The Moderate Voice - Latest Comments in Global Warming: What Do You Think

Re: Global Warming: What Do You Think

Sharkfin — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 01:04:03 -0000

Hey Jim, and other users...I have come over here from Greenpeace forum to warn you about DRADB and rhjames, they hang in pairs a lot, (either they are buddies or are one and the same) spamming up climate change forums, all over the net, they are not worth your effort.

Re: Global Warming: What Do You Think

rhjames — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 17:18:09 -0000

Jim - so you didn't read the comment from Patrick E? But you're probably right - no-one else is out there. Your insults and personal attacks probably detract too much from the real issues.

Re: Global Warming: What Do You Think

Jim_Satterfield — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 11:17:14 -0000

The first thing DrADB said was this: "There's obviously a few writers here on the global warming payroll.". At that point it became obvious that anything else he wrote was going to be pure crap. Useless and dishonest. rhjames of course agreed with him. I'm not bothering any more. rhjames says he prefers raw data. But neither he nor his friends are capable of actually analyzing it, simply oversimplifying and cherry picking. Enough. Neither one of the twins are worth the effort and I don't think anyone is really following this thread any longer. The only thing I've learned from this is that a modern political conservative is incapable of actually paying attention to science.

Re: Global Warming: What Do You Think

DrADB — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 23:48:18 -0000

When it comes to cherry picking, I am using the same process as the IPCC used as the basis for their global alarm. Read page 45 in the most recent IPCC report. They claim to have validated their models using recent data. (Older data obviously can't be used because it is used to adjust the paramters of the models, in order to forecast the future). When data for the past decade is used to validate the models, no warming is evident. According to the IPCC's own suggestion, this invalidates their models.

Cherry pick on a broader scale, using the graph in the first IPCC report, showing the Medieval Warm Period, and it is evident that global temperatures are much cooler now than they were 800 years ago.

Here's the Hadley Centre/UK Met Office/IPCC data for you to plot for yourself: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cr...
Plot the temperatures and do your own interpretations, rather than relying on those with vested interests.

Re: Global Warming: What Do You Think

rhjames — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 22:45:01 -0000

Patrick - yes, it's been interesting.

I like to go back as far as possible to the raw data. That way I don't have to rely on interpretation from others with their own agenda. In this way I've picked up various errors. Also, its surprising the variation between what the media reports, and what the data says. Sea level is a good example - we all hear how it's rising, yet when I checked the nearest recording point data (Fort Denison) I found no change for the last 2 years, 8mm increase in the previous 25 years, and 32mm in the 25 years before then. Also, it's been increasing for the past 20,000 years.

This is a long way from what the media is telling us. Islands are disappearing, and shoreline washing away. This trend is supposed to change and increase about 400mm in the next 40 years. I'll continue to monitor with great interest. So far, the models again aren't working.

Re: Global Warming: What Do You Think

troosvelt_1858 — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 22:25:10 -0000

I must say the debate has been entertaining ;)

Thanks

Re: Global Warming: What Do You Think

Jim_Satterfield — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 22:22:26 -0000

No, Ricorun is not the one doing the cherry picking and neither am I. Neither are we "on the global warming payroll". The link I provided was directly from the same organization that rhjames and DrADB claim to be relying on for data. Yet they completely and utterly refuse to acknowledge what the Hadley Centre has to say about their interpretation of the data, which is that it is wrong. Frankly, the scientists at the centre are far more qualified to interpret their data than the denialists will ever be, including the two resident conspiracy theorists.

Re: Global Warming: What Do You Think

rhjames — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 18:49:45 -0000

Ricorun - you are correct about cherry picking, and you are skilled in the art. As DrADB showed, you can cherry pick a period that shows tiny warming, though not statistically significant. Most selections within this period show no warming. The thing is, for the past 11 years, the warming has effectively stopped, despite CO2 increasing 5%. If CO2 was the strong driver predicted, we should see some influence.

I know that this is blamed on other natural cooling influences - when it warms, it's blamed on CO2, when it cools, other reasons are assumed. If I look at data over the past 2,000 years, there's nothing unusual going on. Why suddenly blame CO2? Why no one or many of the other possibilities? It seems that the only ones pushing this are those who are financially dependent on it, and those who believe the media and don't bother to study the data themselves.

Re: Global Warming: What Do You Think

DrADB — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 18:25:30 -0000

There's obviously a few writers here on the global warming payroll.

rhjames' data is taken from IPCC/Hadley Centre/UK Met Office. This is the basis for all the GW nonsense.

A regression using Excel shows a tiny cooling (-0.00048) .
If 1998 is excluded there is tiny warming (0.007)
In past 7 years there is a cooling (-0.1)

IPCC forecast for business as usual - warming (0.4)

The IPCC states that recent data should be used to validate their models' forecast of a 0.4 warming. Most clearly, the data shows that the forecasts of the IPCC are WRONG. The IPCC models (like all approximate models) have no ability to forecast the future.

The current trend is clearly clobal cooling, NOT warming.

Re: Global Warming: What Do You Think

Jim_Satterfield — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 11:17:05 -0000

"Jim - as I predicted, you ignored the data and attacked the person. Let me make it easy for you. This is the global temperature anomaly data from Hadley for the past 10 years."

This is another lie. What I presented was Hadley Centre's own interpretation of their work. The devil's in the details, including the ones you choose to ignore. It's called cherry picking. Explain if you will why without going into the usual conspiracy theory BS why the Hadley Centre refuses to interpret their own data in a way that agrees with you.

In addition I showed a link to considered analysis and refutation of what Evans wrote as well as showing that he did not have the credentials you and he claimed he had. If you lie about one thing, such as credentials, what else are you lying about becomes a valid question but given that Evans commits the usual denialist crime against science of repeating already debunked claims and I show it then it is simply more proof of the dishonesty inherent in your statements when you claim that all I am doing is attacking his credentials. If you choose to present claims by liars, BS artists, conspiracy theorists and con men don't be surprised when it is pointed out what they are.

Re: Global Warming: What Do You Think

Ricorun — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 09:36:29 -0000

Actually rhjames, you reported on the last 11 years. If you ran a linear regression on the last 10 years (1999 through 2008) you would obtain a positive slope. Likewise, if you ran a regression on the last fully complete 10 years (1998-2007), the slope is positive (even though 1998 was unusually warm). It's only when you include all 11 years that you get a slightly negative slope. I don't know what that suggests to you, but it suggests to me that you have to be very careful about cherry-picking the data in order to conclude from a short term trend that the earth is not warming.

Re: Global Warming: What Do You Think

rhjames — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 08:26:22 -0000

Jim - as I predicted, you ignored the data and attacked the person. Let me make it easy for you. This is the global temperature anomaly data from Hadley for the past 10 years.
1998 - 0.526
1999 - 0.302
2000 - 0.277
2001 - 0.406
2002 - 0.455
2003 - 0.465
2004 - 0.444
2005 - 0.475
2006 - 0.421
2007 - 0.399
2008 - 0.326. (this will probably be lower when December is included)

Now, if you can still look at this data and tell me it's warming, I'll stop bothering you. We must have different systems of mathematics. For me, 2 is bigger than 1.

Re: Global Warming: What Do You Think

Jim_Satterfield — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 03:25:57 -0000

Unfortunately for your claims concerning Hadley Centre data, here is what they have to say about your claims. In other words if asked, the experts at Hadley won't back up your claims about what their data actually means.

Secondly, you apparently do not even have a clue as to who David Evans is and what the nature of his "consultant" work was. His doctorate is in electrical engineering, not any field even remotely related to climatology. Evans worked as a computer programmer designing a carbon accounting system to help the Australian Greenhouse Office track the carbon footprint of Australia for reports for their obligation under the Kyoto treaty. He was not a "consultant" of any kind. His article that the blog you linked to referred to was just as bad as the claims that you and Carter make. The article, which appeared in the Australian, is debunked here by Tim Lambert. While I point out that his credentials that you present are completely inaccurate what is in fact more important is that his "science" is even more inaccurate and consists of false claims, inaccuracies and assertions that have in fact been proven incorrect.

"Please expose my lies."

You asked, I delivered.

Re: Global Warming: What Do You Think

rhjames — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 02:43:34 -0000

There's that foxtrot again. What can you possibly call a lie in these basic points?

What do you want, or do not know? CO2 has increased 5% in the past 10 years. Surely you don't need me to back this up.

No temperature increase for the past 10 years? Go directly to Hadcrut data yourself and plot it. I could even Email you the plot to save you the trouble. - http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cr....

Perhaps you don't know about the GW signature. You can read extracts from a report by Dr. David Evans on http://www.divinecaroline.c.... It even tells you how to go direct to the source.

I can just about pre-write your response. You'll try to question the information source validity. I'll just warn you that the Hadley Centre was set up to help prove global warming. Dr. David Evans was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office. Sorry I can't offer you a movie star or ex politician.

Please expose my lies. I'm sure anyone else reading this will be as interested as I. Even the IPCC agrees with the basic points I've made.

Re: Global Warming: What Do You Think

Jim_Satterfield — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 00:21:56 -0000

"For your convenience, I have pasted the evidence below. Note that I don't use links - just a couple of simple basic facts that are known by anyone who has studied the science."

OK....now I will say that you are lying, rhjames. What you wrote is not a fact that is recognized by everyone who knows the science, it is only a another lie repeated endlessly by the so-called skeptics. This is why you don't use links. You don't link for the same reason your friend Carter is terrified of peer review. Because what you post is completely wrong and in fact the links I provided prove it. Yet you claim that the opposite is true. Sorry, but a bald-faced claim with no supporting evidence that hasn't already been debunked provides no proof of anything. I don't need to sidestep anything because you are perfectly capable of falling flat on your face by yourself. Fortunately the other readers probably don't have your problem and understood the point of the articles I linked to.

Re: Global Warming: What Do You Think

rhjames — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 23:36:26 -0000

Jim - is this yet another sidestep? I bet you dance a mean foxtrot. You asked for evidence, and I provided it. You're last post said you'd already provided links. ok - I went back and checked them. I can't find any that address either of my specific evidence. One (Grist) at least attempts to comment on "There is no proof that CO2 is causing global warming". I concedes that this is true - there "is no proof", and goes on to say that it's just a theory and computer models. As the document is more than 2 years old, it doesn't see just how incorrect these models proved to be.

For your convenience, I have pasted the evidence below. Note that I don't use links - just a couple of simple basic facts that are known by anyone who has studied the science.

For a start, for the last 10 years there's been no warming, although CO2 has increased 5%. If the positive feedback was dominant, and CO2 is the big driving force, I would have expected to see some response, even in that time. If nothing else, it indicates to me that CO2 is not the driving force it's made out to be. The models predict the "signature" 10km above the tropics - it isn't there.

Re: Global Warming: What Do You Think

Jim_Satterfield — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 18:24:39 -0000

rhjames,

You and your friend made claims concerning trends of the last decade. I posted multiple links to places discrediting those claims. In fact one of the articles itself had links to additional places discrediting other claims Carter made while the other one explains in detail just why the claim about global warming ending in 1998 is inherently dishonest. Just because you don't want to acknowledge them and Carter's venality in misrepresenting the science doesn't mean I have to repeat myself over and over again.

Re: Global Warming: What Do You Think

rhjames — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 15:35:22 -0000

Jim - still side stepping the issues? I'm sure you'd dream up up clever words to discredit any scientist who spoke against your direction. Still no comment on the evidence you asked for. It sounds like you wish it would go away - a common enough reaction.

Re: Global Warming: What Do You Think

Jim_Satterfield — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 11:31:16 -0000

rhjames,

No one has done as much to discredit Carter as Carter himself. His membership in the Institute for Public Affairs shows that he is, in spite of his claims to the contrary, more interested in the politics than the science. He and those like him remind me of the geologist that after finding Jesus (via a very conservative Biblical literalist church) has spent his time trying to prove that the Earth is only 6000 years old and all the features that the science says are erosion and signs of the age of the planet are in fact just what happened when the Great Flood swept over the Earth while Noah saved all the animals in the ark. Carter has the same level of credibility after his statements like the one I quoted and his repetition of discredited "skeptic" claims even after they have been debunked.

Re: Global Warming: What Do You Think

Ricorun — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 11:22:08 -0000

Excellent comment Jim. And what you suggest is exactly the level of discussion I think would be most productive. I agree wholeheartedly with the idea of incentivizing building retrofits, both public and private. There are considerable regulatory barriers that need to be overcome (e.g., broad success would basically require utility profit decoupling), and it would cost money at first, but a growing number of studies suggest the savings over the long run would be substantial. Amory Lovins has a great line about the potential of energy efficiency. It goes something like this: "the low-hanging fruit is building up around our ankles and sloshing over our boots while the tree keeps pelting our heads with more".

As for methods for stimulating development and deployment of new technologies, I personally prefer the feed in tarriff (FIT) approach of all the ones I'm familiar with. As far as I can tell, FITs can be scalable (from utility scale to rooftop), incremental, goal-oriented (rather than dependent on one or more particular innovations), is essentially bureaucracy-free, and is difficult to game. But hey, I'm willing to consider all approaches, and I think it would be beneficial to discuss them.

Re: Global Warming: What Do You Think

JSpencer — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 10:20:32 -0000

rhjames ~ "We're about to change the world based on the expectation of positive feedback being dominant."

Sure, just like we're about to abolish war, ignorance, hunger, and disease. Wouldn't it be great!

As for Gore and Carter, the existence of AGW is independent of what either of those guys happen to think about it one way OR the other.

Re: Global Warming: What Do You Think

rhjames — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 03:19:42 -0000

Jim, Is that your attempt to sidestep answering to the evidence I provided, and you asked for - rubbish one of the qualified scientists? As Prof Carter said - forget the politics, and focus on the science and evidence. For some reason, you have a problem with this suggestion.

It's interesting that, despite his qualifications as a palaeontologist, marine geologist, and environmental scientist, Professor and Head of School of Earth Sciences, and his research on earth sediments and climate change, and publications on climate change, you consider him unqualified. Better to listen to someone like Al Gore - an ex politician and theology dropout who is making a fortune on his story. Tell me, what qualifications do you expect before someone might have wise advice? Perhaps a railroad engineer - Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC.

Re: Global Warming: What Do You Think

Jim_Satterfield — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 23:45:12 -0000

Ricorun,

You've moved on to where I wanted to go next in any case. I agree completely with Patrick (Or at least how I interpret what he wrote.) that the idea of some kind of repeat of Carter's appeal to the American people is a non-starter as an approach to solving this problem. The best approach is to treat it as part of our energy policies and everything else follows. There are existing technologies that could save us a lot of energy with no major changes in how we do things with the exception that use of broadband and videoconferencing could really cut down on physical travel for business. I've seen a system that is just amazing in terms of the quality of the video that is delivered over almost any broadband connection with decent bandwidth. The important thing is that we need to figure out a way to roll these technologies out. One of the things that could be done as part of the incoming administration's fiscal stimulus package would be to provide home energy audits for those who couldn't afford them on their own and subsidize the improvements that the audit recommends. It saves our country energy for years to come and frees up money from household energy spending to go to other parts of the economy. Don't just spend the bucks on improving energy efficiency in federal government buildings but underwrite those improvements for local governments, especially our schools. Just think what that would do for their budgets. And if anyone can come up with a viable plan to help get old gas guzzlers that pollute worse than newer cars off the road ASAP it would be a good thing for everyone.

For the longer run we need newer, better technologies and I'm a big believer in the X-Prize approach. In this case a set of criteria for a given device that consumes energy, such as an air conditioner, would be set and the inventions that meet the criteria win the prize. There could even be "partial" prizes where a series of escalating criteria would exist. The closer to the ideal the larger the prize but innovations that move towards the goal are rewarded as well. Don't specify what technology gets us there, just set a goal and work towards it. And these improvements would almost certainly find eager markets in those countries that need to clean up their air.

Re: Global Warming: What Do You Think

Ricorun — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 22:33:58 -0000

I guess it's fairly apparent why I don't spend a lot of time debating about the anthropogenic nature of global warming. It's rather like wrestling a pig -- you get dirty and the pig likes it. I'd rather talk about solutions. And as luck would have it, the solutions that fit the threat of global warming are the same solutions that fit many other very important problems that also need to be urgently addressed. The overheated rhetoric associated with global warming is hijacking attention away from them. And that's not only a shame, it's downright ridiculous.

Re: Global Warming: What Do You Think

JSpencer — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 21:49:07 -0000

Jim, the bold portion of that quote raises a red flag allright. The idea that Carter would try to downplay the importance of peer review in (legitimate) science suggests he may not fully understand what modern science is in the first place. It's a bit shocking actually.