and experts even tried to reach out to Professor Mann, warning him of the danger of turning science into religion by purposefully ignoring evidence.  Peter Thorne of the UK Met Office writes:


Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary.  I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.

Even Tom Wigley, a scientist at the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research who was implicated in the first CRU email scandal for suggesting the removal of an editor who allowed peer-reviewed skeptical studies to be published, seemed to agree on this extreme instance:


Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive … there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC.

The IPCC did eventually change the draft somewhat -- perhaps due to this feedback -- but critics say it still did far too much cherry picking of its sources.

II. Forget Science: You're Either For the Cause, Or You're Against It

In a later email, Professor Mann implies AGW advocacy is a political/pseudo-religious "cause" and that those who question it on scientific merits are enemies of the "cause".  He writes, "I gave up on [Georgia Institute of Technology climate professor] Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she thinks she’s doing, but its not helping the cause."

Ironically, Professor Curry appears to be the only one behaving like a true scientist.  The emails neglect the forgotten truth that the distinguished Georgia Institute of Technology began as a believed in man-made global warming, publishing a notable 2005 study published in the prestigious Science journal investigating the potential correlation between hurricanes and man-made temperature increases.

The study earned scathing criticism from warming skeptics, but rather than treat her work as religious dogma, she carefully considered the criticism.  Supported by her co-author, she personally met with some prominent critics and considered their claims.  After all, she recalls in a Scientific American interview, "We were generally aware of these problems when we wrote the paper, but the critics argued that these issues were much more significant than we had acknowledged."

Soon she began to blog for AGW a skeptical blog run by Roger Pielke, Jr., a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, and Climate Audit, run by statistician Steve McIntyre.  She began blogging hoping to convince skeptics of the merits of AGW theory via an open discussion.  But in time she found herself increasingly troubled by the lack of transparency and conclusive evidence on such an important topic.  She singles out the IPCC as a particularly guilty party, accusing it of outright "corruption."

Given the released emails it's hard to argue with that assessment.  Writes Jonathan Overpeck, lead coordinating author of the IPCC's most recent climate assessment:


The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out.

Aside from destroying evidence and ostracizing colleagues, the emails also reveal another sign of dogma and the antithesis of science -- ignorance.  In one email Phil Jones admits he has no idea how to perform the basic statistical analysis that forms the basis of one of his past claims, writing:


I keep on seeing people saying this same stupid thing. I'm not adept enough (totally inept) with excel to do this now as no-one who knows how to is here.
What you have to do is to take the numbers in column C (the years) and then those in D (the anomalies for each year), plot them and then work out the linear trend. The slope is upwards. I had someone do this in early 2006, and the trend was upwards then. It will be now. Trend won't be statistically significant, but the trend is up.

III. When in Doubt, Deny

Already AGW advocates are jumping to the defense of the researchers implicated in the scandal.  Writes Mother Jones' Kate Sheppard:

Rather than smearing scientists, reporters might want to try some actual reporting.


The new round of hacked emails from climate scientists floating around the internet hasn't generated the same buzz as the last iteration—at least not yet. But in certain circles, it's playing out much like the first batch of emails did in 2009. In addition to the tranche of emails, the poster included a list of "greatest hits"—short quotes from the emails taken out of their context that are intended to paint scientists as scheming or lying. The entire batch was quickly posted in searchable format on another site.

But such critical reports have thus far failed to actually provide virtually any such contextual explanations, despite their suggestion that they must exist.  Further, the critics of the email publication are ignoring the fact that there are certain types of things that researchers should know to never say -- such as making comments that even sound like suggesting the destruction of academic evidence.

The reports also ignore the fact that while it's easy to accuse the media, the oil industry, et al. for a mass conspiracy to silence anthropogenic global warming advocates, there's just as compelling a cause for AGW proponents to conspire to silence their critics in a dogmatic, non-scientific fashion.

Such an approach not only guarantees researchers lucrative research grants, it guarantees their political allies potential billions of dollars in windfalls in "carbon credits" and other AGW-inspired wealth redistribution schemes. Al Gore in particular has made close to a billion dollars based on his evangelizing AGW in lectures, film; via carbon credit investments; and by pushing the government to funnel money to his high-risk "green energy" investments in the name of fighting AGW.



AGW political proponents like Al Gore stand to make billions more if they can convince world governments to fully enact their wealth redistribution schemes under the auspice of "fighting warming". [Image Source: Associated Press]

[Chuck B]

Woof,

And here I was hoping to have a scientific discussion.  Sigh.  Not to be I guess. 

So possible malfeasance by a couple of scientists is supposed to invalidate what sure looks like a solid scientific theory?  Not really.  This is like some scientist saying that there is X chance of life on the planet earth being destroyed in the next hundred years and you pulling out a telescope and saying "I don't see any asteroids, so this is bunk".  Talk about the underlying science and it cuts through this sort of BS which Climategate seems to be about based on your article.

In fact, researchers are still struggling to explain why warming has stalled in the last decade even as levels of carbon dioxide -- supposedly the most important greenhouse gas have rose.

I have already stated that there are other factors at play some of which could be additive or subtractive.  That is why it is instructive to look at the science itself and not get mired in BS.

Chuck

[G M]

"So possible malfeasance by a couple of scientists is supposed to invalidate what sure looks like a solid scientific theory?"

If it's so solid, they why the need to fake/hide data?

"This is like some scientist saying that there is X chance of life on the planet earth being destroyed in the next hundred years and you pulling out a telescope and saying "I don't see any asteroids, so this is bunk"."

Bad example, as there is plenty of evidence of asteroids and of asteroid strikes on the earth. Now, if there was no such evidence and Al Gore was suddenly promoting it and he was making money off the newfound threat and then some "scientists" were caught making an asteroid out of concrete.....

[Chuck B]

Woof G.M.,

If it's so solid, they why the need to fake/hide data?

In spite of the possible malfeasance of these scientists the Law of Conservation of Energy is STILL on the books.  The earth STILL continues to be bombarded by ultraviolet light which heats the earth and is reradiated as infrared light.  Carbon dioxide STILL absorbs some wavelengths of infrared light converting it vibrational energy commonly measured as temperature.  Notice how none of these natural phenomena or physical laws of the universe care the slightest about what a few scientists have done or didn't do with some data. 

These scientists only claim that the temperature of the planet has increased by something like 1 degree Fahrenheit over the period in question so it isn't surprising to me that it is hard to measure and that there are competing theories as to why this is occuring.  This is why I KEEP trying to go back to underlying science.  I believe it is also why you have no desire to discuss the science itself.

Now, if there was no such evidence and Al Gore was suddenly promoting it and he was making money off the newfound threat

Again, this doesn't exactly change the physical properties of carbon dioxide, rewrite laws of the universe, etc.  Is it relevant that many of the people who argue against manmade global warming are paid by Exxon or Koch Industries?  I haven't pointed that out so far because guess what, it isn't assuming you actually want to talk about science and not PEOPLE.

Chuck

[Crafty_Dog]

Chuck:

I agree you have stated a plausible sounding hypothesis.

I am not yet persuaded of it however.  Possessing of a lower level of scientific education that others here, including you, I find it difficult to not reason as GM here is doing-- if the evidence is there, why the cheating?  Add on to this my serious doubts as to the wisdom of putting the government in charge of the weather, particularly when Al Gore (just how did he go from being VP of the US to being worth $100 million) and others seek to finance UN giveaway programs with cap & trade, and , , , well, , , I'm gonna want to see a whole bunch of serious evidence-- not just a hypothesis that sounds plausible.

This thread is some 11 pages long now, so you are coming in on a conversation that has been going on a while.  I think if you were to go back and read/skim through what is already here (the posts by BBG in particular) you would get more of a sense as to the why of the cynicism on display at the moment.

[DougMacG]

"I fail to see any real talk about the underlying science which is where I think that people should concentrate and not on a lot of extraneous noise.  The bottom line is that the law of conservation of energy hasn't changed so IN - OUT still equals ACCUMULATION.  Accordingly if you change the rate at which energy leaves the planet, then you accumulate heat which we see as a temperature rise.  Greenhouse gases do exist of which carbon dioxide is one.  The infrared absorption spectra of water vapor and carbon dioxide, while similar, do not completely overlap which means that increases in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will lead to increased absorption of infrared light."

I'm all ears.  What is the current rate of warming and what percentage of that is directly attributable to man's use of fossil fuels?  Do you prefer nuclear?

[Crafty_Dog]

I have read Ridley's "The Red Queen" and "Nature via Nurture" and hold him in high regard. 

Here is the transcription of a talk that he gave that IMHO answers Chuck's question well.

ttp://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/11/1/scientific-heresy.html

[Chuck B]

Woof Guro C.,

if the evidence is there, why the cheating

Perhaps the evidence is only subtle at this point in time but possibly there is still a looming threat.  Let's assume that the scientists "know" that the underlying theory is correct but simply can't get their point across.  As we have seen on other topics people have an excellent ability to convince themselves of the absolute veracity of something that may not be proven.  If these scientists were convinced they were correct but couldn't convince other people, then to them this is no longer a science issue but rather an issue of messaging and marketing.  Hopefully no one thinks that I condone what they did but in some respects it seems to me like a tempest in a teapot.

Add on to this my serious doubts as to the wisdom of putting the government in charge of the weather, particularly when Al Gore (just how did he go from being VP of the US to being worth $100 million) and others seek to finance UN giveaway programs with cap & trade, and , , , well, , , I'm gonna want to see a whole bunch of serious evidence-- not just a hypothesis that sounds plausible

.

These are important concerns but obviously don't address whether there is a looming problem.  Without looking it up, I think that people currently believe that the earth's temperature has increased only 1-2 deg. F. so you are not going to see any evidence of biblical proportions at this time.  I find it wholly unsurprising that people are having a hard time quantifying how much the temperature of the entire planet has changed considering the variability.  If people could agree that the science is sound we could get away from (to some extent) looking at the temperature data.

What is the current rate of warming and what percentage of that is directly attributable to man's use of fossil fuels?

I'm perfectly comfortable saying that I don't have the answer to this question.  We know that there are other variables here at work.  One of them may have masked the warming of the planet by CO2 giving us 10 years of flatline temps.  Maybe the whole thing is bunk but the underlying science says to me that we have the potential for a crisis of some sort.  The overlap between the absorption spectra of water vapor and carbon dioxide will limit the overall change because water vapor is already accounting for most of the infrared absorption.  Perhaps this means that the worst case scenario isn't really that bad but I am not convinced of that.

Do you prefer nuclear?

The Japanese have recently done heroic work showing us that nuclear isn't completely user friendly.  I'm not anti nuclear but I'm not the biggest fan either.  There are natural sequesteration processes for carbon dioxide such that if we cut the production rate the concentration will go down.  China and India will probably ensure that the rate doesn't go down any time soon.  I would say that biofuels (not ethanol) have a decent bit of promise right now.

I will check out Guro C.'s article later today.  

Chuck

[Crafty_Dog]

"The Japanese have recently done heroic work showing us that nuclear isn't completely user friendly."

ROTFLMAO!

"Perhaps the evidence is only subtle at this point in time but possibly there is still a looming threat.  Let's assume that the scientists "know" that the underlying theory is correct but simply can't get their point across.  As we have seen on other topics people have an excellent ability to convince themselves of the absolute veracity of something that may not be proven.  If these scientists were convinced they were correct but couldn't convince other people, then to them this is no longer a science issue but rather an issue of messaging and marketing.  Hopefully no one thinks that I condone what they did but in some respects it seems to me like a tempest in a teapot."

This I find unpersuasive.

"Subtle evidence" is not what the scientific mind requires as sufficient for "knowing".  It certainly is not the basis for the mobbing frenzy of a flock of crows going after a hawk of which we have seen so much aimed at those who disagree!   Given the enormity of putting governments in charge of the planet's weather, a task whose enormity should provoke humility instead of the hubris we see, cheating in the name of marketing to those derided as too obtuse to "get it", seems to me a rather large deal.

 

[G M]

if the evidence is there, why the cheating?

"Perhaps the evidence is only subtle at this point in time but possibly there is still a looming threat.  Let's assume that the scientists "know" that the underlying theory is correct but simply can't get their point across.  As we have seen on other topics people have an excellent ability to convince themselves of the absolute veracity of something that may not be proven.  If these scientists were convinced they were correct but couldn't convince other people, then to them this is no longer a science issue but rather an issue of messaging and marketing.  Hopefully no one thinks that I condone what they did but in some respects it seems to me like a tempest in a teapot."

The ancient Aztec priests were pretty sure that there was a looming threat of the sun going out if there wasn't a proper amount of human sacrifice. When scientists stop adhering to the scientific method, they are no longer scientists, just fearmongers in scientific drag. Anyone can claim anything, but the burden of proof is on the claimant.

[Chuck B]

Woof,

"Subtle evidence" is not what the scientific mind requires as sufficient for "knowing".

Many things have been substantially proven through theory or mathematics for which we at the time lacked the instrumentation or means to check.  Many of Einstein's theories were demonstrated only much later once the ability to do so became available.  The scientific mind should be able to look for looming threats prior to getting trounced by them.

When scientists stop adhering to the scientific method, they are no longer scientists, just fearmongers in scientific drag.

You will have to remind me how those scientists stopped adhering to the scientific method.  Like I said, if they answered the question for themselves, then they did it.  If someone puts out something that is incorrect, that doesn't mean that they didn't adhere to the scientific method.  The scientific method is not there to ensure that no one ever puts out something that proves to be incorrect.  Convincing you of the correctness of something is a different issue and one that they are obviously failing at.  It has little to do with the scientific method and is more an issue of sales and marketing.  I still contend that if you tried to understand the science instead of looking at the weather you might be less skeptical.

Anyone can claim anything, but the burden of proof is on the claimant.

It actually isn't.  Some people don't want to look at the idea itself even though the information is out there.

Chuck

[DougMacG]

Chuck and others, I appreciate the thoughtful posts.

I understand the theory of CO2 and warming.  Also true is that warmer air holds more CO2 than cooler air.  Correct?  You swerve into the answer as to why there is not a straight line warming trend, what some call negative feedback factors, along with many other poorly understood variables at work.  The main negative feedback may be through waster vapor and clouds, but another is that plants accelerate growth with elevated CO2 levels and convert the CO2 back to O2.  True?

"I'm perfectly comfortable saying that I don't have the answer to this question." [What is the current rate of warming and what percentage of that is directly attributable to man's use of fossil fuels?]

That is the right answer IMO.  Unfortunately it doesn't get us anywhere.  I believe you started with: "I fail to see any real talk about the underlying science".  The theories and models all fail to include all aspects of all variables.  What we are left with is measurements which seem so difficult to get right.

My next question would have been: what amount of warming should we have had over the last say 50 years at this point coming out of the little ice age or wherever we happen to be in earth's cycles - as compared with actual warming. (also unanswerable?)

True skeptics I think believe in warming as a very small amount, and believe in the human contribution to that but in even much smaller amounts.  Add to that, the timeframe that humans will be heavily dependent on decayed plants as the primary energy source is likely to be only for a very small blip in earth's history, and the planet is far more resilient (IMO) than some are saying.

"If these scientists were convinced they were correct but couldn't convince other people, then to them this is no longer a science issue but rather an issue of messaging and marketing."

As GM pointed out, at that point in their career they became messagers and marketers, no longer scientists.  I believe the answer to why that happened is agenda, pressure and dollars.  There is agenda based thinking IMO that found its way into how some scientists see, choose or adjust data.  There is peer pressure that rises above or through peer review,  and there is the fact that some level of alarmism is necessary to maintain high  levels of funding, the lifeblood of the profession.  There is nothing exciting or newsworthy about running a multimillion dollar study and concluding the earth is doing just fine.  In my observation, the earth is doing just fine.

My introduction to skepticism goes back nearly 20 years IIRC to a press release of a study that came out of NCAR in Boulder where I had a personal connection.  The statement reported by the press was quite bold so I took the time to dig read through the summary and conclusions in the study and found that the press version was a very bad exaggeration that was not actually stated in the summary or conclusions of the study.  Then I dug in further to the fine print and found that the data and analysis in the study did not even support the lesser claims made in the conclusions of the various sections in the study.  The conclusion was very obviously written by different people than those who conducted the study and analyzed the data and the press release was certainly not written by scientists at all.  What the public was told was 2 levels removed from the truth, the actual data and analysis of the data by the scientists.  

Whoever wrote those press releases seems to have won the argument in the 'science' industry and now we see from emails that the 'scientists' were scrambling to find data to fit their theory.  That is not science.

There is no theory or model today that correctly predicts the past, much less the future.

[Chuck B]

Woof Doug,

Also true is that warmer air holds more CO2 than cooler air.

More water actually.  CO2 is a gas at the temperatures here on Earth so there really isn't a limit to the max concentration from a physical standpoint.

another is that plants accelerate growth with elevated CO2 levels and convert the CO2 back to O2.

Plants only process CO2 as fast as they can utilize light so I believe that light utilization is the key factor.  I don't think that the CO2 concentration is a big factor here but I haven't specifically researched it.

The theories and models all fail to include all aspects of all variables.  What we are left with is measurements which seem so difficult to get right.

There is no way that the models could include all aspects of all variables.  Asking them to do so is beyond our understanding and beyond our computers computational ability.  If you oversimplify then you also get junk.  That is why I say go back to the original science which doesn't require complex models if you are in doubt that CO2 could actually cause global warming.  No one should expect calculation of changes in the average temperature of a planet to be straightfoward or within small deviations, which is what we are talking about here, obvious.

True skeptics I think believe in warming as a very small amount,

I agree the number of people that have truly looked into it and think that manmade global warming is impossible either don't understand it or don't care to understand it.  The real question is whether or not we should make a big deal about it.

As GM pointed out, at that point in their career they became messagers and marketers, no longer scientists.

Just because they were trying to make the sale doesn't mean that they ceased to be scientists.  Again, I think that Climategate is rather overblown by people that don't want to do anything about global warming.

In my observation, the earth is doing just fine.

We have seen that there have been changes in the amount of glacial ice mass.  I have yet to see a good hypothesis for why this is occurring other than manmade global warming.  If you have one, I would love to see it.  It surely is possible that the changes in ice mass are a harbinger for future problems.  I suspect that there are regions of the world that will have a seriously difficult time dealing with even a 4 degree fahrenheit change in the average temperature.  Keep in mind that the concentration of CO2 right now is something like 400 ppm so fairly low, but rising.

Chuck

[G M]

As GM pointed out, at that point in their career they became messagers and marketers, no longer scientists.

Just because they were trying to make the sale doesn't mean that they ceased to be scientists.  Again, I think that Climategate is rather overblown by people that don't want to do anything about global warming.

I think Climategate is ignored by those who have swallowed Al Gore's kool-aid and allowed themselves to abandon rational thought.

[G M]

Anyone can claim anything, but the burden of proof is on the claimant.
 

It actually isn't.

Sorry, it actually is. As an example, there are people who claim they were abducted by aliens. Ok, interesting stories, but I'd like some proof. Whitley Strieber and Al Gore have both made money off of stories they sell to true believers. Unlike Gore, I think Strieber actually believes what he is selling. UFO believers claim just as you do, Chuck that "the truth is out there". Me, I'd like some hard evidence before I buy into either thing. Now the fact that "scientists" needed to fake data to support their AGW claims are akin to a UFO believer that fakes a UFO photo.

[Chuck B]

Woof G.M.,

No, it isn't.  There are people out there that are doing work in astrophysics right now that I lack the mental and particularly mathematical capability to understand.  It is not their job to dumb their work down to a point where a layman like myself can understand it.  

I have read what you have written and I don't get in the slightest that you have even attempted to understand the science behind the theory of global warming.  I have given you ample opportunity to let me know what part of the scientific theory you have an issue with and you keep harping on Climategate.  Come on.  Throw me a bone.  What part of the theory don't you believe?  These climate scientists may be good scientists, bad scientists, crooks, whatever.  What they are not is salesmen.  Based on what you have written I don't believe that you lack the mental or mathematical capability to understand the theory.  It simply looks like you haven't bothered to look at it and are rather interested in talking about the soap opera part of this issue.  How could they possibly persuade you if you won't even look at the theory?  And by "they" I mean the scientists that have done good work on this issue and not the ones responsible for Climategate.  Do you not get that a theory can be analyzed completely independently of the empirical data or the personalities involved?

Now the fact that "scientists" needed to fake data to support their AGW claims are akin to a UFO believer that fakes a UFO photo.

So am I to believe that on the day before Climategate you were diligently researching this topic trying to determine the right or wrong of it and then Climategate convinced you that it was bunk?  

I think Climategate is ignored by those who have swallowed Al Gore's kool-aid and allowed themselves to abandon rational thought.

So do you think that I am one of those people?  Climategate is what made me go dig into the nuts and bolts of the scientific theory.

Chuck

[Chuck B]

Woof Guro C.,

I have seen that article before and I am not that impressed.  Millions of people starved in the Soviet Union under Stalin's regime because of some wackjob's theories on genetics?  And to think that people have thought these last 80 some years that the famines in Russia were due to the complete failure of the farm system as a result of collectivization by Stalin.  You learn something new every day.

More to the point.  The author agrees that manmade global warming is occurring which apparently some people still doubt for reasons that escape me.  He then goes on about how the temperature changes probably won't be that great and will probably be on the order of 1.2 degrees C.  He then says that there is uncertainty about whether various phenomena such as clouds, etc. will amplify or lessen the effect.

First of all, I don't think that 1.2 degrees C is necessarily as harmless as he characterizes.  Anyone who has ever attempted to saute something knows that objects do not heat evenly.  If the average temperature of the planet changes in temp by only 1.2 degrees C some places could be unaffected and others could see much higher changes in temperature.  The peoples and species that live in those areas could seriously take it on the chin particularly if that falls on a stressed or already hot area.  Obviously certain species are more temperature sensitive than others and it doesn't take a huge change to affect them.  Even the small changes that have happened already are making it such that areas in California that were ideal for pinot noir grapes are now going to be better suited for grapes that can deal with higher temperatures such as Syrah or Cabernet.  People whose ability to earn a living is subject to the vagaries of the weather are not worrying about the he said, she said BS of Climategate, or waiting with bated breath for the latest utterance from Senator James Imhofe and instead are considering whether they need to replant fields with different crops based on the quality of the product that they are measuring.  California's loss is Oregon's gain on this one so mileage will vary.

Second of all, the author talks about the uncertainty of whether phenomena on the planet will damp or hype the affects of global warming as a reason for inaction.  I say it is a reason for serious analysis of the problem which I think has been lacking on both sides of the fence.  The true believers that he decries have their precise analog in the true doubters that can't imagine that humans could affect the climate one way or another.  Those people on both sides can both pound sand.  Hopefully reasoning people can then have a serious discussion about the topic.  Does anyone really think that Senator James Imhofe is providing good insight here?  Does anyone think that fair and balanced Fox News is remotely fair and balanced on this topic?  Currently if there are heavy snows, the commentators on Fox News laugh at Al Gore.  I used to live up north.  It actually doesn't need to be cold to snow.  Is this the level of scientific discussion we can expect here?

Third, the author trundles out estimated costs for implementing CO2 emissions controls and says that the cost of fuel will double to implement them.  I have always found those studies to suffer from the same sorts of shenanigans that he decries yet he has no problem putting them forward.  If nothing else, market forces and the ingenuity that is a result blunts this type of thing to an amazingly high level that is never accounted for in the study itself.  The case in point is sulfur dioxide emissions controls from power plants.  First we heard from the polluters that there was no such thing as acid rain.  Then when that point became untenable these studies were put forward showing how the average homeowner couldn't afford for us to implement the controls.  Then after they were forced to remove sulfur from offgases, the cost was actually quite low.  Wonders never cease.

Anyway.  The article is a decent read but I didn't learn anything new with the exception of how the Russian famines came about  There is a little too much "what me worry?" in there without enough of a push for having a serious no BS discussion on the topic which he sort of gets at but kind of mucks up IMO trying to be clever.  It is of course a transcript of a lecture so he does need to keep people entertained.

Chuck

[G M]

No, it isn't.  There are people out there that are doing work in astrophysics right now that I lack the mental and particularly mathematical capability to understand.  It is not their job to dumb their work down to a point where a layman like myself can understand it. 

It is when they start pushing a political agenda wanting money and power.

[G M]

http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html

What is the ``scientific method''?
  The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this:


1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

When consistency is obtained the hypothesis becomes a theory and provides a coherent set of propositions which explain a class of phenomena. A theory is then a framework within which observations are explained and predictions are made.




 

Figure 1.1: Flow diagram describing the scientific method. 





The great advantage of the scientific method is that it is unprejudiced: one does not have to believe a given researcher, one can redo the experiment and determine whether his/her results are true or false. The conclusions will hold irrespective of the state of mind, or the religious persuasion, or the state of consciousness of the investigator and/or the subject of the investigation. Faith, defined as  belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence, does not determine whether a scientific theory is adopted or discarded.

A theory is accepted not based on the prestige or convincing powers of the proponent, but on the results obtained through observations and/or experiments which anyone can reproduce: the results obtained using the scientific method are repeatable. In fact, most experiments and observations are repeated many times (certain experiments are not repeated independently but are repeated as parts of other experiments). If the original claims are not verified the origin of such discrepancies is hunted down and exhaustively studied.

When studying the cosmos we cannot perform experiments; all information is obtained from observations and measurements. Theories are then devised by extracting some regularity in the observations and coding this into physical laws.

There is a very important characteristic of a scientific theory or hypothesis which differentiates it from, for example, an act of faith: a theory must be ``falsifiable''. This means that there must be some experiment or possible discovery that could prove the theory untrue. For example, Einstein's theory of Relativity made predictions about the results of experiments. These experiments could have produced results that contradicted Einstein, so the theory was (and still is) falsifiable.

In contrast, the theory that ``the moon is populated by little green men who can read our minds and will hide whenever anyone on Earth looks for them, and will flee into deep space whenever a spacecraft comes near'' is not falsifiable: these green men are designed so that no one can ever see them. On the other hand, the theory that there are no little green men on the moon is scientific: you can disprove it by catching one. Similar arguments apply to abominable snow-persons, UFOs and the Loch Ness Monster(s?).

A frequent criticism made of the scientific method is that it cannot accommodate anything that has not been proved. The argument then points out that many things thought to be impossible in the past are now everyday realities. This criticism is based on a misinterpretation of the scientific method. When a hypothesis passes the test it is adopted as a theory it correctly explains a range of phenomena it can, at any time, be falsified by new experimental evidence. When exploring a new set or phenomena scientists do use existing theories but, since this is a new area of investigation, it is always kept in mind that the old theories might fail to explain the new experiments and observations. In this case new hypotheses are devised and tested until a new theory emerges.

There are many types of ``pseudo-scientific'' theories which wrap themselves in a mantle of apparent experimental evidence but that, when examined closely, are nothing but statements of faith. The argument , cited by some creationists, that science is just another kind of faith is a philosophic stance which ignores the trans-cultural nature of science. Science's theory of gravity explains why both creationists and scientists don't float off the earth. All you have to do is jump to verify this theory - no leap of faith required.

So Chuck, remember the 50 million climate refugees by 2010? Me either. Prediction fail.

http://asiancorrespondent.com/52560/cover-up-un-tries-to-erase-failed-climate-refugee-prediction/

[DougMacG]

Just as clear as the theory of warming tied to CO2 increases is the evidence that earth in its history of cycles has temperature correction mechanisms.  When we simplify down to warming theory without taking account of the opposing forces, we have over-simplified.

Your point about uneven warming is good.  I still live in the north country, 10 degrees F. this morning, would have been 9.5? ) and I don't believe anyone's anecdotal story here that they notice a one degree difference from their childhood.  We make a 120 degree adjustment every year with little problem.  I saw as many kids out playing on the rinks during Christmas vacation as I would normally see on the ball fields on a summer day.

I saw Copper Mountain Colo ski resort warning their customers that global warming could end mountain skiing so they were buy wind credits to offset their lift energy use a few years back and then I saw Snowbird Utah open until 4th of July last summer.  It is hard to get information that is global.  The B.E.S.T study covered only land surface temps, still only a portion of the planet.

Offered in good humor, but I will be happy to make the adjustment from Pinot to Cabernet while we sort this out.  

[G M]

http://pjmedia.com/blog/wounded-warmists-attack-its-what-happens-when-prophecy-fails/?singlepage=true

Wounded Warmists Attack: It’s What Happens ‘When Prophecy Fails’

The AGW community is behaving exactly like the UFO cult studied by psychologist Leon Festinger in his classic study of cognitive dissonance.



by
Art Horn

Bio




May 16, 2010 - 12:00 am








 









The release of the Climategate emails has caused the world to look at the methods of leading climate scientists with much greater skepticism and concern.
 
The well-documented, thoroughly dissected emails revealed that data was manipulated to hide temperature trends that were not favorable to researchers’ intended outcomes. Using their positions of power in the field, leading climate scientists kept man-made global warming skeptics from publishing in scientific journals. They perverted the “peer review” process by reviewing their research papers among themselves. Emails were deleted to hide information from authorities after Freedom of Information Act requests were made (Nixonian behavior which made the “Climategate” moniker especially apt).

The list of questionable — and possibly criminal — activities goes on and on.
 
Emails obtained by the Washington Times reveal that climate scientists at the National Academy of Sciences seem to be feeling a bit wounded: they say they are “tired of being treated like political pawns.” And just as a physically wounded creature fights back with even more aggression after an injury, instinctively knowing its very existence may be in peril, the Times emails show that climate scientists are planning “an outlandishly aggressively partisan approach” to strike back at their “enemies.”
 
One of the scientists quoted in the emails is Stanford University researcher Paul Ehrlich. He writes:
 

Most of our colleagues don’t seem to grasp that we’re not in a gentlepersons debate, we’re in a street fight against well-funded, merciless enemies who play by entirely different rules.
 
This is the same Paul Ehrlich who in 1968 wrote in his book The Population Bomb:
 

The battle to feed all of humanity is over. … In the 1970s and 1980s hundred of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.
 
This prediction was of course wrong, but most disturbing was his fascistic advice: he advocated the use of “compulsory birth regulation (using) the addition of temporary sterilants to water supplies or staple food.” He was quoted in 1992 as saying: “Giving the world cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving a child a machine gun.” In 1990, he said: “We’ve already had too much economic growth in the United States. Economic growth in rich counties like ours is a disease, not the cure.”
 
With his history of misanthropy and totalitarianism, it’s no wonder that Ehrlich went on to become a man-made global warming crusader.

He and many other global warming alarmists follow a pattern outlined by Leon Festinger in his book When Prophecy Fails: A Social and Psychological Study of a Modern Group that Predicted the Destruction of the World. Festinger points out that those who believe strongly about an issue share common threads:
 

The belief must be held with deep conviction and it must have some relevance to action.
 
Global warming alarmists believe deeply that human burning of fossil fuels is unquestionably altering the climate and that something must be done to stop it.
 
Festinger also writes:
 

The person holding the belief must have committed himself to it, that is for the sake of his belief he must have taken some important action. The more important those actions are the greater the individuals commitment to the belief.
 
Global warming advocates see no other alternative to what is causing temperature to rise. They publish papers based on computer models that predict more warming and use these papers to better their professional careers. In doing so they are irrevocably committed to man-made global warming, and the more papers they publish the more committed they become.
 

The belief must be sufficiently specific and sufficiently concerned with the real world so that events may unequivocally refute the belief.
 
Scientific evidence reveals that global warming stopped in 1998. The data show a slight cooling since 2001. Phil Jones, former head of the Climate Research Unit, admits the Medieval Warm Period may have been warmer than today. He also states that there has been “no statistically significant global warming for 15 years.” Scientific evidence has revealed that carbon dioxide is only a bit player in global climate change.
 

The individual believer must have social support. It is unlikely that one isolated believer could withstand the kind of disconfirming evidence that has been specified.
 
The disconfirming evidence is the thousands of scientists across the world in hundreds of peer-reviewed papers showing that the human component in climate change is insignificantly small.
 

If, however the believer is a member of a group of convinced persons who can support each other, the belief can be maintained and the believers may attempt to persuade nonmembers that the belief is correct.
 
Perhaps in the form of “an outlandishly aggressively partisan approach” to strike back at their “enemies.”
 
The global warming “science” community is feeling threatened by evidence and revealing emails — their funding, and therefore their careers, may be in peril. In reaction to this, they will mount an even more alarmist campaign to convince the world — and themselves — that humans cause global warming and that it must be stopped. As global temperature fails to rise in the future, we will be bombarded by increasingly shrill cries of global warming catastrophe. All forms of weather — cold, hot, record snow, record heat, floods, droughts, or anything else — will be considered proof of global warming. A more than willing media desperate for spectacular headlines will give them the front page.
 
A creature or group that is damaged psychically will respond like a wounded animal. The ensuing attack will be more aggressive and prolonged — an attempt to convince their “enemies” that they are correct, just as Leon Festinger predicted long ago.
 
Art Horn spent 25 years working in television as a meteorologist. He now is an independent meteorologist and speaker who lives in Connecticut. He can be contacted at skychaserman@cox.net.

[Chuck B]

Woof G.M.,

It is when they start pushing a political agenda wanting money and power.

Well if you are only going to undetake the most superficial analysis of something that you don't want to believe in the first place, then I suppose you would never be convinced.

I guess they didn't change the scientific method after all in the 25 years since I was in college.  Who knew?

Paul Ehrlich wasn't making scientific predictions there.  If you can't discern that, then I think I see what the problem is here.  I want to know what YOU think is wrong with the theory itself.  Telling me that someone made a bad prediction that wasn't based on science doesn't tell me much of anything.  What don't YOU think is correct about the theory?

@Doug,

It is well established that the Earth is subject to multiple climatic influences.  I believe it has been ruled out that changes in solar output are responsible for this one.  Any other hypothesis you want to throw out there?

We make a 120 degree adjustment every year with little problem.

We also have the ability to control the temperature of our buildings plus humans are one of the more adaptable creatures.  Some species are extremely sensitive to high temperatures and changes in rainfall (something else that we have innoculated ourselves against) so multiple high temp days are hard on them.  

I saw Copper Mountain Colo ski resort warning their customers that global warming could end mountain skiing so they were buy wind credits to offset their lift energy use a few years back and then I saw Snowbird Utah open until 4th of July last summer.  It is hard to get information that is global.

You follow me that it doesn't have to be that cold to snow.  It seems like a plausible hypothesis to me that warmer temperatures would lead to greater evaporation of water leading to more snowfall and a greater snowpack.  Also, we expect lots of variation in the weather from year to year so that could completely account for it too.  

Chuck

[G M]

"Well if you are only going to undetake the most superficial analysis of something that you don't want to believe in the first place, then I suppose you would never be convinced."

It's not about belief, if you'll be so kind as to refer to the chart on the scientific method, you'll note the lack of the word "belief". Now, if you wish to believe in something without evidence, fine. Just don't call it science, because it's not.

[Chuck B]

Woof G.M.,

Actually belief is between observations and hypothesis.  They just don't write it in because most people know that it is there.

Still waiting for your analysis of the underlying theory.  Post number 10 or so now where I have asked for it.

And by the way, there is no theory of gravity despite the article that you posted showing the scientific method saying that there is one.  I figured you would have caught that  

Chuck

[G M]

Actually belief is between observations and hypothesis.  They just don't write it in because most people know that it is there.

Bwahahahaha!

You ARE joking, right?

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with what the word belief means?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/belief


be·lief
   [bih-leef] Show IPA

noun
1.
something believed;  an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.

2.
confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.

3.
confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.

4.
a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.

[Chuck B]

Woof G.M.,

Why would you put together a hypothesis if you didn't believe that something had promise in the first place?  You wouldn't.  I used the word "believe" in the first place.  You were the one that changed it to "belief".

And coming from someone that just posted an article that talked about a theory of gravity.  ROFL. 

Chuck

[Crafty_Dog]

"I believe it has been ruled out that changes in solar output are responsible for this one."

I have posted in this thread more than once over the last few years about the variations in solar flares/output being perhaps responsible in part or whole for what AGW folks are attributing to humans.   I am unaware of anything contrary to this.

[G M]

Woof G.M.,

Why would you put together a hypothesis if you didn't believe that something had promise in the first place?  You wouldn't.  I used the word "believe" in the first place.  You were the one that changed it to "belief".

And coming from someone that just posted an article that talked about a theory of gravity.  ROFL. 

Chuck

Lots of evidence for gravity, as far as AGW, nothing but fraud thus far. If you had evidence, you'd cite it, right?.

[Chuck B]

Woof Guro C.,

Chart on this page titled temperature v. solar activity sure seems to suggest that the sun is not the culprit.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-intermediate.htm

Chuck

[Chuck B]

Woof G.M.,

Excuse my french, but LOFL.  You posted an article on the scientific method whose goal was to bash scientists that believe that global warming could have manmade causes that talked about a theory of gravity.  Read this as often as necessary.  THERE IS NO THEORY OF GRAVITY.  Gravity is an observed phenomenon.  We have a set of correlations called the Newton's Law of Gravitation that we can use to calculate gravitational forces.  If you need to get medieval on the calcs, you can use the General Theory of Relativity which is still not a theory of gravity.  There is no one that can explain why that mass that is YOU is attracted to the mass that is the EARTH.  We simply know that it happens and we calculate the magnitude of that force.  That is not a theory.

And thanks.  This has to be the funniest thing I have seen in something like 300 years give or take a few.  LOL.

Chuck

[G M]

"THERE IS NO THEORY OF GRAVITY."

Better send these guys an email explaining that then.

http://www.physorg.com/news85310822.html

Alternative theory of gravity explains large structure formation -- without dark matter
December 14, 2006

The light from galaxies in the background has been warped and “arced” by the galaxy cluster Abell 1689 in the foreground, and perhaps with some help by either dark matter or a stronger type of gravity on this large scale. Image Source: NASA, N. Benitez (JHU), T. Broadhurst (Racah Institute of Physics/The Hebrew University), H. Ford (JHU), M. Clampin (STScI),G. Hartig (STScI), G. Illingworth (UCO/Lick Observatory), the ACS Science Team and ESA.

In the standard theory of gravity—general relativity—dark matter plays a vital role, explaining many observations that the standard theory cannot explain by itself. But for 70 years, cosmologists have never observed dark matter, and the lack of direct observation has created skepticism about what is really out there.

Lately, some scientists have turned the question around, from “is dark matter correct?” to “is our standard theory of gravity correct?” Most recently, Fermilab scientists Scott Dodelson and former Brinson Fellow Michele Liguori demonstrated one of the first pieces of theoretical evidence that an alternative theory of gravity can explain the large scale structure of the universe.

[G M]

See Chuck, unlike AGW, we can measure gravity. Unlike AGW, we know it exists.

[Chuck B]

Woof G.M.,

Did you even read what you posted?  People are discussing which theory of gravity is correct.  They are postulating an "alternative" theory.  Go back to your handy dandy little chart on the topic.  Does that make sense that based on your chart people could be discussing that people could be discussing which theory is right?

Again.  ROFL.  There is no theory of gravity.  There are laws of gravitation. Try to understand the difference.  People are trying to put together a theory of gravity.  We will know when it happens because they will get the Nobel prize.  

Chuck

[G M]

Did you even read what you posted?

Yes. Did you?

People are discussing which theory of gravity is correct.

Yes they are. which tends to undercut your assertion "THERE IS NO THEORY OF GRAVITY."
Does it not?

[Chuck B]

Woof G.M.,

Seriously.  There is no theory of gravity.  There is no accepted explanation for why the phenomenon that we call gravitation exists.  There are sets of equations that we use that very precisely define what gravity does.  We understand gravity.  We accept that it exists.  We do not know the why of it plain and simple.  If you think there is some theory out there then post me a link to an article that explains why you do not float off of the earth.  I want to know exactly what transpires between you and the earth that makes this happen.

Chuck

[G M]

Chuck,

I'm the one pointing out gravity exists, you are the one asserting "THERE IS NO THEORY OF GRAVITY.". Now, there are different theories how it works, what causes it. We can measure it and make reliable predictions around it.

Now, let's contast it to AGW.....

Can we measure AGW? Can we make reliable predictions around it?

[Chuck B]

Woof G.M.,

I think we can safely say at this point that you don't know the scientific meaning of the word theory.  When you have a theory of gravitation, there are no "different theories".  You have a theory.  Accordingly THERE IS NO THEORY OF GRAVITATION.  They are at best at the hypothesis point on your handy dandy chart. 

We can measure it and make reliable predictions around it.

Yes.  We have several ways of doing this.  That's why gravity is a LAW.  When you can tell me they why of it, then you will have a THEORY.

Can we measure AGW?

Pretty sure we can.

Can we make reliable predictions around it?

They haven't been the best so far.  If you would prefer to call it the AGW hypothesis, you won't hurt my feelings any.

Chuck

[G M]

I think we can safely say at this point that you don't know the scientific meaning of the word theory.  When you have a theory of gravitation, there are no "different theories".  You have a theory.  Accordingly THERE IS NO THEORY OF GRAVITATION.  They are at best at the hypothesis point on your handy dandy chart. 

I think we can safely say that anyone who can type "Theory of gravitation" into google can quickly find many scientific journals discussing the allegedly non-existant "theory of gravitation". Did AGW make your google-fu evaporate?