Quote:
Originally Posted by bob saunders
Why is something that you don't agree with "CRAP" There are numerous well educated scientists from many countries that doubt the methods used by the scientists in IPCC, and there are numerous that support the IPCC. Is one group more knowledgeable than the other? Highly debatable, just like MMGS and global warming. You really loose your debating points when you resort to insults.
|
Bob, I am not gathering 'debating points'. I am looking at this stuff more seriously than mere debating points. I am not interested in who 'debates' better. If this is your interest, please put me on your ignore button as I will not fullfill your requirement. I am interested in what is happening in the world.
CB has but one objective, and that is to stop talk about climate change completely. He and the organizations that he supports do not like to talk about these things as it threatens even the foundations of their philosophy and beliefs.
Without looking at the detail of the so-called 'report' (if one could dignify it with that name) that CB posted, the following jumps out at me. The 'reporter' is a well known global warming skeptic that makes a career of posting skeptical pieces. It is his job. He does not really publish much else. It however becomes even more enlightening if one looks at where he finds an outlet for his pieces, i.e., who he writes for.
If anyone 'debates' with cb here, one is not debating climate issues. Rather you are debating the teachings of libertarianism, the writings of the Cato Institute and the wide range of similar institutions.
So, let's get back to climate change and the science thereof.
The Hockey Stick .. what is it and what is the controversy around it? This is my understanding.
The term "Hockey Stick" refers to specific graphs that look like hockey sticks.
The previous head of NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamic Laboratory, Jerry Mahlman, coined this phrase to describe the pattern on the graph.
The graph refers to proxy and model-based estimates of Northern Hemisphere mean temperature changes over the past millenium.
Now, this should give us the first clue of why the controversy. Climate records of course were not kept at all or very well over this long period of time and real climate data (the written down stuff that we are comfortable with) is available only for the last 150 years. So, 'proxy indicators' was used to construct the data. Even as children we learnt that tree rings can be used to determine say the age of a tree as well as the growing conditions in the years that the tree grew. So, the proxy indicators used were stuff like tree rings, corals, ice cores, lake sediments, bee pollen and available historical documents. So the patterns of past surface temperature changes were taken from something other than modern written records as these did not exist, and the data for the temperature graph known as the Hockey Stick was gathered.
Obviously to me at least, many of the specific methods can be challenged. I hope though that the people who constructed this record of long-term climate, learnt their task well and figured out how to deal with these proxy indicators. In the event that they did not, the data constructed and gathered in this manner was tested with other methodology as well.
There were three things in my opinion that were difficult to deal with in constructing these long term climate change models.
The first was that data in the Southern Hemisphere is very scarce, so, mainly Northern Hemisphere data was used.
Secondly, this time period included two phases .. a long-term cooling trend from the mid 10 to 14th centuries (Medieval Warm Period) and
What is known as "The little Ice Age" (mid 15th to 19th centuries).
Again, much fertile soil for scientists to disagree and debate and for sure, they will do this.
Where you find the 'myth of a controversy' is from industry-funded climate disinformation websites and publications.
On the Wikipedia are examples of the actual graphs (I don't know if these are correct or if the data in the wiki is correct .. I'm simply adding a link with a picture for those who have never seen what these graphs look like)
Hockey stick controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
To conclude, even the language used in the climate change debate is abhorrent to me .. the pro climate change believers are increasingly referring to the anti as deniers ... trying to make the mental connection of 'holocaust deniers'. Equally abhorrent names are being used from both sides of this controversy trying to make mental connections with the abortion debates as well. So, against the will of most reasonable people interested in climate changes, this kind of categorization takes place. It fits the purposes of both the radical right and radical left wing as the noise drowns out any real work being done.
CB, if you want to debate on this abhorrent level, find someone else. You are not doing anyone a favor. What you are doing, is to stop reasonable and interested people learning about these issues. If you want to push your own ideology in life, find another site. If you are keen to describe any of the issues around climate change here, please do so.
I challenge everyone reading this .. next time when you want to quickly post a link, read your material thoroughly, understand it, and present it here in your own words. That should cut the crap.
(15)
), and we know his little...err...foilables. One musy garner information from many sources, and not cherry-pick those who you know in advance might agree with you.
