Global Warming Science: A Giant Farce

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Spaz

No, I wouldn't say it's reasonable to spend billions of dollars on the assumption that Global Warming is man-made.

I agree, there are MANY (Al Gore) who will use this as political leverage, and we should be careful to avoid listening to those individuals very closely. Still, I don't think even a majority of scientists fall into this group. I would bet most are trying to honestly research the issue.

Some things I would NOT currently do, due to fear of man-made global warming (warning - these will consist of double-negatives):
-Not drill economically viable oil sites in the U.S.
-Buy a hybrid that gets 40mpg, and costs 3x as much as my Toyota Corolla that gets 35mpg.
-Spend thousands of dollars on 'clean' energy for my home.

Some things I WOULD do, right now:
-Start carpooling & mass transit where available & convenient.
-Limit unnecessary driving.
-Work on my wife not leaving lights all over the bloody house on all the time. How hard is it to flip off a switch on your way out the door?

personally if we could get where nobody drove and everybody rode a bike, you'd hear no complaints from me.

[Spaz]

Originally Posted by Archaea

personally if we could get where nobody drove and everybody rode a bike, you'd hear no complaints from me.

I'd be complaining after my hour-long bike ride each morning, and the hour-long bike ride back home. I live 15 miles from my office, and would have to seriously book it to make it in an hour.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Spaz

I'd be complaining after my hour-long bike ride each morning, and the hour-long bike ride back home. I live 15 miles from my office, and would have to seriously book it to make it in an hour.

I'd love an hour ride to and from work.

[minn_stat]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Anyone that is even moderately conversant in multiple regression analysis, time series analysis and has even a faint understanding of the difficulties in identifying and accurately measuring the major contributors to global climate, especially on a HISTORICAL basis, should be skeptical of the conclusions foisted upon the public by the Global Warming alarmists.

Even if they're correct, the alpha is so large it is utterly meaningless.

As one who works with statistics every day, I endorse this post.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by minn_stat

As one who works with statistics every day, I endorse this post.

I was hoping somehow I get get an "Amen" from Lebowski here, but I got complete silence. I'm still trying to decide if he was ignoring me or if it was too hard for him to publicly admit he agreed with me about something.

minn_stat, what kind of work do you do?

[minn_stat]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I was hoping somehow I get get an "Amen" from Lebowski here, but I got complete silence. I'm still trying to decide if he was ignoring me or if it was too hard for him to publicly admit he agreed with me about something.

minn_stat, what kind of work do you do?

I've jumped around a bit in my career. My first position out of school ended up being basically a SAS programmer/architect, although they had told me the position would be more than that. I did do some stats, and a lot of BI-type stuff, and waited patiently for what was promised, but eventually decided to leave.

So I left for the warmer climes of MN, where I provided the statistical support for the finance department of a Fortune 100 company. One of my primary responsibilities was working with financial forecasting models of various sorts.

About a year ago, a friend gave my name to a healthcare organization here in MN. They contacted me, I listened, and I eventually took their offer to provide statistical support to their marketing department. Segmentation, conjoint analysis, customer satisfaction surveys, that sort of thing.

So I'm a bit of a "jack of all trades, master of none" when it comes to statistics.

[Mars]

Originally Posted by Spaz

While State of Fear surely makes some interesting arguments, the idea of taking a work of fiction as a convincing argument on any subject makes me laugh.

Hollywood HATES Crichton because he originally wanted to write the book to SUPPORT global warming, but the more research he did the more he realized that everyone he knew was completely fooled by a complete sham, a fanatical religion of psuedo-science.

All his references are right there in permanent ink. Those who don't want to know the truth just refuse to read it (kind of like the Book of Mormon ).

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

I didn't have time to read the whole thing, but I found the makeup of the panel quite interesting. The pro side included Michael Crichton, who writes fun novels, but is a complete hack when it comes to real science. It also includes Philip Stott who has never published a single academic paper in this area and Richard Lindzen from MIT who is the best-qualified of the three, but has a history of being a consultant for the oil industry. The three folks on the other side have much stronger scientific credentials.

Yes, Michael Crichton's a little out of his league in this debate, and it shows in his statements. I'm not really even sure why their side picked him to be on the team, other than he perhaps is a better communicator than the typical scientist. I'm only assuming this, as the transcript doesn't reflect this, but he perhaps is more effective in person.

Regarding Stott, even if he has never published in this field, he makes some very good points and raises some very good questions. To point out that he hasn't published in the area seems a fairly weak response--why not just answer his points?

From my view, this is the mistake the anti-resolution folks made in the debate--they continued to ignore the arguments made, repeating the idea that the consensus of scientist agree with global warming. As one of the speakers put it, relying on "consensus" is the sign of a weak argument.

I don't know what the answer on this subject is. I would like to place my faith in scientific research but I know very well that scientists are human and susceptible to trends. I'm also very surprised at the weakness of the arguments put forward on their side. Are they just picking poor representatives? Comparing global warming to a child's fever? Really? That's the analogy?

I'm looking for a reason to support them, but I haven't heard a single response to a number of objections other than "just trust us".

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

Regarding Stott, even if he has never published in this field, he makes some very good points and raises some very good questions. To point out that he hasn't published in the area seems a fairly weak response--why not just answer his points?

From my view, this is the mistake the anti-resolution folks made in the debate--they continued to ignore the arguments made, repeating the idea that the consensus of scientist agree with global warming. As one of the speakers put it, relying on "consensus" is the sign of a weak argument.

I wouldn't too much weight into one debate.

Actually, concensus among the top scientists in a given field is a sign of strength, not weakness. It's not a guarantee, but it indicates a preponderance of evidence.

[Jeff Lebowski]

From your CB post:

I have a Bachelor's in Statistics and it's painfully obvious to see the fundamental problems with their inability to compare small sample sizes (i.e. 10 to 30 years) compared to historical climatological data (of which the accuracy is questionable to begin with) without ignoring all of the pitfalls associated with extrapolating the data out decades or with trying to make the kind of "90%" claims they make about such a small sliver of a time series process.

Good God, you don't even need to finish your undergraduate degree to see the problems here.

The hubris in this post is so stunning, so laughable, that I hardly know where to begin.

The people elected to the National Academies of Science have distinguished academic careers and are generally the best and the brightest in their fields. Do you honestly believe that they could publish hundreds of articles in the top peer-reviewed academic journals and not understand basic statistics? Or that the whole process can be boiled down to a multi-variate regression analysis? You haven't a clue what the peer-review process is like or what degree of rigor is applied at this level of scientific research.

But wait! You have a bachelor's degree. From Brigham freakin' Young, by God. Not only that, you are over-qualified to dismiss all of this work. Sure, buddy.