| The Glade 4.0 https://gladerebooted.net/ |
|
| The IPCC Consensus has no baseline data ... https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=318 |
Page 1 of 3 |
| Author: | Khross [ Fri Sep 25, 2009 1:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | The IPCC Consensus has no baseline data ... |
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZT ... WM=&w=MA== Read it ... It's pretty scary. |
|
| Author: | Ladas [ Fri Sep 25, 2009 2:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
While interesting, I think there is evidence in the article that suggests the bias the author implies doesn't exist. What does exist is equally scary, but I see how this does not necessarily point to a global warming conspiracy. |
|
| Author: | Screeling [ Fri Sep 25, 2009 2:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
No surprises here. |
|
| Author: | Khross [ Fri Sep 25, 2009 4:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The IPCC Consensus has no baseline data ... |
Ladas: Obviously the National Review will be viewed as biased, but the article itself is pretty interesting. |
|
| Author: | Diamondeye [ Fri Sep 25, 2009 5:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The IPCC Consensus has no baseline data ... |
"Biased" isn't going to cut it against "he can't produce the original data". Either he can or he can't. You can lie about whether he has it, but you can't really be "biased". |
|
| Author: | Kaffis Mark V [ Fri Sep 25, 2009 5:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Wow. Thank you, Khross, for the new addition to my sig. |
|
| Author: | Jasmy [ Sat Sep 26, 2009 1:24 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The IPCC Consensus has no baseline data ... |
Oh, fudge!! This don't look right, in no way, shape, or form! Very scary! |
|
| Author: | Ladas [ Sat Sep 26, 2009 8:13 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The IPCC Consensus has no baseline data ... |
Khross wrote: Obviously the National Review will be viewed as biased, but the article itself is pretty interesting. I was refering to the implied bias against the author by the holder of the data... ie you can't have it because you disagree with the position. Not that couldn't be the case, but according to the article, the data was originally collected in the 70s, and "adjusted" for conditions in the early 80's. At that point in time, Global Warming hadn't even been a twinkle yet in Gore's Internet creating mind. The buzzword of the day was still global cooling. So, given the reluctance to release the original, unaltered data, it makes me really curious about what the adjusters are trying to hide, and how they altered the data. |
|
| Author: | Loki [ Sat Sep 26, 2009 1:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
People who alter or hide original scientific data for purposes of moving forward their own agendas deserve a special circle in hell. |
|
| Author: | Monte [ Mon Sep 28, 2009 9:43 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Wait - has no data, or won't share their baseline data with the National Review? |
|
| Author: | Khross [ Mon Sep 28, 2009 9:44 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The IPCC Consensus has no baseline data ... |
Monte: Read the article. After all, in 8 years, this is exactly the first time I've been compelled to link anything from the National Review. By the way, Patrick J. Michaels has a Ph.D. in Climatology. He happens to be the author of that linked piece. I know, I know: the pro-HIGCC people call him a hack. Unfortunately, I'm looking at a bibliography spanning nearly 40 years with an average of 6 publications a year. The point remains, however, that Quigley and Jones won't release the data used to form the IPCC baseline. There are claims it was destroyed; claims they have confidentiality agreements, etc. Making that data available to every researcher on the planet, in its entirety, is fundamental to maintaining any scientific credibility for the "Consensus". It's about scientific rigidity, repeatability, and verifiability. |
|
| Author: | Monte [ Mon Sep 28, 2009 10:05 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Well, everything I am reading on this paragon of intellectual virtue says he is absolutely married to the greenhouse gas producing lobby. Everythying from cars to coal and big oil. Just because he's well educated (and by the way, his PHD is in climatology, but his undergrad and masters is in biology, and his climatology PHD was not given for climate change research but instead was related to crops, etc) doesn't mean he's not bought and paid for by an industry with a vested interest in quelling any and all regulation of their emissions. |
|
| Author: | Stathol [ Mon Sep 28, 2009 10:08 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
... |
|
| Author: | Khross [ Mon Sep 28, 2009 10:14 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The IPCC Consensus has no baseline data ... |
Monte: Really? Perhaps you should start reading his academic articles. Michaels is does not deny the existence of anthropogenic global warming. He does, in fact, state that it exists. He is a critic of the predictions and doomsaying present in the IPCC conclusions and most other alarmist global warming/climate change positions. He is also a critic of mandatory carbon dioxide caps in local economies. |
|
| Author: | Monte [ Mon Sep 28, 2009 10:15 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
All you have is a series of dots? The guy has made hundreds of thousands of dollars from the greenhouse gas producing lobby. I'm sorry, but I just don't think he's trustworthy. I didn't trust the scientists the tobacco companies paid to "question" the science that connected cigarette smoke to cancer, either. And for good reason. |
|
| Author: | Stathol [ Mon Sep 28, 2009 10:15 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Monte wrote: and his climatology PHD was not given for climate change research but instead was related to crops, etc) Ahhh, so having a degree in climatology is not enough to qualify someone as a climatologist. Got it. You do realize that you just blatantly admitted to the fact that you won't listen to anyone who doesn't already believe your position, right? |
|
| Author: | Stathol [ Mon Sep 28, 2009 10:18 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Oh, and all of this is somewhat beside the point anyway. My "series of dots" was mostly a commentary on how severely you've missed the entire point of the article in order to engage in an irrelevant ad hominem rant about the article's author. Which is to say, even if what you are saying is true, it isn't relevant. |
|
| Author: | Khross [ Mon Sep 28, 2009 10:21 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The IPCC Consensus has no baseline data ... |
Montegue: He did receive exactly $100,000 from the Intermountain Rural Electric Association in Colorado. Unfortunately, the ABC News report you're reading about on Wiki failed to mention all the pertinent facts in Michaels' case. 1. He believes in AGW. He simply disagrees with the scale and magnitude of predictions put forth by alarmists. 2. He believes in a mathematical model of AGW that shows human beings increasing temperatures at a constant rate due to the curved nature of carbon dioxide thresholds. 3. He doesn't support localized caps in emissions, because they are ineffectual and non-functional. So, again, what exactly discredits him from commenting on the unavailability of the baseline data used to make these predictions? |
|
| Author: | Monte [ Mon Sep 28, 2009 10:23 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Stathol wrote: Monte wrote: and his climatology PHD was not given for climate change research but instead was related to crops, etc) Ahhh, so having a degree in climatology is not enough to qualify someone as a climatologist. Got it. You do realize that you just blatantly admitted to the fact that you won't listen to anyone who doesn't already believe your position, right? I didn't say it wasn't enough. I was making his educational background more clear than was originally presented by Khross. I am happy to listen to people that already don't believe in my position. However, HIGCC is not a position a person "believes" in. It is simply a fact, a consequence of the way we produce energy and live our lives. I *do* question the motives of those people heavily funded by the very industries that have a massive vested interest in avoiding regulation. I think it destroyes their credibility. They are no different than the scientists that the smoking lobby paid to question the links to cancer, as I said above. |
|
| Author: | Stathol [ Mon Sep 28, 2009 10:28 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Monte wrote: I am happy to listen [...] Monte wrote: It is simply a fact, [...] So what you really mean is that you are happy to ignore anything said by anyone who doesn't agree with your fact. |
|
| Author: | Monte [ Mon Sep 28, 2009 10:31 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The IPCC Consensus has no baseline data ... |
Khross wrote: Montegue: He did receive exactly $100,000 from the Intermountain Rural Electric Association in Colorado. Unfortunately, the ABC News report you're reading about on Wiki failed to mention all the pertinent facts in Michaels' case. Fix your doom bots, they aren't tracking me as well as you think. Quote: 1. He believes in AGW. He simply disagrees with the scale and magnitude of predictions put forth by alarmists. Which puts him squarely against every single major scientific organization on the planet. I'm sorry, but this one guy, heavily funded by industry, is not a terribly compelling advocate. Quote: So, again, what exactly discredits him from commenting on the unavailability of the baseline data used to make these predictions? The source of his funding - a poweful private lobby with a serious vested interst in avoiding any and all regulation of their industry. That's what discredits him. He is not an independent scientist. He's bought and paid for. |
|
| Author: | Stathol [ Mon Sep 28, 2009 10:36 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
1) How are scientists working for "major scientific organization[s]" the IPCC, or any of the environmental organizations "independent scientist[s]? 2) Are you claiming that the factual claims of the article -- that Quigley and Jones have refused to release the data to the individuals mentioned, and that they have alternately claimed that the data was lost, destroyed, or could not be released -- are false? |
|
| Author: | Khross [ Mon Sep 28, 2009 10:37 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The IPCC Consensus has no baseline data ... |
Montegue: $100,000 is not heavily funded by industry. But, you continue attacking Dr. Michaels, since apparently you cannot defend the scientific fraudulence of the IPCC and Quigley and Jones. I'll explain the implications of the article, since they escape you: if the data is not readily available for verification and falsification, it is scientifically unacceptable. There can be no consensus without scientific rigor, and by all appearances, that is exactly what Quigley, Jones, and the IPCC are avoiding. What does that tell you about your "fact" of HIGCC? |
|
| Author: | Ienan [ Mon Sep 28, 2009 10:52 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Monte wrote: Just because he's well educated (and by the way, his PHD is in climatology, but his undergrad and masters is in biology, and his climatology PHD was not given for climate change research but instead was related to crops, etc) doesn't mean he's not bought and paid for by an industry with a vested interest in quelling any and all regulation of their emissions. I'm not even going to get into this discussion because you aren't going to listen. As a scientist, let me just say that what I read in that article appalls me. But let me comment on this tidbit by you Montegue. Firstly, undergraduate and masters degrees in biology would be common for almost any biological sciences specialist. You specialize more the higher you go up. For instance, my degree is in biology, but I'm a microbiologist who plans on getting his doctorate eventually in microbiology or a highly related field. Obviously, that wouldn't qualify me to be microbiologist according to you. As for your second point, you often do dissertation research in the area your mentor is in. So if his mentor was doing crop-based climatology, he would likely write a dissertation on crop biology. But when you go on your own, you often follow your own research interests. So before you comment next time, at least know how the process works. Lastly, just because you receive money from an institution doesn't mean you're biased. You need research grants to fund scientific research. You wouldn't be able to conduct any research otherwise. Does receiving government money make you any less biased? After all, the government at any given time wants a certain conclusion to flow from the research as well. You do realize for the scientific data to be legitimate it must also be peer-reviewed in a scientific publication as well, right? So are you saying all those other scientists are on the payroll as well? Because that's quite an accusation to make. When you understand how the scientific process works, it becomes more clear how bias is largely weeded out. The problem occurs when there's a "consensus" and no one challenges the research, which as I have shown, is a fundamental aspect of the scientific process. |
|
| Author: | Diamondeye [ Mon Sep 28, 2009 11:28 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The IPCC Consensus has no baseline data ... |
The problem with HIGW advocates is really simple: They want all kinds of polution control and environmental regulation. That's their start point. The question they are asking is not "What sort of enviornmental issues are we facing and will regulations address them, and if so which ones?" They're asking "How can we get the strictest environmental regulations possible?" Essentially, rather than look at what problems we are facing and then trying to determine what tools, if any, are best suited to address it, they are looking at the "tool" of various environmental regulations and trying to determine "what can we do with these things?" Then, when someone says "wait a minute, the problem may not be something that is best addressed by these regulations you want" they go apeshit, because if the problem either doesn't exist, or is a result of something we can't control, there's no reason for the regulations they're infatuated with. |
|
| Page 1 of 3 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|