The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 20 of 54 FirstFirst ... 10181920212230 ... LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 540

Thread: Speaking of Global Warming

  1. #191
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Shelbyville, Tn
    Posts
    1,450

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Tome View Post
    Didn't know that... where did you hear it?



    Yep, I know that....



    Well, I do know that he stepped down willingly until the controversy could be investigated, but subsequently he was reinstated into the Climatic Research Unit as Director of Research because there were no findings of wrong-doing.



    I did not know this... how so? Could you elaborate. but first... I'm not really a believer that this is a government conspiracy, given the real data that are available. So, please, cite some credible sources other than someone's blog.



    I'm really not sure what this has to do with the situation we're discussing.
    First, sometimes I think my words convey an atitude that I really don't mean. Second, I can't include info in previous posts that i would like.

    As to your 1st question. Can't say exactly the sources since it was about 4-5 years ago. I do know I first went to the PSU site to see how the accusations were handled. I remember for sure that the committee was composed exclusively of PSU professors. Can't say for sure but I do believe that it also gave the names of the scientists who were not allowed to testify concerning the allegations made against Dr. Mann. I may have found that at a different site. I do know that not only did those scientists disagree with the findings, they also considered his violations of protocol but also his attempt to delay the publishing of true data and his attempt to delete that data which was contrary to his findings, to be grounds for not only censure but dismissal from the university. The tenor of their response to the committee conveyed a high level of anger.

    The findings of the committee was that the errors were attributed to modeling. The committee never address nor commented on the charges of deliberately deleting pertinent data nor his refusal to provide data. Those who were not allowed to testify considered the committee of PSU professors a stacked committee and considered the refusal of the committee to allow them to testify, to be nothing but a whitewash. Personally I suspect that the gov. is at the least the provider of by far the greatest if not all money for research. I will talk about this later.

    As to Dr. Jones, when he resigned, his statement did convey an admission of impriortity,and that the data did not justify the conclusions. As I said, he did admit given the data, that the global temperature was as great or greater during medieval times than the present, something the conclusions drawn by Dr. Mann knowingly left out. I do have more resspect for Dr. jones since he admitted his conduct, but little for Dr. Mann who continues to make excuses for his actions.

    As to your last question, I think you and I would agree that by far the greatest amount of money provided for the research is provided by the government. Many times on this very thread, it has been stated that HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS of scientists have come to the conclusion that man made global warming is the significant cause. I gave you the example of Mt St Helens which pales in complexity to global warming and the scientists were wrong. Would not LOGIC tell you that if the gov. provided HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS of scientists with grants to study global warming that AT LEAST ONE would come up with a different conclusion given its complexity?? Don't you think that AT LEAST ONE SCIENTIST given a grant would screw up and come to the wrong conclusion? Or would you think that only those scientists who had already formed an opinion concerning global warming, would be those who got the grants?

    As to the O J Simpson remark, I watched most of the trial. Two things I thought interesting. His attorneys would have you believe that the police imediately substituted OJ's blood for that found on the gate. I guess the jury thought the police immediately wanted to charge OJ and let the murderer get away. Another interesting thing I saw was the charade of the gloves. If you were to look closely you would have seen that he first put on latex gloves only part way on so that the fingers of the latex gloves only went partially to the hand. If the leather gloves had been the size of a footbal, there still would be no way that he could have put them on properly. I guess the jury bought all of that. By the same token, anyone who buys significant man made global wareming or denies it absolutely, is in actuallity just guessing.

  2. #192
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Shelbyville, Tn
    Posts
    1,450

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Henry V View Post
    No, wrong. Your side has presented the "it's just nature/nature caused it before" argument, the "evil greedy scientists and their data are tainted lies" argument, the "there is too much uncertainty" argument, and the "cosmic rays are the cause" argument among others.

    I have presented and defended the case that warming is occurring and that humans are the likely cause because I am convinced that:

    1) The evidence strongly suggests that humans have caused the increase in CO2 and have presented the evidence here. A reasonable person cannot look at the evidence and deny that CO2 has increased in the atmosphere and that burning centuries worth of stored carbon-based fuels in one century is the most likely cause. If you want to argue that CO2 has not increased or that this will not cause climate change, go ahead, but no one has.

    2) CO2 is without a doubt a greenhouse gas and that it is now at levels never seen in many many thousands of years. If you want to argue that is not a greenhouse gas and that is not at record levels, good luck. No one has yet.

    3) The vast majority of scientists that study and model climate report that an increase in CO2 will result in a warming of the planet and change the earth's climate. One of the only legitimate scientist arguing against this is Dr. Lindzen from MIT. He accepts the idea that CO2 has and will increase global temperatures but that this will then create a negative feedback loop where water vapor will increase causing increased cloud formations which will reflect enough sunlight to offset any temperature increases caused my increased CO2. This too is a nice theory, but as I mentioned a few posts ago, based on what I have read, there is just as much if not more likelihood that positive feedback will accelerate rather than offset CO2 induced warming. If you want to argue on Mr. Lindzen's theory, go for it. If you want to argue the cosmic ray theory, go for it. Any other theories, let's hear them.

    4) The evidence supports the fact that 90+% of climate scientist have concluded that the planet is warming and CO2 is the primary driver. There are published papers on this, not just an online poll. If you want to site the online poll signed by Perry Mason and one of the spice girls, go for it. If you have other evidence, present it

    5) The empirical evidence that the earth is warming is irrefutable. Mann's hockey stick graph has been affirmed through multiple different methods. If you want to cite opinion pieces written by conservative bloggers who cherry pick data and lie about the findings of research papers and are called on it by the authors, go for it. If you have some science that shows a cooling trend, please post.

    6) The skeptic and denier industry funded largely by the fossil fuel industry has been very successful casting doubt and uncertainty just like the tobacco industry did 40+ years ago.
    Congratulations your side is winning. They have the money.
    I am surprised that you bring up Mann's famous hockey stick graph. It shows over a period of 1000 years a constant global temperature up until the invention of the internal combustion engine. Even Dr Phillip Jones admitted that the graph was wrong and that the global temperature during medievel times(around 1400-1600) "WERE AS HIGH OR HIGHER THAT THE PRESENT". Dr Jones wos using Mann's own date when he made the statement of his resignation.

    As to the money, I suspect that the Gov. provides far more money in global warming research that anybody else. So if you want to talk about who get the most money, I would say that YOUR side gets the most money.

  3. #193
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Detroit Lakes, MN
    Posts
    1,436

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HuntClub View Post
    A little sensitive are we? I was merely responding to you're little rant about logic. Along those lines, I was pointing out to you that you are using the same philosophy for your belief as you used to refute anothers. ....
    Yes, apparently a bit sensitive, but several people in this thread have indeed used exactly the logic I presented to "justify" their position.

    In response to the logic you presented, I posted the rationale for my position.

  4. #194
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Detroit Lakes, MN
    Posts
    1,436

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by caryalsobrook View Post
    I am surprised that you bring up Mann's famous hockey stick graph. It shows over a period of 1000 years a constant global temperature up until the invention of the internal combustion engine. Even Dr Phillip Jones admitted that the graph was wrong and that the global temperature during medievel times(around 1400-1600) "WERE AS HIGH OR HIGHER THAT THE PRESENT". Dr Jones wos using Mann's own date when he made the statement of his resignation.

    As to the money, I suspect that the Gov. provides far more money in global warming research that anybody else. So if you want to talk about who get the most money, I would say that YOUR side gets the most money.
    Why are you surprised about citing the Mann graph? You seem to think it provides some sort of fatal flaw in my position. This wiki summarizes the controversy quite well http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy. As I have mentioned at least once before, the Mann graph has been superseded by other reconstructions, but they all generally affirm the findings.

    I particularly like the statements:
    "A panel of scientists convened by the National Research Council was set up, which reported in 2006 supporting Mann's findings with some qualifications, including agreeing that there were some statistical failings but these had little effect on the result."
    and
    "More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, have supported the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears.[12][13] The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.[14] Ten or more subsequent reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008, have supported these general conclusions."

    Yes, I know you suspect that that the scientists are getting most of the money and have the most to gain. I disagree.

  5. #195
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Shelbyville, Tn
    Posts
    1,450

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Henry V View Post
    Why are you surprised about citing the Mann graph? You seem to think it provides some sort of fatal flaw in my position. This wiki summarizes the controversy quite well http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy. As I have mentioned at least once before, the Mann graph has been superseded by other reconstructions, but they all generally affirm the findings.

    I particularly like the statements:
    "A panel of scientists convened by the National Research Council was set up, which reported in 2006 supporting Mann's findings with some qualifications, including agreeing that there were some statistical failings but these had little effect on the result."
    and
    "More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, have supported the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears.[12][13] The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.[14] Ten or more subsequent reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008, have supported these general conclusions."

    Yes, I know you suspect that that the scientists are getting most of the money and have the most to gain. I disagree.
    Ok, so it is not GLOBAL WARMING, and it is not CLIMATE CHANGE. IT IS NORTHERN HEMISPHERE WARMING. So let me get this straight. We have "reconstructions" to again "prove" significant man made global warming. And failing that we will again have "reconstructions" of reconstructions ad infinitum to prove a preconceived conclusion.

    A few years ago we probably agreed concerning global warming, but the fact is thoseadvocating global warming LIED AND COLLUDED. Now we are in the stage where those who dissagree produce only "junk" science and are called "skeptics". I have no doubt that the opposing side may also lie and collude. Why not,how else are they to oppose those that do? I must say you are right calling those like me "skeptics", for there is no doubt that I am that. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Good advise for ALL.

  6. #196
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    6,851

    Default

    I know Henry doesn't like American Thinker, but this is kind of interesting. It gives a URL for a website for further explanation.
    http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/...n_numbers.html
    If you assume the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are right about everything and use only their numbers in the calculation, you will arrive at the conclusion that we should do nothing about climate change! Yes you read that right.


    In fact, careful modelling (there's that word again) [COLOR=#11B000 !important]shows
    that we are 50 times better off waiting and adapting to climate change as it happens (assuming it happens) than we are taking action now, using their numbers![/COLOR]

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/...#ixzz2epomp5Cp

    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  7. #197
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Detroit Lakes, MN
    Posts
    1,436

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry Clinchy View Post
    I know Henry doesn't like American Thinker, but this is kind of interesting. It gives a URL for a website for further explanation.
    http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/...n_numbers.html

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/...#ixzz2epomp5Cp

    [/FONT][/COLOR]
    Actually Gerry, I love it when you post stuff from American Thinker. *This time you have served up an author who is an actor turned videographer. I guess that this guy is more qualified than Al Gore to offer an opinion piece on the topic.

    In paragraph one sentence two he works in blaming the MSM (perhaps this is a requirement of every article in the American Thinker?, every one you posted has). By the end of the paragraph he has used the “liberal code word” (your term used a while back) “deny” to perpetuate the idea, “remember they are calling us stupid”.

    The next few paragraphs makes the accusations that no one ever supplies any numbers and that any numbers and models that are out there are not to be trusted. He then proceeds to report on what happens if you take these suspect numbers and put them in a model that proves his point which is a bogus conclusion.

    A little later, he writes: “I shan't bore you with the details”. Yeah, the details which are numbers, right, and later “The AGW alarmist crowd are good at throwing numbers around."

    Wait; didn’t he just accuse the other side of not producing numbers?

    Yes, he stated:“But what we don't see much of are cold hard numbers. Oh we see lots of numbers of the rubbery or nebulous variety, the plucked almost from thin air variety, but very little in the way of actual hard sensible numbers that were arrived at in an actually sensible way.”

    From what I can tell, they are taking numbers out of the IPCC report intended for one purpose and using them for an entirely different purpose and using a model to generate a bogus result. Here are some critics of this work with a lot more to say about the results.
    http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/09/m...ake-money.html
    http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot...1-project.html
    http://wottsupwiththatblog.wordpress...make-me-laugh/

    I expect we will see more articles about this stuff in the next few weeks. The latest IPCC report is due out soon and the denial industry needs to start their pre-preemptive campaign to smear the results. It is interesting to note that there is no denial in this article just the conclusion that “it is not worth doing anything about it.”

  8. #198
    Senior Member huntinman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    6,936

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Henry V View Post
    Actually Gerry, I love it when you post stuff from American Thinker. *This time you have served up an author who is an actor turned videographer. I guess that this guy is more qualified than Al Gore to offer an opinion piece on the topic.

    Equally qualified and entitled to offer an opinion... Doesn't mean anyone has to listen or read either.
    Bill Davis

  9. #199
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Shelbyville, Tn
    Posts
    1,450

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Henry V View Post
    Why are you surprised about citing the Mann graph? You seem to think it provides some sort of fatal flaw in my position. This wiki summarizes the controversy quite well http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy. As I have mentioned at least once before, the Mann graph has been superseded by other reconstructions, but they all generally affirm the findings.

    I particularly like the statements:
    "A panel of scientists convened by the National Research Council was set up, which reported in 2006 supporting Mann's findings with some qualifications, including agreeing that there were some statistical failings but these had little effect on the result."
    and
    "More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, have supported the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears.[12][13] The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.[14] Ten or more subsequent reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008, have supported these general conclusions."

    Yes, I know you suspect that that the scientists are getting most of the money and have the most to gain. I disagree.
    Thanks for posting the reference to the "reconstruction" of Mann's hockey stick graph. WHICH MANN PLAYED AN INSTRUMENTAL PART. I guess the history of past conduct means nothing to you. I also saw where his modeling and conclusions were related to the northern hemisphere. It might be of interest to you that it IS ONLY A SMALL PART OF THE EARTH!

    The "flaw" as YOU call it, it that his actual data and orriginal modeling Actually showed that there WAS A PERIOD DURING MEDIEVAL TIMES that the GLOBAL temperature was AS HIGH AND POSSIBLY HIGHER than today, as Dr. Jones ADMITTED. Something that cannot be explained. So Mann and his cohorts just decided to "RECONSTRUCT" the graph. Sort of reminds me of the thief caught robbing a home and he says "yes I stole the silverware but not the china". I have trouble believing him if the china is gone too.


    Unfortunately Global warming has become such a political issue that really true UNBIASED research with honest definitive conclusions by either side have become non-existant. Am I skeptical of both? You are so right I am.

  10. #200
    Senior Member zeus3925's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    West Twin Cities Metro, MN
    Posts
    2,101

    Default

    To the guy who tried to tell me at the HCARC trial that the current ice pack was at near levels seen in the 1940's which proves that the earth is cooling: Not so fast. The current ice pack, while larger in extent than last year, is still significantly lower than average.
    Sources:http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home..._extent_v2.htm

    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
    Last edited by zeus3925; 09-16-2013 at 05:29 PM.
    Zeus

    I don't want to feed an ugly dog!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •