Global Warming Science: A Giant Farce

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Maybe I'm selling Lebowski short, but my guess is he doesn't have a clue what stochastic modeling is.

I believe he has extensive understanding of it, but I'm confused by his rhetoric because his focus upon "consensus" as to cause.

If he's focusing upon his trade journals, then there may be a quasi-consensus among the vocal minority. If that is the "feeling" he's trying to convey, then I understand.

However, if one surveys as a layperson, ignorant of the actual science, but capable of reading what trends the literature suggest, other than an acknowledgment that climactic change is occurring, man's contributions seem indeterminable. And Seattle's insert appears to me to be the reality of the science. It's politics, not science to promote an agenda that may result in some good, but at what cost?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

I've always been fairly pro-environment and still am. However, I have to say, reading the transcript of a debate from last March on the topic has influenced my thinking on global warming. This is a long read, but worth it if you're at all interested.

http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org...n%20031407.pdf

Cliff notes version: The resolution was "Global Warming is not a crisis." Two sides to the debate with three people on each side. Brian Lehrer (WNYC) moderated the debate. To judge the debate, a poll of the audience was conducted before and after the debate. Those supporting the resolution went from 30% to 46%, against the resolution fell from 57% to 42%. A fairly resounding victory. Interesting debate.

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.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I believe he has extensive understanding of it, but I'm confused by his rhetoric because his focus upon "consensus" as to cause.

If he's focusing upon his trade journals, then there may be a quasi-consensus among the vocal minority. If that is the "feeling" he's trying to convey, then I understand.

However, if one surveys as a layperson, ignorant of the actual science, but capable of reading what trends the literature suggest, other than an acknowledgment that climactic change is occurring, man's contributions seem indeterminable. And Seattle's insert appears to me to be the reality of the science. It's politics, not science to promote an agenda that may result in some good, but at what cost?

I am saying that the fact that someone got 31,000 people to sign a petition says nothing about overall consensus among the top-level scientists actually studying the issue. What is the background of these 31,000 people? How was the petition worded? One of the people they quote is a medical doctor. How many of these folks actually have the technical expertise to properly analyze the data and studies?

That's why I think the article is deceptive.

[Archaea]

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.

Now you're not being entirely honest or fair. Lindzen's ties to the oil industry were relatively minor and date back IIRC to the early 1990s. Just because a guy once had contacts doesn't make him forever tainted. You're unfairly doing what those who want to attack him, do, dismiss him out of hand without accurately describing his credentials or even accurately describing his credentials.

If I were a lawyer presenting him before a jury, he would be persuasive, and your dismissal of him would go over like a lead balloon. I'm not denying your dismissal of the other two.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

I am saying that the fact that someone got 31,000 people to sign a petition says nothing about overall consensus among the top-level scientists actually studying the issue. What is the background of these 31,000 people? How was the petition worded? One of the people they quote is a medical doctor. How many of these folks actually have the technical expertise to properly analyze the data and studies?

That's why I think the article is deceptive.

That's understandable and perhaps a legitimate criticism. However, my criticism of the sector of scientists studying climactic change is they have a bias which could motivate them to sign onto the hysteria angle, if they sound the alarm, more money will be funneled to them, so their declarations don't sound completely disinterested to me either.

[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.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Now you're not being entirely honest or fair. Lindzen's ties to the oil industry were relatively minor and date back IIRC to the early 1990s. Just because a guy once had contacts doesn't make him forever tainted. You're unfairly doing what those who want to attack him, do, dismiss him out of hand without accurately describing his credentials or even accurately describing his credentials.

If I were a lawyer presenting him before a jury, he would be persuasive, and your dismissal of him would go over like a lead balloon. I'm not denying your dismissal of the other two.

Yes, he is the best-qualified of the three and the prior funding is a minor factor.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Archaea

That's understandable and perhaps a legitimate criticism. However, my criticism of the sector of scientists studying climactic change is they have a bias which could motivate them to sign onto the hysteria angle, if they sound the alarm, more money will be funneled to them, so their declarations don't sound completely disinterested to me either.

So Lindzen's oil contracts don't matter but the entire climate change research community is suspect because they get money for research? Please.

[Archaea]

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.

I probably understand almost none of the aspects to which you refer, but lawyers are relatively good at looking at assumptions.

And to examine a data field of 150 years at best, without using the same methods of measurements in order to make prognostication about the happenings in a system over billions of years, makes no sense to this non-scientists.

Now having read a little, very little, I note the climatologists also examine the earth and what's below it to make determinations, not just man's measurements for the last 150 years.

So if good scientists know we know so little, why is their hysteria? There is a political agenda which must benefit those sounding the alarm, that is the purpose of all hysteria and agendas.

Jeff detracts from the anti-hysterians by laughing off Crichton, all the while he seems to be accepting of the hysterians' hyena, Gore, without a mention.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

So Lindzen's oil contracts don't matter but the entire climate change research community is suspect because they get money for research? Please.

I would find his distant prior funding worth mentioning but not as important as pending funding?

Jeff, try to be dispassionate. In front of a jury, I can state, the two are not the same.

Distant past contracts, or imminent current or future contracts, which appear to create a greater conflict?