Zephyr
Active Member
Hydrogen, you have already twisted past events regarding the 'Al Gore Wins Nobel Peace Prize' thread, in my opinion, but I think for anyone wishing to judge for themselves it is easy to do. The thread is brief, and it is here.
I also suggest that your implication that I alone was being too sensitive might now be amended to include yourself. I submit as evidence, those over-italicized, over-amped responses in Post # 57. This is not the first time you have gone ballistic on this topic - whether I was involved or not - I doubt it will be your last.
I am sorry Hydrogen, your supposition is not on target in this case. While I use Gavin Schmidt to give you some idea of the science-related issues, in part because he is easily accessible via the Internet, my opinions about Lindzen are drawn from several places over time. They include not only his work in science, but also his extracurricular work in private industry, his associations with Bush during a critical environmental policy initiative, and his testimony before both American and British legislative bodies.
Despite the fact that I am not finished examining Richard Lindzen after all this time, I am beginning to form enough of an opinion to characterise him as a "man with an agenda".
When it comes down to the personalities you place before us - I respect Gavin Schmidt and I know you don't; you respect Richard Lindzen and I do not yet have enough information other than to say he is quite political, and has conflicts of interest between his science and his consulting.
Its time you finally admitted what probably many others and i have long suspected, that you have taken a firm position against the global warming thesis. I have taken a position as well, and admitted to it back on the Al Gore thread, going so far as to add a new avatar to further indicate my allegiance. But somehow I feel our two stances while outwardly mirror opposites, mask one difference. Based on what you state and based on what I state, I feel I am still more open about my position. I will listen to other points of view, and I am willing, in principle, to vacate my current position if I came into possession of enough competent research to make me question it. So far that has not happened, and I don't expect it to in the near term. But I am open to this scenario nonetheless. I don’t see that bend on your end. I believe there is legitimate science that supports your views, just not enough of it to suit me. You, on the other hand, seem unwilling to accept any science as legitimate on the global warming side, and it shows in your efforts to label its proponents at every turn 'biased'.
As far as I am concerned, 'biased' is not a respectful word to use if you view your opponent as legitimate. So I’ll let you in on a little secret – I am mocking its usage by you, but not adopting it. It is a word that you use far too excessively, and marks quite plainly your lack of respect for global warming research and the global warming proponents in particular.
Lindzen insists on collectively calling his opposition 'alarmists', and he pounds away with that word over-and-over again. And that is part of the package with him, like it or not. And I don’t like it. I guess one man's 'biased' is shared in another man's 'alarmist.'
I take it this is your form of mockery for 'objective,' because few would take any of these statements to be an example of the concept. You have, however, cleverly managed to cast your phrasing into a pseudo-scientific version of objective statements. Only a fool would fall for any of this.
I see. These nuances are sometimes lost when all you have are the residue of the change.
As to your over-sensitivity about my noting your revision: I didn’t have a problem with your revision, I had a problem with your substitution – that is the gist of the response.
How can we cover all three? Try this:
That old sensitivity is metaphorically lunging into this thread again.
What I think you don’t get, is that not all opponents of global warming theory are being criticised because of their methods. Unfortunately you have cited a few that have, so pointing this out is not particularly revelatory to anyone informed on this topic, but curiously you have over-reacted and assumed it is an attack on any and all of those who have questioned global warming.
It would not be incorrect to point out that global warming as a science is well represented across all aspects of the problem, even though we have a tendency to focus only on the areas of temperature studies. Perhaps you have done your part by mentioning that, but I won't patronise some of the research you selected, because I think it is seriously flawed.
If you hadn’t cited anyone, however, I wouldn’t have known what you were basing any of your science on. And for that I thank you.
“Whipping boy? You raised his name, remember?” I couldn't resist pulling this out again. Almost leaps off the screen in its shrillness,
I am beginning to think I remember far more than you, even though you were there. While it is true I introduced Schmidt, it doesn’t follow that I made him into a Whipping boy by introducing him – you, Hydrogen, are the perpetrator of that charade. And you continue to try to do that here, almost as if the details don’t matter; as if Schmidt has been disgraced; as if you had somehow scored a victory, when in reality you had made an understandable but undeniable gaffe. And what is more apparent, you don’t want to acknowledge that gaffe at any level. And that disappoints me even more.
In both the Gore and now this Harper thread, eventually the discussion reduces to global warming if the latter is any part of the topic. You protest the politics, but anyone reading your comments cannot help but notice how much a role politics plays in your discussion. I see no reason anymore to exclude the politics, even if it poisons the well.
I have to also mention that the rest of this quote also shows how quickly you drag out the ‘biased’ card - again. Maybe you'll get more creative in the labels to come.
Repeating the didactic point that RealClimate is an unofficial blog is very disingenuous, it's a one-note theme that could easily be transferred over in the other direction. That part about the changes to temperature charts not being significant in changing any of the global warming trends was not just stated on this blog, but also officially on the NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) website, but that brings other scientists into the picture. I am sure that in short order you would be in attack mode, complaining about their 'biased' positions too.
Just to give you a sampling of what I see on your side of the fence to compare to what you are complaining about in an unoffcial blog:
I guess RealClimate looks rather tame and ordinary when compared to all this. But I suspect you will have an alternative explanation.
This is your way of addressing the graphs, frame them around your argument, then throw them out? What figures have you actually discussed in them, specifically? Where did they go wrong in any of the compilations? What can you find there that goes counter to what they claim?
You have essentially mailed in your response, in my opinion, and don't worry, I won’t ever 'demand' or ask you again. By repeating what you have already said in other places, without a sliver of anything coming from the numbers proper, I guess you are saying to me, and everyone else that you just don’t think this is legitimate enough for you to examine.
I also suggest that your implication that I alone was being too sensitive might now be amended to include yourself. I submit as evidence, those over-italicized, over-amped responses in Post # 57. This is not the first time you have gone ballistic on this topic - whether I was involved or not - I doubt it will be your last.
Concerning Lindzen, I suppose that maybe you would consider him biased on the basis of the opinions Gavin Schmidt. …
I am sorry Hydrogen, your supposition is not on target in this case. While I use Gavin Schmidt to give you some idea of the science-related issues, in part because he is easily accessible via the Internet, my opinions about Lindzen are drawn from several places over time. They include not only his work in science, but also his extracurricular work in private industry, his associations with Bush during a critical environmental policy initiative, and his testimony before both American and British legislative bodies.
Despite the fact that I am not finished examining Richard Lindzen after all this time, I am beginning to form enough of an opinion to characterise him as a "man with an agenda".
When it comes down to the personalities you place before us - I respect Gavin Schmidt and I know you don't; you respect Richard Lindzen and I do not yet have enough information other than to say he is quite political, and has conflicts of interest between his science and his consulting.
I suppose that maybe you would consider him biased … You clearly have taken some umbrage to the use of the word. call me biased if you wish. I have taken a position.
Its time you finally admitted what probably many others and i have long suspected, that you have taken a firm position against the global warming thesis. I have taken a position as well, and admitted to it back on the Al Gore thread, going so far as to add a new avatar to further indicate my allegiance. But somehow I feel our two stances while outwardly mirror opposites, mask one difference. Based on what you state and based on what I state, I feel I am still more open about my position. I will listen to other points of view, and I am willing, in principle, to vacate my current position if I came into possession of enough competent research to make me question it. So far that has not happened, and I don't expect it to in the near term. But I am open to this scenario nonetheless. I don’t see that bend on your end. I believe there is legitimate science that supports your views, just not enough of it to suit me. You, on the other hand, seem unwilling to accept any science as legitimate on the global warming side, and it shows in your efforts to label its proponents at every turn 'biased'.
As far as I am concerned, 'biased' is not a respectful word to use if you view your opponent as legitimate. So I’ll let you in on a little secret – I am mocking its usage by you, but not adopting it. It is a word that you use far too excessively, and marks quite plainly your lack of respect for global warming research and the global warming proponents in particular.
Lindzen insists on collectively calling his opposition 'alarmists', and he pounds away with that word over-and-over again. And that is part of the package with him, like it or not. And I don’t like it. I guess one man's 'biased' is shared in another man's 'alarmist.'
If you want me to try to be objective, then my answer would be that there is no conclusive proof that human emissions have caused the slight shift in temperature this century; there is no conclusive proof that the temperatures of today are unusual from other warm periods throughout the holocene; and there is no proof that temperatures will continue to rise in the extreme manner predicted by the IPCC. I'll let the IPCC document speak for itself: …
I take it this is your form of mockery for 'objective,' because few would take any of these statements to be an example of the concept. You have, however, cleverly managed to cast your phrasing into a pseudo-scientific version of objective statements. Only a fool would fall for any of this.
You assume incorrectly. I edited my post to add Scarfetta and West and inadevertently removed Solanaki and Usokin. …
I see. These nuances are sometimes lost when all you have are the residue of the change.
As to your over-sensitivity about my noting your revision: I didn’t have a problem with your revision, I had a problem with your substitution – that is the gist of the response.
How can we cover all three? Try this:
- S&U - problems with the research
- S&W - problems with the research
- S&U / S&W - same problems but all part of the pile
Scientists have lined up against to question methods? Imagine that! Just like scientists have lined up to question the conclusions that human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing catastrophic climate change. Isn't an essential part of science skepticism? That would mean that there still is a debate on what has caused less than one degree of measured warming since the start of the 20th century. Nevertheless, there are many other papers on the importance of the sun-climate connection - being that the sun is the primary driver of climate.
That old sensitivity is metaphorically lunging into this thread again.
What I think you don’t get, is that not all opponents of global warming theory are being criticised because of their methods. Unfortunately you have cited a few that have, so pointing this out is not particularly revelatory to anyone informed on this topic, but curiously you have over-reacted and assumed it is an attack on any and all of those who have questioned global warming.
It would not be incorrect to point out that global warming as a science is well represented across all aspects of the problem, even though we have a tendency to focus only on the areas of temperature studies. Perhaps you have done your part by mentioning that, but I won't patronise some of the research you selected, because I think it is seriously flawed.
If you hadn’t cited anyone, however, I wouldn’t have known what you were basing any of your science on. And for that I thank you.
Whipping boy? You raised his name, remember? Read some of his archived responses on RealClimate. Schmidt definitely has a bias in his beliefs, and it is often reflected in his approach to how he responds. I suppose if someone agrees with him, he would not appear to be biased. So be it. RealClimate is a blog site, with strong emphasis that contends that climate change is caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases. That is the favoured position on that site, and, as such, all other positions, points of view and research countering that view are, of course, criticized in order to defend that position.
“Whipping boy? You raised his name, remember?” I couldn't resist pulling this out again. Almost leaps off the screen in its shrillness,
I am beginning to think I remember far more than you, even though you were there. While it is true I introduced Schmidt, it doesn’t follow that I made him into a Whipping boy by introducing him – you, Hydrogen, are the perpetrator of that charade. And you continue to try to do that here, almost as if the details don’t matter; as if Schmidt has been disgraced; as if you had somehow scored a victory, when in reality you had made an understandable but undeniable gaffe. And what is more apparent, you don’t want to acknowledge that gaffe at any level. And that disappoints me even more.
In both the Gore and now this Harper thread, eventually the discussion reduces to global warming if the latter is any part of the topic. You protest the politics, but anyone reading your comments cannot help but notice how much a role politics plays in your discussion. I see no reason anymore to exclude the politics, even if it poisons the well.
I have to also mention that the rest of this quote also shows how quickly you drag out the ‘biased’ card - again. Maybe you'll get more creative in the labels to come.
Repeating the didactic point that RealClimate is an unofficial blog is very disingenuous, it's a one-note theme that could easily be transferred over in the other direction. That part about the changes to temperature charts not being significant in changing any of the global warming trends was not just stated on this blog, but also officially on the NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) website, but that brings other scientists into the picture. I am sure that in short order you would be in attack mode, complaining about their 'biased' positions too.
Just to give you a sampling of what I see on your side of the fence to compare to what you are complaining about in an unoffcial blog:
- Sami Solanki has his own blog and as I recall he constantly discusses his opinion on his work, and he also uses it to address what he calls misquotes and mis-representions by newspapers and online sites.
- And as for Richard Lindzen, you could start several threads on his activities. He is said to have had the ear of President Bush when he executed his environmental policy. He wrote an OpinionJournal piece for the Wall Street Journal attacking Al Gore. He has freely granted interviews with popular non-scientific magazines, of which Time and Newsweek immediately come to mind. And there are issues about his criticisms of global warming 'alarmist' for using that issue to generate revenue streams, while simultaneously giving notable polluters cover for their deeds, exacting his ransom through exorbitant consulting fees.
I guess RealClimate looks rather tame and ordinary when compared to all this. But I suspect you will have an alternative explanation.
So, back to your demands for a response about the graphs - 1880 to 2005.
From 1880 to 1980 the primary source of collecting temperature data was from surface measurement sites. Before 1880, there is no data with which to attempt the construction of a useful temperature history based on thermometric readings.
Over this time period the number of these measurement sites has varied considerably. Starting with just over 200 sites in the 1860's to over 14,000 in 1965. This number has declined to about 5,000 by the last year of the twentieth century.
These measurement sites are situated in a non-random fashion, with more than ninety percent being located on land - despite the fact that that seventy percent of the of the earth's surface is ocean. The preponderance of these sites are - and have been - located in the northern hemisphere. Arctic and Antarctic surface sites were only established in the 1930's, and the distribution of these sites was rather thinly dispersed, to say the least.
Over time, many of these land measurement sites have been situated in places where their local surroundings were altered by such things as the appearance of buildings, pavement, suburbs, and the removal of trees. Since the end of the Second World War, there have been equipment changes. Stations were moved, and the time of day when data were collected also changed.
Many poor countries have sparse weather station coverage, with records that do not go back anywhere near to 1880. In many poor nations, there have often been few resources to ensure quality in record keeping. Even in Canada, a truly national distribution of such stations was only established in the late 1940's - with the density being nowhere near that of the United States. In short, the coverage of such stations has not ever been distributed equally.
The methods of then constructing the average temperature from every site, and combining these averaged measurements into a global average, and then assembling an historical average, has been the subject of scientific criticism dating back to the 1950's. A number of statistical adjustments, the introduction of proxy data, and the addition of satellite data available only since 1980, have been introduced, with no real way of knowing if these adjustments are adequate in actually depicting an accurate record of national temperature history, or more importantly, global records of average surface temperatures.
So what is the average global temperature record since 1880? How complete is the data? How accurate are the statistical methods for obtaining both the land-sea and national averages? How significant could the statistical errors be? A tenth of a degree? Half a degree?
This is your way of addressing the graphs, frame them around your argument, then throw them out? What figures have you actually discussed in them, specifically? Where did they go wrong in any of the compilations? What can you find there that goes counter to what they claim?
You have essentially mailed in your response, in my opinion, and don't worry, I won’t ever 'demand' or ask you again. By repeating what you have already said in other places, without a sliver of anything coming from the numbers proper, I guess you are saying to me, and everyone else that you just don’t think this is legitimate enough for you to examine.