06-09-2008, 05:19 PM
[quote shadow]
Really? Funny how the only way to get a result that supports this conclusion is to cherry-pick data.
Rubbish. Steve Macintyre who writes the blogs you refer to is a long-time oil senior oil company executive, previously a computer programmer, who does not have an advanced degree. He makes a big fuss about how he picked up a couple of programming errors in some global warming study calculations written about 5 years ago. The errors were acknowledged by the authors but do not change the conclusions and have nothing to do with "cherry picking" as you claim. Is that all you've got?
[quote shadow][quote davester]2) the evidence that the warming anomaly is primarily anthropogenic (resulting from industrialization) is never cited as "100% certainty", though as time goes on and more data comes in, the certainty has increased tremendously.
Yeah .... they never say "100% certainty", they just take it for granted. The media paints a picture that cutting CO2 output will "fix" or at least partially alleviate global warming. This presupposes that the theory of AGW is true.
Um, who is this mysterious "they". What does the media have to do with anything? The popular press has nothing to do with climate research. They simply write up stories and try to spin them so they sell newspapers. If that is how you get your "information" then you are going to be mislead.
[quote shadow][quote davester]There is very little contradictory data...the only contradictions come from political propagandists and oil company executives
I think you mean to say "contradictory conclusions".
No I didn't. Those contradictions by by propagandists and executives are spin, not conclusions.
[quote shadow]There is actually very little data on the subject, it is all interpretation. It wouldn't be so bad if the interpretation process was transparent. However, authors of all the "big" GW studies refuse to publish the exact process as to how they came to a conclusion for a given data set. Reconstruction of such processes reveal questionable statistical processes (cherry-picking, unsupported weighting practices, etc).
Bullshit. Back it up...and please don't cite that idiot Macintyre. You seem to think it's all a big conspiracy that has fooled all of the world's scientists, but somehow a brave little troop of non-scientists (who mostly have ties with big oil) are somehow the only ones who know the "real truth".
[quote shadow][quote davester] (except that the oil companies with the largest research braintrusts [e.g. shell, BP] have changed their colors and now concede that the anthropogenic hypothesis is almost certainly correct.
You honestly believe they've had an actual change of heart because of data and studies? You don't think that it's because their PR/marketing departments have told them what to say? I have a bridge here that I am practically giving away...
Being a former oil exploration geologist I am well acquainted with the level of research science conducted at each of the oil companies and know many oil company scientists who work for them. There are companies that rely mostly on science to earn their money and there are those that rely on wheeling, dealing and politics and know diddly squat about science. The more scientifically based companies have all changed their spots. The ones that still believe in creationism (of cash) are the ones who are hiring the Steve McIntyre spinmasters of the world.
[quote shadow]I don't want to sound all new age, but I prefer to have cleaner air (which includes "natural" CO2 levels ) and to live in harmony with the environment to the downright abuse that is currently taking place. There is no reason that we cannot have a comfortable, modern standard of living, while at the same time, limit our impact on the Earth.
Well, there I agree with you, though I should point out that the change in atmospheric CO2 levels due to anthropogenic inputs is infinitesimal when it comes to changes that might have a direct effect on living things (though the indirect effects due to atmosphere/hydrosphere chemistry are huge).
Really? Funny how the only way to get a result that supports this conclusion is to cherry-pick data.
Rubbish. Steve Macintyre who writes the blogs you refer to is a long-time oil senior oil company executive, previously a computer programmer, who does not have an advanced degree. He makes a big fuss about how he picked up a couple of programming errors in some global warming study calculations written about 5 years ago. The errors were acknowledged by the authors but do not change the conclusions and have nothing to do with "cherry picking" as you claim. Is that all you've got?
[quote shadow][quote davester]2) the evidence that the warming anomaly is primarily anthropogenic (resulting from industrialization) is never cited as "100% certainty", though as time goes on and more data comes in, the certainty has increased tremendously.
Yeah .... they never say "100% certainty", they just take it for granted. The media paints a picture that cutting CO2 output will "fix" or at least partially alleviate global warming. This presupposes that the theory of AGW is true.
Um, who is this mysterious "they". What does the media have to do with anything? The popular press has nothing to do with climate research. They simply write up stories and try to spin them so they sell newspapers. If that is how you get your "information" then you are going to be mislead.
[quote shadow][quote davester]There is very little contradictory data...the only contradictions come from political propagandists and oil company executives
I think you mean to say "contradictory conclusions".
No I didn't. Those contradictions by by propagandists and executives are spin, not conclusions.
[quote shadow]There is actually very little data on the subject, it is all interpretation. It wouldn't be so bad if the interpretation process was transparent. However, authors of all the "big" GW studies refuse to publish the exact process as to how they came to a conclusion for a given data set. Reconstruction of such processes reveal questionable statistical processes (cherry-picking, unsupported weighting practices, etc).
Bullshit. Back it up...and please don't cite that idiot Macintyre. You seem to think it's all a big conspiracy that has fooled all of the world's scientists, but somehow a brave little troop of non-scientists (who mostly have ties with big oil) are somehow the only ones who know the "real truth".
[quote shadow][quote davester] (except that the oil companies with the largest research braintrusts [e.g. shell, BP] have changed their colors and now concede that the anthropogenic hypothesis is almost certainly correct.
You honestly believe they've had an actual change of heart because of data and studies? You don't think that it's because their PR/marketing departments have told them what to say? I have a bridge here that I am practically giving away...
Being a former oil exploration geologist I am well acquainted with the level of research science conducted at each of the oil companies and know many oil company scientists who work for them. There are companies that rely mostly on science to earn their money and there are those that rely on wheeling, dealing and politics and know diddly squat about science. The more scientifically based companies have all changed their spots. The ones that still believe in creationism (of cash) are the ones who are hiring the Steve McIntyre spinmasters of the world.
[quote shadow]I don't want to sound all new age, but I prefer to have cleaner air (which includes "natural" CO2 levels ) and to live in harmony with the environment to the downright abuse that is currently taking place. There is no reason that we cannot have a comfortable, modern standard of living, while at the same time, limit our impact on the Earth.
Well, there I agree with you, though I should point out that the change in atmospheric CO2 levels due to anthropogenic inputs is infinitesimal when it comes to changes that might have a direct effect on living things (though the indirect effects due to atmosphere/hydrosphere chemistry are huge).