I must say, I prefer your understated style of debate to most of what is out there (everywhere, not just MM, and not just the internet). I agree that the global warming going on could very well be just another part of the grand cycle. However, we are best off not taking any chances right? Some more responsible economic growth isn't going to hurt so much no? Though this is not such an easy argument to make with developing economies (especially China). We should still do what we can to successfully ride out these cycles and not exacerbate them if we can.<br><br>We are what we repeatedly do. -Aristotle
_________________________ We are what we repeatedly do - Aristotle
That was caused by "a feedback-loop"<br>precipitated by a warming trend due to increased amounts of Co2 in the atmosphere<br>from natural causes that melted a sufficient amount of ice to change the ratio of<br>salt to fresh water being dumped into the ocean, that then slowed the Atlantic Conveyor, <br>disrupting warm Trade Winds, and Jet stream, thus allowing the cold weather conditions<br>that would have ben normal at that latitude, to cause a mini-ice-age, until the enough ice <br>was again locked up in the glaciers to bring the hypersalinity state back into equilibrium.<br><br>However .................. however I'm too damned hot and sweaty to sit and type it all out<br>go do your own research <br> It's al there, read both side of the debate, before drawning any conclusions<br><br>
_________________________ . "...or am I a butterfly dreaming she's a woman?"
Interesting theory, but not proven...<br><br>And I do read both sides of the debate, and have actually read the report of Wegman et al to the aforementioned House Committee (several times, actually - some of it is pretty arcane for a mere high school graduate). I would venture to bet that I'm one of the few around here that has done so.<br><br>My original post was to point out the the Gore film relied on the so-called "hockey stick" temperature graph published by Mann et al. That and subsequent reports by Mann were based on faulty statistical techniques, and as the Wegman report shows, most of the "peer review" of Mann's stuff was done by people with whom he had previously co-authored papers. (A sort of intellectual circle jerk, if you will.)<br><br>Wegman does not dispute the evidence that we are indeed in a warning phase. I can walk a few blocks from my house and see grooves in the billion year old basalt on the shore of Lake Superior that were gouged out by the last glaciers an instant ago (geologically speaking). When I was a boy I could collect marine fossils a few blocks from my home in St. Paul. <br><br>Change happens. The idea that anthropogenic carbon dioxide causes these changes is, in my view, a theory that is "neat, concise, and wrong".<br><br>[color:red]Bibo, ergo sum</font color=red>
_________________________ [red]Bibo, ergo sum[/red]
It's interesting that all three of the Wegman report writers are statisticians, not climatologist. So the very learned report concerning the inaccuracies of tree ring data, for instance, is, on their part, at best a second-order conclusion based on the work of climatologists. The material on the problems of statistical studies--all the stuff on "noise," for instance, strikes me as being more a very critical conclusion about the nature of statistics, the subject in which Wegman et al. are experts. Indeed, the first 23 pages or so of the review are more about statistics than about climatology. Much of the controversy among studies that Wegman et al. report in fact underscores the imprecision of statistical studies, including what data is and is not relevant, what data is and is not reliable, etc. On the basis of what they say, perhaps we should throw out all statistical studies. I for one would not mind, by the way.<br><br>It's interesting that another way of putting the assertion that climatological studies are read by an in-bred community is that the number of climatologists in the world is fairly limited, so the experts who do peer review are not very numerous, and of course know each other, have read each others' work, have collaborated from time to time, etc. The same thing applies in all advanced sciences, I imagine. There are only about 10,000 astrophysicists in the whole world, I believe, so all of them know each other, collaborate with each other, etc. I suppose therefore that Wegman and all could write exactly the same report, changing "climatologists" into "astrophysicists." All of the material from p. 17 to p. 23 and then later in even more gory detail is really about social networks, of researchers for instance. What gets said there strikes me as undermining all of science, natural as well as social, and in fact all peer--i. e. expert--reviewed work in any field.<br><br>The substantive assertions about the historical study of climatology are all, as I said, second-order: the authors of the study are not experts in the field. I'm not an expert in the field either, so there's no much that I can add to the subject. On the other hand, I do recognize that, given the nature of the Wegman report and what I presume is your equally non-expert knowledge of the field of paleoclimatology, any assertion such as your conclusion, "neat, concise, and wrong," is political. And so is my conclusion, which parallels Mr. Cheyney's approach to terrorists: if there's even a one percent chance that we're working to destroy the ecological balance of the planet, we ought to do something serious about it. In this case, if we end up being wrong, and there is no equivalent of WMD, then all that we will have done is clean up the atmosphere and encouraged innovative ways of producing energy. Not too shabby a result for a wrong conclusion, I'd say.<br><br>. . . . . Here's lookin' at [color:red]you</font color=red> kid.
_________________________ MACTECHubi dolor ibi digitus
Of course Wegman, Scott, and Said are statisticians. Their charge from the House Committee was to evaluate the publications of Mann et al that generated the "hockey stick" graph which relied heavily on statistical analysis, trying to demonstrate that the '90s were the hottest on record and there was neither a medieval warm period nor a "Little Ice Age". It was the House Committee that requested a statistical analysis. Among the report is the statement from Wegman et al "We note in passing that both Yale University and Pennsylvania State University have Departments of Statistics with excellent reputations. Even though their work has a very significant statistical component, based on their literature citations, there is no evidence that Dr. Mann or any of the other authors in paleoclimatology studies have significant interactions with mainstream statisticians."<br><br>As far as "peer review", articles submitted to scientific journals are reviewed by peers chosen by the editors. Ideally said "peers" have no connection with the author and are truly independant - certainly not previous co-authors. Again from the Wegman report:"Based on the literature we have reviewed, there is no overarching consensus on MBH98/99. As analyzed in our social network, there is a tightly knit group of individuals who passionately believe in their thesis. However, our perception is that this group has a self-reinforcing feedback mechanism and, moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that they can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility."<br><br>And finally, my "neat, concise, and wrong" statement is not political at all. It is a reasoned conclusion following extensive reading in the debate. I just think that puny little Homo sapiens can influence the unpredictable trillions of tons of atmosphere around us is hubris in the extreme. I'm all for reducing atmospheric pollutants as much as possible. In my perfect world we should have rejected the hysteria of the fringe eco-nuts years ago and should now be generating 80% or more of our energy in nuclear reactors.<br><br>(But that's for another interesting exchange in the forum.)<br><br>[color:red]Bibo, ergo sum</font color=red>
_________________________ [red]Bibo, ergo sum[/red]
#281308 - 08/02/0608:50 PMRe: Inconvenient truth
This small exchange between you and yoyo has been the most sensible discussion I've heard on this subject, and I'm absolutely not talking just here in the forum (although the discussion here has been, as usual, lively). While I will never be as well read on the subject nor as formally educated in general, I am open to the pros and cons, pretty savvy about the hysterical rhetoric and completely cynical about the political hay to be made by both left and right.<br><br>That is all. Carry on. Please.<br><br><br><br><br>[color:blue]My my baby blue . . .
Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.
All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.