Global Warming and the Environment

[WinePusher]

It's bad enough when individuals deny reality or threaten others, but when such views are widespread, that's when its damaging.

Examples:

denying global warming.

Questions:

Generally speaking, what are the main concerns of environmentalists and how should these concerns be dealt with?

Is denial of Global Warming a denial of reality?

[chestertonrules]

In other words,
my original statements were accurate.

You have made it awfully clear you are here to only post your opinion and not actually have any sort of discussion. I fully demonstrated how you claims were wrong and this is your only response. Really? This is why you continue to get moderator warnings. You are not allowed to ignore rebuttals by other people with your one liners.

If you want to discuss the issue, then you need to get on track, if you simply want to c&p PRATTS and not bother to get into the issue, you have come to the wrong place.

Muller's colleague points out major flaw in his conclusion: the warming has ended.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... eague.html

[chestertonrules]

Mann decentered the data and this biased the results. He admitted as much.

Why did he do this?

Do you even know what de-centering is?

People have even given out the data for people to evaluate the evidence themselves (if you have the stats software) and you can evaluate the claims of both sides.

If you want to know why he did what he did, read either the paper, or his lengthy explanation on his blog.

That doesn't explain Mann's actions or motivations before being exposed.

[Wyvern]

Mann decentered the data and this biased the results. He admitted as much.

Why did he do this?

Do you even know what de-centering is?

People have even given out the data for people to evaluate the evidence themselves (if you have the stats software) and you can evaluate the claims of both sides.

If you want to know why he did what he did, read either the paper, or his lengthy explanation on his blog.

That doesn't explain Mann's actions or motivations before being exposed.

No but it does demonstrate the importance of an open scientific process and peer review. Not everything is a vast conspiracy, before jumping to conclusions remember Occams razor.

[Goat]

Muller's colleague points out major flaw in his conclusion: the warming has ended.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... eague.html

That is not what Muller's colleague said. That is a conclusion that is being pushed by the news paper.

She specifically is quoted as saying that the rate of increase is decreasing.

I wrote her an email asking her to clarify her views.. so I can get it directly from the source, rather than filtered through a news paper journalist.

[nygreenguy]

Mann decentered the data and this biased the results. He admitted as much.

Why did he do this?

Do you even know what de-centering is?

People have even given out the data for people to evaluate the evidence themselves (if you have the stats software) and you can evaluate the claims of both sides.

If you want to know why he did what he did, read either the paper, or his lengthy explanation on his blog.

That doesn't explain Mann's actions or motivations before being exposed.

As I asked, do you know what de-centering is? You claim it is this big horrible mistake, yet most people dont agree. Nothing was even "exposed". Some people claim his tests didnt meet the assumptions of PCA, and he explained why he thought his analysis was the right one. As I pointed out before, even using different and new methodologies produce the same graph.

If you read the full Mann 1998 paper, it even explains the whole process in the methods sections.

To try to say it was some sort of cover up doesnt make sense. This is more a disagreement about methodology that dishonesty.

[nursebenjamin]

Muller's colleague points out major flaw in his conclusion: the warming has ended.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... eague.html

(A) Are you a Poe? Your whimsical posts seem to be crafted for maximal comic amusement. Examples: A, B, C.

(B) Do you actually care whether or not your understanding of climate science is based on reality? If not, then there's really no use responding to any of your posts.

(C) <<<“Muller's colleague points out major flaw in his conclusion: the warming has ended.�>>>
Muller’s colleague (Judith Curry) co-authored a paper that states, “Though it is sometimes argued that global warming has abated since the 1998 El Nino event …, we find no evidence of this in the GHCN land data. Applying our analysis over the interval 1998 to 2010, we find the land temperature trend to be 2.84 ± 0.73 C/century, consistent with prior decades.�[68, page 26] Any idea why she would write one thing in a article that’s been submitted for peer-review, and be quoted as saying the exact opposite in an interview with a “journalist� from the DailyMail?

(D) I think that you are looking at the following graphs from the article you linked:
[center][/center]
The impression that the second graph gives is that global warming has stopped, right? However, the graph begins with January 2001 and ends in May 2010. Do you have any idea why a DailyMail “journalist� would begin and end the graph on such months? Climatologists usually aren’t concerned about decadal time scales; why does the DailyMail use such a time scale? The BEST team states that “decadal fluctuations are too large to allow us to make decisive conclusions about long term trends based on close examination of periods as short as 13 to 15 years.�[69] Why would this “journalist� try to draw conclusions about a long-term trend based on an examination of a short period? Does the fact that the graph actually covers slightly less than a decade make you at all skeptical of the impression it leaves? Why was data for the rest of 2010 not included? The data point for April 2010 is a temperature anomaly of approximately 2°C below the trend. Why is it such an outlier? What would the slope of the graph be if this one outlier was removed? ...

Doesn't something like this cause you to ask questions?

[Confused]

Moderator Clarification
Chesteronrules,
Could you please refer to the posts in which you have validated the claims made in the following posts:
Here:
Here:

Both have been reported as unsubstantiated claims and I am not finding anything blatantly clear that supports your claims. Perhaps I missed it. If so, please point it out to me. If not, then please withdraw such claims or admit there is no validation.
Rules
C&A Guidelines


______________

Moderator clarifications do not count as a strike against any posters. They serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received and/or are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels a clarification of the rules is required.

Do you know how to use google? The claims are well documented and easy to verify. You are clearly biased and should not be moderating this thread.

Moderator Warning

You are free to have your own opinions, however, you must follow forum rules. Please review them. It is not my job to google anything you suggest as I am not a participant in the thread at all. It is however my job to address reported posts. You were given a clarification. Now a warning. If you have issues, please sent them via PM. If you feel I am bias, then feel free to PM another moderator.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Alueshen]

Chesterton your argument thus has no more quality then the moon landing deniers here or the flat earth folks here. I'm surprised that people are still trying to point out you haven't convincingly stated your case or supported your position.

You've ignored the claims you can't rebut or responded with old, biased, intentionally manipulative data and when these tactics are pointed out your response is, "nuh-uh".

You've violated the rules and been reprimanded at least a half dozen times for failing to substantiate your claims, proof here.

It's time to offer something of substance, something relevant and peer reviewed. Try to refrain from denial, manipulation and deflection, or just admit that you don't have evidence to support your position. If you want to save face you can even end with the word "yet".

In the mean time, I eagerly await your 1-2 sentence reply.

[nursebenjamin]

The following video basically summarizes this entire thread:

[center][youtube][/youtube][/center]

[RobertUrbanek]

The Man from U.N.C.L.E., which aired on NBC from 1964 to 1968, starred Robert Vaughn and David McCallum as secret agents Napoleon Solo and Illya Kuryakin, employed by U.N.C.L.E. (United Network Command for Law Enforcement) to thwart the terrorist and criminal plots of THRUSH.

The TV series displayed an uncanny knack for predicting current events, including “climate change.�

In a third season episode, The Concrete Overcoat Affair, bad guy Louis Strago, played by Jack Palance, and a former Nazi scientist plan to redirect the Gulf Stream in order to make Greenland a semi-tropical paradise run by THRUSH, while turning most of the Northern Hemisphere into an icebox. New York, Paris and London will suffer through blizzards in the middle of July.

In fact, scientists today are concerned that if global warming melts Greenland glaciers, the addition of large amounts of fresh water to the Atlantic Ocean will disrupt the themohaline circulation, the process that keeps parts of North America and Europe warm and habitable. The disastrous effect of disrupting the Gulf Stream was portrayed, to an exaggerated degree, in the 2004 movie The Day After Tomorrow.

In 1966, when this U.N.C.L.E. episode first aired, one would have assumed that anyone planning to freeze major cities or even risk such an outcome would be considered criminally insane. Today, they aren’t called THRUSH agents; they’re called US senators and Fox News commentators.

For more The Man from U.N.C.L.E. prophecies, see:
http://www.satanicuniverse.com/weirdscience/uncle.html