Release List Reviews Shop Join News DVD Giveaways Video Games Advertise
DVD Reviews | Theatrical Reviews | Price Search Buy Stuff Here
DVD Talk
DVD Reviews DVD Talk Headlines HD Reviews


Add to My Yahoo! - RSS 2.0 - RSS 2.0 - DVD Talk Podcast RSS -


Go Back   DVD Talk Forum > General Discussions > Other Talk > Religion, Politics and World Events

Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-18-11, 09:42 AM   #126
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,732
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Impartial coverage at PBS:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/...s_lockout.html

Quote:
August 18, 2011
PBS and Global Warming Skeptics' Lockout
By Russell Cook

I've repeatedly asked politicians, policymakers, and mainstream media journalists to explain to me why we need greenhouse gas regulation when skeptic scientists' climate assessments indicate that it's a pointless action to stop a natural phenomenon. You'd think at least the journalists would directly answer my questions about their articles' claims of a scientific consensus, acid oceans, and who corroborated a singular accusation that fossil fuel industries conspire with skeptic scientists to fool the public. Each time, I got evasive replies instead.

Rush Limbaugh will probably howl at me for expecting the MSM to accurately report both sides of the issue, but my incessant inquiries reveal that one news outlet, PBS' NewsHour, appears unable to clearly state why skeptic scientists' viewpoints aren't worth considering.

Its national affairs editor, Murrey Jacobson, has now sidestepped my questions three times in a row about why his program excluded skeptic scientists since 1996, first via a private 12/7/09 email forwarded to me after numerous inquiries to the PBS ombudsman. Having received Jacobson's permission to quote it publicly only days ago, I placed it word-for-word here, for all to see. Back when I got it in 2009, I suggested to the ombudsman that it should be public, which resulted in Jacobson's different but equally evasive public response that I linked to in the first paragraph of my 12/19/09 piece, "The Lack of Climate Skeptics on PBS's 'NewsHour.'" He sidestepped my questions for the third time in his 6/20/11 email, seen verbatim here.

Jacobson's defense essentially boils down to a "belief" that skeptics are far outnumbered, and an insistence that the NewsHour's coverage "has reflected the trajectory of the data while offering differing perspectives on these issues." I'll point out that those are perspectives on solving the human-created problem.

After seeing Robert (aka "Robin") MacNeil repeat Jim Lehrer's "personal guidelines he works by as a journalist," I stopped waiting for Jacobson and tried to get answers from the top man himself, via snail-mail directly to Lehrer. If Jacobson's responses are troublesome, Lehrer's is a jaw-dropper -- scroll down the page if you can't wait to see it. But first, my literal word-for-word letter is here (I had to spell out my web links), now as an open letter:
May 18th, 2011

Dear Mr Lehrer,

I wanted to respond to what Robin MacNeil said about your 'stealth exit from the NewsHour' May 13th. As a NewsHour viewer since sometime in the late '70s, you might find it amusing that as recently as a few years ago, I was still occasionally calling your show the "MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour" despite Robin's long-ago departure. No offense to the commercial news broadcasts, but when John Chancellor retired from NBC, the NewsHour became my sole source of properly done news and analysis of current political events. I particularly appreciated the two-side analysis approach on Middle East affairs, US / Soviet relations, and US political developments, as I reasoned the solutions to such problems lay somewhere in the middle, and could decide for myself just where that middle ground was.

No doubt this is what you mean in your MacNeil/Lehrer journalism guideline about "assume there is at least one other side or version to every story."

Now for my journalism concern, which may be something you are not fully aware of: I firmly believe this guideline was never applied to the story of man-caused global warming at the NewsHour. Correct me if I am wrong, no skeptic scientists have ever appeared on the program in debate with IPCC scientists. I've done my own extensive online research at the NewsHour archive pages, going as far back as they allow, to 1996, and I also do not see any as guests offering their basic science viewpoints, while substantial amounts of time were given to multiple-repeat IPCC scientist guests like Michael Oppenheimer, Stephen Schneider, and Kevin Trenberth, along with others offering detailed explanations on conclusions about man-caused global warming.

My worry is that you or your staff relied on reasons to exclude skeptic scientists from former Boston Globe reporter Ross Gelbspan, who was described by Al Gore as the Pulitzer-winning discoverer of 'smoking gun' evidence showing skeptic scientists received fossil fuel industry money in exchange for fabricated climate assessments that were only intended to confuse the public. My fear is that nobody at the NewsHour ever checked the veracity of Gelbspan's claims or myriad other problems with his assertions:
Gelbspan never won a Pulitzer; surely you'd agree his CYA response about it borders on preposterous -- the Pulitzer group rewards exemplary reporting, not conceiving story ideas, editing, or guiding a reporting staff.
Gelbspan did not discover the set of 1991 coal industry PR campaign memos he is so widely credited with doing, where one in particular contains a sentence which is the central bit of evidence in his accusation against skeptic scientists. In fact, he never discloses how those memos came into his hands.
Neither Gelbspan nor multiple other reporters who rely on that central accusation sentence ever show the memo in its full context in any book, magazine article, web page, or media presentation. A reading of the actual memo reveals the sentence is out-of-context, and not actually any kind of top-level industry directive (I found the complete memo after seven months of searching for it, at an obscure Greenpeace page of archive scans).
Gelbspan's fossil fuel funding accusation is at best guilt-by-association; he never shows irrefutable proof that an exchange of industry money to skeptic scientists prompted false climate assessments.
No one else has corroborated Gelbspan's accusation, yet he is relied on as evidence in places ranging from Al Gore's movie to two of the major global warming nuisance lawsuits.
The long-repeated idea that the media gives too much balance to skeptic scientists is literally unsupportable. That is proven by the sheer lack of such scientists appearing at the NewsHour or even significant amounts time on the program devoted to skeptics' viewpoints, plus the credibility of a 2004 study by Boykoff & Boykoff supposedly proving the existence of 'too much balance' is critically undermined by their own ties to Gelbspan.
I could go on and on. I've done my own research, and have accumulated a computer notes file of web site pages and keyword phrases copied from those that is over 62,000 words. My concern about the lack of skeptic scientists at the NewsHour has been seen online at the PBS Ombudsman pages several times now. Yes, Murrey Jacobson responded to my question about why no skeptic scientists debated IPCC scientists in the December 17, 2009 Ombudsman page, but it is rather apparent he danced around the question instead of answering it directly.

I did my own reporting on this at the American Thinker web site back in December 2009 in a blog piece titled "The Lack of Climate Skeptics on PBS's 'NewsHour' http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...keptics_o.html In a July 2010 American Thinker article, I quantified the sheer imbalance of IPCC side vs skeptic side at the NewsHour and further showed how Margaret Warner appears to have relied on a Gelbspan book quote in her Dec 1997 interview of Western Fuels CEO Fred Palmer, see "The Left and Its Talking Points" http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/...ing_point.html My latest A.T. article details how an ex-WCCO TV anchorman appears to be repeating Gelbspan's 15-year old talking point about 'unfair media balance', and how the lack of fact-checking in this particular situation showcases an ominous sign of things to come for the mainstream media, see "Warmist Mantra Wearing Out" http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/...aring_out.html (note: headlines at A.T. are written by its editors)

Do you understand the enormity of this problem, not only for you specifically, but also for all of basic journalism? I'm no journalist, I don't pretend to be one, and I even partially turned back praise by the UK Telegraph's James Delingpole of my research being 'investigative journalism' in my A.T. article "Warmist Slander of Scientific Skeptics" http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/...cientific.html I am simply asking tough questions that journalists have surprisingly not asked.

You've had a fabulous career, but the apparent huge contradiction to your own guidelines on this specific topic threatens to put a very black mark on it. I seriously doubt this is deliberate on your part, but is rather a simple oversight that's been made more serious over the years through a self-feeding influx of information supporting only the original oversight.

This is an appearance problem you must face, and either prove me wrong, or acknowledge the problem and address how you intend to fix it. My preference is for you to do so at the PBS Ombudsman page, or better yet, at the NewsHour itself. I have nothing to hide, and would be glad to share all that I've found, if you have questions about any part of it. And, to borrow a point made by one of the more prominent speakers about the skeptic side, Lord Christopher Monckton, "no need to trust what I say, you may look all of this up for yourself."

Sincerely,

Russell Cook
And now, Jim Lehrer's response. He gets "green credits" for using outdated stationery:



"I hear you on your concerns." I replied with an 800-word snail-mail letter asking, "What does that mean?" among many other questions. No response yet.

Evasive, vague answers kept Bernie Madoff's billion-dollar operation alive only until the point where they were no longer tolerated. In the case of Al Gore and his supporters, they've kept global warming alive not solely with infusions of money like a standard Ponzi scheme, but with constant infusions of media reports saying there is a vast scientific consensus, skeptic scientists are corrupt, and there is no need for journalists to have interviews with skeptics because of the previous two reasons.

What happens to the NewsHour and the other news outlets if we no longer tolerate their evasive, vague answers about not investigating obvious red-flag problems?
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-11, 06:11 PM   #127
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,732
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Stark raving mad.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/1...a-bad-species/

Quote:
Bizarre, craptastic theory from the Guardian, Penn State, and NASA: “ET will kill us because global warming will tip them off that we are a bad species”
Posted on August 18, 2011 by Anthony Watts

From the you’ve got to be effing kidding me department.

First, I apologize to my readers for the headline. Read on and I think you’ll see it is justified. The headline is paraphrased from the article and the paper to give you the flavor. I have reproduced the passage used by the Guardian and provided a link to the full paper below.

First, the Guardian story: (h/t to reader “a jones”)

[I'm posting the whole story, not just the part shown in this article -m]
Aliens may destroy humanity to protect other civilisations, say scientists

Rising greenhouse emissions may tip off aliens that we are a rapidly expanding threat, warns a report for Nasa
Ian Sample, science correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 18 August 2011 19.04 BST

It may not rank as the most compelling reason to curb greenhouse gases, but reducing our emissions might just save humanity from a pre-emptive alien attack, scientists claim.

Watching from afar, extraterrestrial beings might view changes in Earth's atmosphere as symptomatic of a civilisation growing out of control – and take drastic action to keep us from becoming a more serious threat, the researchers explain.

This highly speculative scenario is one of several described by scientists at Nasa and Pennsylvania State University that, while considered unlikely, they say could play out were humans and alien life to make contact at some point in the future.

Shawn Domagal-Goldman of Nasa's Planetary Science Division and his colleagues compiled a list of plausible outcomes that could unfold in the aftermath of a close encounter, to help humanity "prepare for actual contact".

In their report, Would Contact with Extraterrestrials Benefit or Harm Humanity? A Scenario Analysis, the researchers divide alien contacts into three broad categories: beneficial, neutral or harmful.

Beneficial encounters ranged from the mere detection of extraterrestrial intelligence (ETI), for example through the interception of alien broadcasts, to contact with cooperative organisms that help us advance our knowledge and solve global problems such as hunger, poverty and disease.

Another beneficial outcome the authors entertain sees humanity triumph over a more powerful alien aggressor, or even being saved by a second group of ETs. "In these scenarios, humanity benefits not only from the major moral victory of having defeated a daunting rival, but also from the opportunity to reverse-engineer ETI technology," the authors write.

Other kinds of close encounter may be less rewarding and leave much of human society feeling indifferent towards alien life. The extraterrestrials may be too different from us to communicate with usefully. They might invite humanity to join the "Galactic Club" only for the entry requirements to be too bureaucratic and tedious for humans to bother with. They could even become a nuisance, like the stranded, prawn-like creatures that are kept in a refugee camp in the 2009 South African movie, District 9, the report explains.

The most unappealing outcomes would arise if extraterrestrials caused harm to humanity, even if by accident. While aliens may arrive to eat, enslave or attack us, the report adds that people might also suffer from being physically crushed or by contracting diseases carried by the visitors. In especially unfortunate incidents, humanity could be wiped out when a more advanced civilisation accidentally unleashes an unfriendly artificial intelligence, or performs a catastrophic physics experiment that renders a portion of the galaxy uninhabitable.

To bolster humanity's chances of survival, the researchers call for caution in sending signals into space, and in particular warn against broadcasting information about our biological make-up, which could be used to manufacture weapons that target humans. Instead, any contact with ETs should be limited to mathematical discourse "until we have a better idea of the type of ETI we are dealing with."

The authors warn that extraterrestrials may be wary of civilisations that expand very rapidly, as these may be prone to destroy other life as they grow, just as humans have pushed species to extinction on Earth. In the most extreme scenario, aliens might choose to destroy humanity to protect other civilisations.

"A preemptive strike would be particularly likely in the early phases of our expansion because a civilisation may become increasingly difficult to destroy as it continues to expand. Humanity may just now be entering the period in which its rapid civilisational expansion could be detected by an ETI because our expansion is changing the composition of the Earth's atmosphere, via greenhouse gas emissions," the report states.

"Green" aliens might object to the environmental damage humans have caused on Earth and wipe us out to save the planet. "These scenarios give us reason to limit our growth and reduce our impact on global ecosystems. It would be particularly important for us to limit our emissions of greenhouse gases, since atmospheric composition can be observed from other planets," the authors write.

Even if we never make contact with extraterrestrials, the report argues that considering the potential scenarios may help to plot the future path of human civilisation, avoid collapse and achieve long-term survival.
Now the paper, peer reviewed and published in Acta Astronautica titled:

Would Contact with Extraterrestrials Benefit or Harm Humanity? A Scenario Analysis
Seth D. Baum,1 Jacob D. Haqq-Misra,2 & Shawn D. Domagal-Goldman3
1. Department of Geography, Pennsylvania State University.
2. Department of Meteorology, Pennsylvania State University
3. NASA Planetary Science Division

Acta Astronautica, 2011, 68(11-12): 2114-2129

Here’s the relevant passage:
A preemptive strike [from extraterrestrials] would be particularly likely in the early phases of our expansion because a civilization may become increasingly difficult to destroy as it continues to expand. Humanity may just now be entering the period in which its rapid civilizational expansion could be detected by an ETI because our expansion is changing the composition of Earth’s atmosphere (e.g. via greenhouse gas emissions), which therefore changes the spectral signature of Earth. While it is difficult to estimate the likelihood of this scenario, it should at a minimum give us pause as we evaluate our expansive tendencies.
Words fail me. Truly this is science fiction, and not the good kind. I have a feature called “Climate Craziness of the Week”, this may be the all time winner.

Read the entire paper here (PDF)
This goes to show that if you include global warming in a grant application you can get money for anything. And some wonder why alarmists want to keep this fundwagon going.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-11, 06:55 PM   #128
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Navinabob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 8,803
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Quote:
Originally Posted by movielib View Post
This goes to show that if you include global warming in a grant application you can get money for anything. And some wonder why alarmists want to keep this fundwagon going.
Wait... what is the issue here? The paper is clearly NOT about global warming. While NASA and Penn State professors wrote the article, there was no research grant attached to it that I saw. Professors and scientists write research, some of which is theoretical conjecture. NASA's involvement could easily been a nicety in exchange for raw data...

The journal itself isn't really taken seriousl. Here is the journal mandate:

The journal Acta Astronautica, 2500 pages a year, covers developments in space science technology related to peaceful scientific exploration of space and its exploitation for human welfare and progress, the conception, design, development and operation of space-borne and Earth-based systems. In addition to the regular issues of contributed papers and transaction notes, the journal publishes selected proceedings from IAA congresses


Its entire purpose to write papers like this. It is barely one step up from fan-fiction of Babylon 5 physics and spaceships. As for "peer reviewed" I'm gonna to have to make a much longer post on what that actually means and what sort of weight you can put behind it. I see that tossed around here in so many different ways it really need to be clarified for people who only have a foggy notion as it both meaningful and meaningless depending on the context of the report, the journal, the publicity and the politics of the research.

Finding outrage in something like this is pretty alarmist... unless the outrage is mostly mocking and I missed the tone entirely?
__________________
“Ridicule is the only weapon that can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.” -- Thomas Jefferson

"The candle flame gutters. Its little pool of light trembles. Darkness gathers. The demons begin to stir." --Carl Sagan
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-11, 07:20 PM   #129
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,732
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Navinabob View Post
Wait... what is the issue here? The paper is clearly NOT about global warming. While NASA and Penn State professors wrote the article, there was no research grant attached to it that I saw. Professors and scientists write research, some of which is theoretical conjecture. NASA's involvement could easily been a nicety in exchange for raw data...

The journal itself isn't really taken seriousl. Here is the journal mandate:

The journal Acta Astronautica, 2500 pages a year, covers developments in space science technology related to peaceful scientific exploration of space and its exploitation for human welfare and progress, the conception, design, development and operation of space-borne and Earth-based systems. In addition to the regular issues of contributed papers and transaction notes, the journal publishes selected proceedings from IAA congresses


Its entire purpose to write papers like this. It is barely one step up from fan-fiction of Babylon 5 physics and spaceships. As for "peer reviewed" I'm gonna to have to make a much longer post on what that actually means and what sort of weight you can put behind it. I see that tossed around here in so many different ways it really need to be clarified for people who only have a foggy notion as it both meaningful and meaningless depending on the context of the report, the journal, the publicity and the politics of the research.

Finding outrage in something like this is pretty alarmist... unless the outrage is mostly mocking and I missed the tone entirely?
OK, I don't know if there was a research grant attached to this. I don't know there wasn't. I think we can assume somebody paid in some way to get the 33 page paper with 89 footnotes published. I don't know for sure if the paper was peer reviewed although the article said it was. That could be wrong. I realized it is not primarily about global warming but it, like much other stuff, throws it in for no good reason. Often it is to help get a grant. That may or may not be the case here.

I realize peer review is not always what it's cracked up to be. I emphasize it because alarmists always do and many of them still falsely claim that few papers that have conclusions that contradict CAGW exist.

I don't know if Acta Astronautica considers itself a step up from fan fiction but I doubt it. Although this paper would suggest it is.

The fact remains that professors (correction: see below) in two departments at a major university and NASA wrote this junk. It is probably coincidental that the university is where Michael Mann works. They felt compelled, for some reason, to make it even sillier by throwing in global warming.

And no, I don't have outrage, I have derision.

------------------------------------------------------

Edit: Correction: Not professors.

Seth Baum is a PhD candidate and Research Assistant, Center for Research on Environmental Decisions

Jacob Haqq-Misra is a postdoc (PhD, Meteorology & Astrobiology) and research scientist whose specialties are climate modeling, dynamic meteorology, climate change, planetary habitability, astrobiology, extraterrestrial life, philosophy of science

These are not positions without prestige and this subject seems right up their alley. Something like Diagon Alley.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Edit #2: Acta Astronautica (founded 1959) is indeed peer reviewed:

http://iaaweb.org/content/view/232/359/

Quote:
Submission

Submission to this journal proceeds totally online. Use the following guidelines to prepare your article. Via the EES homepage of this journal (External link http://ees.elsevier.com/aa/) you will be guided stepwise through the creation and uploading of the various files. The system automatically converts source files to a single Adobe Acrobat PDF version of the article, which is used in the peer-review process. Please note that even though manuscript source files are converted to PDF at submission for the review process, these source files are needed for further processing after acceptance. All correspondence, including notification of the Editor's decision and requests for revision, takes place by e-mail and via the author's homepage, removing the need for a hard-copy paper trail.
If you don't think many grants are awarded because CAGW is thrown into the application, I've got a bridge to sell you. Look, CAGW junk gets published every day, often just as an unneeded add-on to studies that have little or nothing to do with it. This paper is just more ridiculous than most (or maybe all). Is it important in the global warming debate? No. Will it be taken seriously even by most alarmists? No. But that doesn't mean it's entirely atypical. In fact, it's all too typical. It's just even more out there than the others.

---------------------------------------------------------

Edit #3: Here is a data base of Acta Astronautica papers. It seems rather incomplete but I think it's enough to show that most of the papers are not of the crazy, far-out loony (or fan fictiony) type. From the titles, some of it seems rather speculative but I see little that compares to the ET craziness of the paper under discussion.

http://www.iaaweb.org/index.php?opti...emid=49#Design
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French

Last edited by movielib; 08-19-11 at 12:18 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-11, 01:50 PM   #130
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Navinabob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 8,803
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Quote:
Originally Posted by movielib View Post
OK, I don't know if there was a research grant attached to this. I don't know there wasn't. I think we can assume somebody paid in some way to get the 33 page paper with 89 footnotes published. I don't know for sure if the paper was peer reviewed although the article said it was. That could be wrong. I realized it is not primarily about global warming but it, like much other stuff, throws it in for no good reason. Often it is to help get a grant. That may or may not be the case here.

I realize peer review is not always what it's cracked up to be. I emphasize it because alarmists always do and many of them still falsely claim that few papers that have conclusions that contradict CAGW exist.

I don't know if Acta Astronautica considers itself a step up from fan fiction but I doubt it. Although this paper would suggest it is.

The fact remains that professors (correction: see below) in two departments at a major university and NASA wrote this junk. It is probably coincidental that the university is where Michael Mann works. They felt compelled, for some reason, to make it even sillier by throwing in global warming.

And no, I don't have outrage, I have derision.

------------------------------------------------------

Edit: Correction: Not professors.

Seth Baum is a PhD candidate and Research Assistant, Center for Research on Environmental Decisions

Jacob Haqq-Misra is a postdoc (PhD, Meteorology & Astrobiology) and research scientist whose specialties are climate modeling, dynamic meteorology, climate change, planetary habitability, astrobiology, extraterrestrial life, philosophy of science

These are not positions without prestige and this subject seems right up their alley. Something like Diagon Alley.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Edit #2: Acta Astronautica (founded 1959) is indeed peer reviewed:

http://iaaweb.org/content/view/232/359/

If you don't think many grants are awarded because CAGW is thrown into the application, I've got a bridge to sell you. Look, CAGW junk gets published every day, often just as an unneeded add-on to studies that have little or nothing to do with it. This paper is just more ridiculous than most (or maybe all). Is it important in the global warming debate? No. Will it be taken seriously even by most alarmists? No. But that doesn't mean it's entirely atypical. In fact, it's all too typical. It's just even more out there than the others.

---------------------------------------------------------

Edit #3: Here is a data base of Acta Astronautica papers. It seems rather incomplete but I think it's enough to show that most of the papers are not of the crazy, far-out loony (or fan fictiony) type. From the titles, some of it seems rather speculative but I see little that compares to the ET craziness of the paper under discussion.

http://www.iaaweb.org/index.php?opti...emid=49#Design
First off, those who wrote that article did it for fun, free press, and the ability to indicate that they had another study published; there was no research grant or money invested by any organization. The researchers are not jokes, they did use real research, but the topic was fluff. The CDC just did something like this with a zombie outbreak. And while some think the science of "alarmism" is all bunk, it happens to be the mainstream scientific consensus. It isn't included in the report to be sensational, it is included in the report because it is the working theory we have going (although their conclusion with it about aliens fearing us because of it is just silly). Goldman, the guy from NASA, released this to the press:

So here’s the deal, folks. Yes, I work at NASA. It’s also true that I work at NASA Headquarters. But I am not a civil servant… just a lowly postdoc. More importantly, this paper has nothing to do with my work there. I wasn’t funded for it, nor did I spend any of my time at work or any resources provided to me by NASA to participate in this effort.

There are at least a hundred more important and urgent things to be done on any given work day than speculate on the different scenarios for contact with alien civilizations… However, in my free time (what precious little I have), I didn’t mind working on stuff like this every once in a while. Why? Well, because I’m a geek and stuff like this is fun to think about.

Unfortunately, there is not enough time for fun. Indeed, I felt guilty at times because this has led to a lack of effort on my part in my interactions with Seth and Jacob. Beyond adding some comments here or there, I did very little for the paper.

But I do admit to making a horrible mistake. It was an honest one, and a naive one… but it was a mistake nonetheless. I should not have listed my affiliation as “NASA Headquarters.” I did so because that is my current academic affiliation. But when I did so I did not realize the full implications that has.


As for the journal being peer reviewed, I didn't mean to imply that it wasn't, only that it didn't mean to much in this case. Acta Astronautica has a very small IF rating (a 2 is low... they hover at .5 to .8) and isn't taken very seriously by the scientific community for a few reasons; I'll only list one as it directly relates to this study. The journal is struggling for relevancy still due to an outdated mission statement, seemingly taken from Starfleet Academy, and virtually no readership or research of note. Because nobody is reading it it has a hard time attracting quality peers to conduct quality peer review (catch 22). The peers they do have are under pressure to increase linking citations and any press (good or bad). It is that pressure that causes a lot of problems.

Virtually every study that blows the doors off the global warming conspiracy, 9/11 conspiracy or vaccine conspiracy comes from journals under this sort of pressure as well. A peer reviewed journal increases it's IF rating (the standard to which a journal gathers prestige) when other journals cite a paper in theirs... so when a tiny journal prints a sensational study that causes researchers in other journals to link to their original journal, they get their rating up. The higher a rating goes up the better the quality of research submitted they get and the more they can charge libraries for access.

That is how a minor journal gets bigger & better, a already higher journal does the exact opposite. A big journal has to stick with popular topics (like global warming will kill us all!) and beat it to death because new studies can cite articles in their own journal and increase their own rating! The reason Nature doesn't publish climate skeptical studies isn't so much an ideological agenda as it is a financial one. Unless they have more of those then they do alarmist/confirming ones to cite to in their own journal they are losing ground. Let me state that again plainly: every time a new article cites another article in the same journal, the journal itself goes up in rank. So the more articles you have saying basically the same thing the better you do. Editors know this and use that as motivation when accepting or declining submitted work.

This brings me to my next point; peer review is made up of people. A paper can get accepted and published not based on good science, but by good politics. A reviewer who is a climate skeptic might let a paper slide through on crappy science because they may believe the same crappy science. This is how laughably bad research on acupuncture and homeopathy gets published in medical journals. You can have a well educated cardiologist accurately rip apart a study on if the magic of the full moon healing failing hearts, but then has a blind-spot for acupuncture used in heart surgery. The smaller the journal, the fewer the number of peers used for reviewing work.

Often it takes other studies in other journals trying to confirm, replicate or disprove those findings to end bad research. But, as I explained before, boosts the little journal because those other journals have to cite the study they are ripping apart!

Bad research and biased research gets published all the time.

Chances are, when I say a study is crappy and it being published in a peer reviewed Geology Instruments Monthly journal, I can be easily right.

Chances are, when you say good skeptical research is being kept out of the bigger journals in what looks to be a conspiracy, you can easily right.

In a lot of ways it is a crappy system. David Gorski often steals a great line from Winston Churchill’s about democracy, "Peer review is the worst way to weed out bad science and promote good science, except for all the others that have been tried."

I hope this helps.
__________________
“Ridicule is the only weapon that can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.” -- Thomas Jefferson

"The candle flame gutters. Its little pool of light trembles. Darkness gathers. The demons begin to stir." --Carl Sagan
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-11, 06:38 PM   #131
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,732
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

[Rude comment removed.]

There is nothing you said about peer review I'm not aware of. As I said, I don't hold it out as the Holy Grail. Often alarmists do. As I also said, alarmists very often claim few (or even no) peer reviewed papers support the skeptical position. The great Pachauri, railway engineer and head of the IPCC (who has been called the leading climate scientist in the world when he isn't even a scientist, at least in some alarmist press stories), has claimed everything in the IPCC report is from peer reviewed studies. That has been shown to be enormously untrue. It is the alarmists who hold it up so highly (while they are doing their damnedest to keep any whiff of skepticism out of the journals, with varying degrees of success) which is why I always emphasize that a study is peer reviewed when it goes against the "consensus." It is for the same reason that skeptics sometimes talk about cold weather. They know the difference between weather and climate. But many alarmists forget about the difference when they see warm weather. They remember the difference when it's cold. The skeptics are being reactive. They react to the alarmists when the latter spout bullshit to scare us into spending trillions and abandoning energy that works for any benefit that is trivial, at best.

But journals such as Nature and Science do publish skeptical studies. Not all such studies are done by skeptics. Still, many studies support the skeptical position and/or do not support the alarmist position in one or more points.

This link lists more than 900 peer reviewed studies which meet these criteria:

http://www.populartechnology.net/200...upporting.html

Most of these are scientific studies, some go into economic and other areas. They are not all equal in quality or strength of refutation. Some are old, some are new.

It may surprise you to learn that I counted 32 from Nature and 42 from Science. They do publish some of these studies in spite of their bias (one can clearly see the bias from their editorial pronouncements from time to time). It's just not spoken about in polite society. You should see from what I post here that skeptical studies are published, literally, just about every week.

And finally, I know the "study" that started this round is junk. I never said the journal was any good (I'd never even heard of it), I just said it is peer reviewed. It is just another example (albeit extreme, perhaps the most extreme I've ever seen) of alarmist junk getting published. If you wade through all these threads you can see other alarmist junk of much greater import such as the Hockey Stick, the warming antarctic, finding the models' missing tropical troposphere hotspot by measuring wind instead of temperature and many others.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French

Last edited by movielib; 08-20-11 at 06:26 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-11, 07:04 PM   #132
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,732
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Yet another peer reviewed study refuting the oft made alarmist claim that tropical storms are getting worse (generally claimed because of CO2 induced global warming).

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/1...kly-highlight/

Quote:
Ryan Maue’s paper in GRL in AGU’s weekly highlight
Posted on August 19, 2011 by Anthony Watts

We’ve known this for quite some time, but I wanted to offer my congratulations to Dr. Maue. I’m thankful that you are a WUWT contributor. – Anthony

AGU journal highlights — Aug. 18

The following highlights summarize research papers that have been recently published in Geophysical Research Letters (GRL), Journal of Geophysical Research-Earth Surface (JGR-F), Journal of Geophysical Research-Biogeosciences (JGR-G), and Journal of Geophysical Research-Oceans (JGR-C).



http://www.agu.org/journals/gl/gl111...01-tn-350x.jpg

2. Global cyclone activity historically low

A new research study shows that overall global tropical cyclone activity has decreased to historically low levels during the past 5 years.

Maue analyzes global tropical cyclone data from 1970 through May 2011 to examine the considerable interannual variability of the accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) metric. Since 2006, global and Northern Hemisphere ACE have decreased significantly, reaching the lowest levels since the late 1970s. Also, during 2010-2011, the overall global frequency of tropical cyclones reached a historical low. The researcher demonstrates that much of the variability in tropical cyclone energy during the past 40 years is clearly associated with natural large-scale climate oscillations such as the El Niño-Southern Oscillation and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.

Source:
Geophysical Research Letters, doi:10.1029/2011GL047711, 2011
http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2011GL047711

Title: Recent historically low global tropical cyclone activity

Author: Ryan N. Maue: Center for Ocean and Atmosphere Studies, Department of Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Science, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, USA
Does five years mean much? Well, maybe in this case it does because until about 2005 (Katrina etc.) we had been in the midst of a high activity period for storms (it tends to be cyclical, something the alarmists don't like to admit but which Maue alludes to in his study, above - The El Niño-Southern Oscillation and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation). But even if it doesn't mean much, many alarmists keep on claiming that it's getting worse and every new hurricane (of which there have been fewer and weaker recently) is pumped up as an example of global warming (or, the more subtle of them will say something like: while no one hurricane can be blamed on global warming, we are seeing more and more and we can expect to keep seeing more and more because of global warming; but we're not).

In the Atlantic basin and the Gulf of Mexico, no hurricane has made landfall in the US for more than a thousand days. This alone is not that significant but ACE is down over the entire globe.

The hurricane season in the Atlantic runs from June through November. But most of the worst storms occur in the middles two months, August and September. We are less than halfway through both those two months and the entire season. We could still get rocked. I've been saying this every year since 2005 but we've been quite lucky (if you want to call it that). Also, since 2005 I've been expecting much worse seasons (as have been the experts) because we were in the middle of the high activity phase of the cycles. We haven't gotten it.

This study is consistent with Chris Landsea's studies which conclude that the mild warming that has occurred has not caused increased tropical storm activity.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French

Last edited by movielib; 08-19-11 at 08:10 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-11, 05:07 AM   #133
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Navinabob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 8,803
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Quote:
Originally Posted by movielib View Post
Thanks for the condescension.

There is nothing you said about peer review I'm not aware of. As I said, I don't hold it out as the Holy Grail. Often alarmists do. As I also said, alarmists very often claim few (or even no) peer reviewed papers support the skeptical position. The great Pachauri, railway engineer and head of the IPCC (who has been called the leading climate scientist in the world when he isn't even a scientist, at least in some alarmist press stories), has claimed everything in the IPCC report is from peer reviewed studies. That has been shown to be enormously untrue. It is the alarmists who hold it up so highly (while they are doing their damnedest to keep any whiff of skepticism out of the journals, with varying degrees of success) which is why I always emphasize that a study is peer reviewed when it goes against the "consensus." It is for the same reason that skeptics sometimes talk about cold weather. They know the difference between weather and climate. But many alarmists forget about the difference when they see warm weather. They remember the difference when it's cold. The skeptics are being reactive. They react to the alarmists when the latter spout bullshit to scare us into spending trillions and abandoning energy that works for any benefit that is trivial, at best.

But journals such as Nature and Science do publish skeptical studies. Not all such studies are done by skeptics. Still, many studies support the skeptical position and/or do not support the alarmist position in one or more points.

This link lists more than 900 peer reviewed studies which meet these criteria:

http://www.populartechnology.net/200...upporting.html

Most of these are scientific studies, some go into economic and other areas. They are not all equal in quality or strength of refutation. Some are old, some are new.

It may surprise you to learn that I counted 32 from Nature and 42 from Science. They do publish some of these studies in spite of their bias (one can clearly see the bias from their editorial pronouncements from time to time). It's just not spoken about in polite society. You should see from what I post here that skeptical studies are published, literally, just about every week.

And finally, I know the "study" that started this round is junk. I never said the journal was any good (I'd never even heard of it), I just said it is peer reviewed. It is just another example (albeit extreme, perhaps the most extreme I've ever seen) of alarmist junk getting published. If you wade through all these threads you can see other alarmist junk of much greater import such as the Hockey Stick, the warming antarctic, finding the models' missing tropical troposphere hotspot by measuring wind instead of temperature and many others.
I think it is important to note that quantity of studies released is not nearly as impressive as quality when deciding what the consensus of science should be. But, I've got no reason to think that what you just said about those 900 articles isn't true; that some are better science then others, and some come from better sources then others, but all should be at least considered. It is probably just as likely that the same is true from the other position.

Here is what bugged me about the NASA/aliens/global warming posts on the climate skeptic sites. Google the article title, filter it to the day it came out and glance over the blogs and website titles that talked about it. Note that they make the same group-think mistakes, that "NASA funded this study, grant money for global warming, conspiracy connections to Mann, the study was a scare tactic for global warming..." All crap easily debunked.

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/20...ievers-to.html

NASA now pandering to UFO believers to sell global warming hoax
No, this is not a headline from The Onion, it's peer-reviewed science from the experts at NASA and Penn State (home of the Mann)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFk6o...ature=youtu.be

"tax-payer funded NASA research"

http://michaeljmaxim.com/?p=4715

A report by NASA scientists claims that space aliens may attack earth to save the planet from man-made global warming climate change.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011...lobal-warming/

It’s an Obama world.
NASA, the once prestigious space agency, has morphed into a junk science outlet that focuses on Muslim outreach and space alien sensitivities to global warming climate change.
Oh… And they dropped the Shuttle program.


http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...on_excuse.html

Battered by growing skepticism about their climate conclusions, global warming advocates have cast about wildly for a way to stem the tide. And they appear to have found the answer; aliens are more likely to destroy us because of our greenhouse gas emissions.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/1...a-bad-species/

Bizarre, craptastic theory from the Guardian, Penn State, and NASA: “ET will kill us because global warming will tip them off that we are a bad species” (Although he at least updated the story with a bit of an explanation)

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/...entist-claims/

Aliens Could Attack Earth to End Global Warming, NASA Scientist Frets

The thought-provoking scenario is one of many envisaged in a joint study by Penn State and the NASA Planetary Science Division, entitled "Would Contact with Extraterrestrials Benefit or Harm Humanity? A Scenario Analysis."

http://forum.dvdtalk.com/politics-wo...l#post10895084

This goes to show that if you include global warming in a grant application you can get money for anything. And some wonder why alarmists want to keep this fundwagon going.


Note the lack of critical thinking, fact checking and general alarmist tone. This is the stuff that bothers me. If those articles came from what you call "alarmist" or "biased" scientists I'm betting it would have bothered you too as you quite adeptly have no problem picking out the bullshit when you see it.
__________________
“Ridicule is the only weapon that can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.” -- Thomas Jefferson

"The candle flame gutters. Its little pool of light trembles. Darkness gathers. The demons begin to stir." --Carl Sagan
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-11, 06:31 AM   #134
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Unknown
Posts: 4,089
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Navinabob View Post
...I'm betting it would have bothered you too as you quite adeptly have no problem picking out the bullshit when you see it.
Yes, this part is quite true. There is a lot of bizarre and unfounded stuff out there that movielib is quite good at filtering out (especially since the moral majority seems to have latched on to this issue). So, when every once in awhile a one of these slips through, not a problem. I do find it interesting that of the hundreds of articles posted in these threads this is the one you are singling out...

My belief is that once you filter out the "bad science", this consensus you refer to evaporates. From what I have seen there is far far more junk science on the alarmists side. Which makes sense, since there far far more money there too ( and as you so astutely pointed out, that more than any ideological position is what is driving this wave of garbage)...
__________________
"Have fun storming the castle!"
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-11, 09:01 AM   #135
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,732
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Navinabob View Post
I think it is important to note that quantity of studies released is not nearly as impressive as quality when deciding what the consensus of science should be. But, I've got no reason to think that what you just said about those 900 articles isn't true; that some are better science then others, and some come from better sources then others, but all should be at least considered. It is probably just as likely that the same is true from the other position.

Here is what bugged me about the NASA/aliens/global warming posts on the climate skeptic sites. Google the article title, filter it to the day it came out and glance over the blogs and website titles that talked about it. Note that they make the same group-think mistakes, that "NASA funded this study, grant money for global warming, conspiracy connections to Mann, the study was a scare tactic for global warming..." All crap easily debunked.

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/20...ievers-to.html

NASA now pandering to UFO believers to sell global warming hoax
No, this is not a headline from The Onion, it's peer-reviewed science from the experts at NASA and Penn State (home of the Mann)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFk6o...ature=youtu.be

"tax-payer funded NASA research"

http://michaeljmaxim.com/?p=4715

A report by NASA scientists claims that space aliens may attack earth to save the planet from man-made global warming climate change.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011...lobal-warming/

It’s an Obama world.
NASA, the once prestigious space agency, has morphed into a junk science outlet that focuses on Muslim outreach and space alien sensitivities to global warming climate change.
Oh… And they dropped the Shuttle program.


http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...on_excuse.html

Battered by growing skepticism about their climate conclusions, global warming advocates have cast about wildly for a way to stem the tide. And they appear to have found the answer; aliens are more likely to destroy us because of our greenhouse gas emissions.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/1...a-bad-species/

Bizarre, craptastic theory from the Guardian, Penn State, and NASA: “ET will kill us because global warming will tip them off that we are a bad species” (Although he at least updated the story with a bit of an explanation)

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/...entist-claims/

Aliens Could Attack Earth to End Global Warming, NASA Scientist Frets

The thought-provoking scenario is one of many envisaged in a joint study by Penn State and the NASA Planetary Science Division, entitled "Would Contact with Extraterrestrials Benefit or Harm Humanity? A Scenario Analysis."

http://forum.dvdtalk.com/politics-wo...l#post10895084

This goes to show that if you include global warming in a grant application you can get money for anything. And some wonder why alarmists want to keep this fundwagon going.


Note the lack of critical thinking, fact checking and general alarmist tone. This is the stuff that bothers me. If those articles came from what you call "alarmist" or "biased" scientists I'm betting it would have bothered you too as you quite adeptly have no problem picking out the bullshit when you see it.
Here's the thing. We skeptics are so used to bad science, bad economics, bad journalism and bad politics coming from the alarmist camp (and make no mistake, this has become a political war, something very unfortunate for science) that we may have made some assumptions when this probably worst ever (which is saying quite a lot) "study" hit the press. If it weren't for the story in The Guardian (a notoriously pro-CAGW newspaper) which seemed to be the only news outlet that picked up on it, this study may have remained unknown to the general public and the blogosphere, given the study's source which no one seems to have ever heard of.

There is a list that is kept by Jon Brignell at the Number watch website. I post the updated list once or twice a year. It is a list of everything (that he has found) that has been attributed to global warming. It is chock full of absurdities and outright contradictions. There are links to almost all although some of the links, of course, have died. The aliens have not yet been added.

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

So this was just one more, even if it has set a new record for silliness.

When I posted it, it was as only the latest example of silliness from the pro-CAGW crowd that has accepted that humans are destroying the Earth as some sort Truth Handed Down By the Climate Gods that is beyond question. Yes, I made the assumption that the study was funded (even if the authors were not paid and did it on their own time (which I am not sure has been established), it took money for all this to be done). I didn't say much of anything about the NASA connection and I was actually more disturbed that the study came from two researchers at a major university. Of course I noted that it was Penn State, home of Michael Mann (you have to) but allowed he may have not had anything to do with it. I do doubt that Mann doesn't know these gentlemen since they seem to have aspirations of working in the same field as Mann.

I think the NASA scientists backpedaling is a little disingenuous. If they were just having a little fun I think that should have been made explicit in the paper itself (which has an air of seriousness), seeing that it reads much like it was printed in The Onion.

Was too much made of this "study"? Perhaps. As for myself, it would have been a one off. It was too juicy to pass up completely but I doubt I ever would have mentioned it again. I really don't want to any more. Way to much time wasted talking about this ridiculous paper. I'm sick to death of it. Maybe the aliens should just phaser me.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-11, 09:11 AM   #136
DVD Talk Hero
 
DVD Polizei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 49,802
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Unfortunately, politics has turned natural events on this earth into something people just don't believe in at all (on one extreme) and then those who believe the planet will somehow flood itself in a few years (on the other extreme).
__________________
Blu-ray Titles: ~1,050 | HD DVD Titles: ~323

"I don't sell airplane parts. I've never sold airplane parts."
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-11, 11:03 AM   #137
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,732
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Lindzen and Choi take criticisms seriously, refine 2009 paper and find much less climate sensitivity than pro-CAGW scientists.

http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/08/li...published.html

Quote:
Thursday, August 18, 201
Lindzen-Choi 2011 published
Lubos Motl

WUWT brings us some good news and the final version of the Lindzen-Choi 2011 article published in the Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences:
On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications (full text PDF)
This is an updated version of their 2009 article - so the basic strategy was kept.

However, the 2009 article was criticized not only via bogus pseudo-arguments emitted by the folks who didn't like the results but also by numerous legitimate observations.

I think that Lindzen and Choi are very generous when it comes to those critics - many others would include such criticism into invisible minor footnotes. At any rate, all the criticisms that Lindzen and Choi have become aware of are corrected in the new paper.

You may be interested in single result: the climate sensitivity (warming from CO2 doubling) is 0.7 °C or, with a 99-percent near-certainty, between 0.5 °C and 1.3 °C.

This interval - which doesn't even overlap with the IPCC's 2.0-4.5 °C interval - would mean that the man-made contribution to the global temperature change between now and 2080 when CO2 will be near 560 ppm is approximately 0 °C while the interval is between -0.3 and +0.7 °C at the 99 percent confidence level. (I subtracted the warming that has already occurred, and assumed that the non-CO2 contributions were approximately zero.) The error margin is just the uncertainty of the CO2 greenhouse contribution. There will surely be other contributions so the total warming by 2080 is more likely than 1% to be outside this interval.

Their paper is based on a more careful analysis of some observational data. Which data?

They observe the surface sea temperature (SST) in the tropics and the energy outgoing from the top-of-atmosphere (TOA), especially in tropics, as measured by ERBE satellite. (When the same analysis is done globally, they get roughly the same results but with a stronger noise. Recall that Richard has concluded that the tropics are the "mother" of the Earth's climate and nothing changes about that in this paper.)

The basic mechanism is that when the sea is getting warmer, the Earth emits more radiation. The change in the radiation may take some time - so the "best response" may be obtained after a 1-month delay. (The dependence of the response on the lag expressed in months is an important technical issue in the paper.)

Of course, the question is how strongly the outgoing energy depends on the sea surface temperature. An IPCC-like high sensitivity - the Earth is going to fry - means that the energy flows don't change much when the temperature changes by 1 °C; consequently, small changes of energy flows correspond to a huge change of the temperature.

If the Earth were just a black body, the warming by 1 °C would lead to 3.3W/m2/K increase of the outgoing energy. This is also the slope that a simple linear regression (interpolating a straight line in between points in the SST-flux plane) would produce from the ERBE data.

However, this simple regression overemphasizes the long-term changes of SST and long-term changes of the fluxes where one of the quantities or both may be perturbed by various kinds of noise that arises from the complexity of the climate system or other drivers; or by the instability or drift of the measurement apparatuses that measure the energy flows over long timescales.

So instead, Lindzen and Choi cleverly and rightfully focus on well-defined periods in which the SST and the flux are changing sufficiently monotonically and quickly over a short enough period of time. In the 2011 paper, these intervals are chosen according to objective criteria in which various criticisms have been incorporated.

When the regression is applied to these data that are dominated by fast changes where the signal apparently exceeds the noise more sharply, they obtain a slope that is twice as large, 6.0W/m2/K. This may be translated to their resulting climate sensitivity that is very likely to be smaller than 1.2 °C, thus showing that the net feedback is negative (and may actually be strongly negative).

Lindzen and Choi discuss the source of the difference between their results and those of Dessler 2010 or Trenberth et al. 2010. Lots of methods are also chosen from Spencer and Braswell 2010 etc.

At any rate, this is how climate science should look like. The paper looks nice enough to me but I am not going to expect that it is a "holy scripture". New imperfections may be found in the 2011 paper as well. However, I am kind of confident that they're new imperfections. The new paper is a big step towards clarifying a more accurate value of the climate sensitivity.

I am hoping that as the climate hysteria and politically imposed "consensus" is dying away, the legitimate and rational process in this direction will continue and strengthen, crisper results about the climate will be found in the near future, and those people among various Desslers who will stay in the research will recognize themselves as occasionally helpful assistants to the real leader of their field such as Richard Lindzen.

And that's a wish of mine.
One of the biggest factors in deciding the global warming debate is the climate sensitivity. As those who have been following these threads know, climate sensitivity is the amount of temperature rise that can be expected from a doubling of CO2. The skeptics and the alarmists are very far apart on this.

Lindzen (who even the alarmists must admit has impeccable credentials and is not a creationist (which the alarmists use to unfairly taint Roy Spencer who has been working on the same subject), has long thought the sensitivity is low. I think history bears this out (as it also supports negative feedbacks) simply because of the fact that the Earth has not run off the rails (tipping point) in billions of years in spite of their being far more extreme situations than the one we are experiencing now. But proving by what mechanisms is still necessary (Svensmark, Shaviv, Veizer and others are also doing this by another approach, the cosmic ray theory; these approaches are complementary, not mutually exclusive).

The climate sensitivity question is very complex - far beyond my self-educated and meager scientific abilities and understanding. That mistakes will be made, even by experts, is inevitable. But what I see is the alarmists basing their work on climate models which have never been shown to be reliable and have often been show to be wrong in many predictions and particulars while skeptics are much more using observations and experimentation. And Lindzen and Choi are doing science just the way it is supposed to be done. Take criticisms seriously, admit when you are wrong and try to refine and improve your work. With all due respect, this is something rare (if it exists at all) with alarmists.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-11, 12:57 PM   #138
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: MI
Posts: 25,005
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Here is some Bad Science from Science:
http://news.yahoo.com/critters-movin...180108117.html

Quote:
..

Critters moving away from global warming faster
By SETH BORENSTEIN - AP Science Writer | AP – Thu, Aug 18, 2011...

WASHINGTON (AP) — Animals across the world are fleeing global warming by heading north much faster than they were less than a decade ago, a new study says. . . .
Even if animals and plants are extending their range to the north and to higher elevation, there is NO evidence presented in the article that they are abandoning southerly range or lower elevations due to heat or other reasons. Expanding and fleeing are two quite different concepts (except to idiots).

Unless there is evidence they are abandoning range previously occupied, there is no evidence they are "fleeing." (at inches per year )
__________________
9/11/2001 - You have awakened a sleeping giant, and filled him with a terrible resolve. - paraphrased from Yamamoto
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-11, 02:54 PM   #139
DVD Talk Hero
 
JasonF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 37,994
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Quote:
Originally Posted by movielib View Post
Thanks for the condescension.
Oh, please. This thread might as well be renamed as "The One and Only movielib Makes Condescending Posts About Global Warming Thread."
__________________
These are my DVDs
360 GamerTag: William T Bunny
PSN ID: William_T_Bunny
"JasonF can do no wrong!" -- Rockmjd23
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-11, 02:57 PM   #140
DVD Talk Hero
 
JasonF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 37,994
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDude View Post
Here is some Bad Science from Science:
http://news.yahoo.com/critters-movin...180108117.html



Even if animals and plants are extending their range to the north and to higher elevation, there is NO evidence presented in the article that they are abandoning southerly range or lower elevations due to heat or other reasons. Expanding and fleeing are two quite different concepts (except to idiots).

Unless there is evidence they are abandoning range previously occupied, there is no evidence they are "fleeing." (at inches per year )
I get the distinction you're making and I agree with it, but wouldn't you agree that if animals are expanding into habitats they previously did not inhabit, that is evidence consistent with climate change?
__________________
These are my DVDs
360 GamerTag: William T Bunny
PSN ID: William_T_Bunny
"JasonF can do no wrong!" -- Rockmjd23
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-11, 03:04 PM   #141
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,189
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonF View Post
I get the distinction you're making and I agree with it, but wouldn't you agree that if animals are expanding into habitats they previously did not inhabit, that is evidence consistent with climate change?
Sounds more like evidence consistent with human sprawl. Personally, I have yet to see anything, even contradictory data, that isn't somehow consistent with climate change. There is nothing that can't fit into the theory and no evidence that can refute it. Give me an example of something that would show that climate change is not occuring. We all know that climate continually changes (as this ultimately gets back to humans causing it), but what evidence would refute any ideas offered in climate change science?
__________________
“The illegality of cannabis is outrageous, an impediment to full utilization of a drug which helps produce the serenity and insight, sensitivity and fellowship so desperately needed in this increasingly mad and dangerous world.”

― Carl Sagan
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-11, 03:15 PM   #142
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Navinabob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 8,803
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Quote:
Originally Posted by dave-o View Post
Yes, this part is quite true. There is a lot of bizarre and unfounded stuff out there that movielib is quite good at filtering out (especially since the moral majority seems to have latched on to this issue). So, when every once in awhile a one of these slips through, not a problem. I do find it interesting that of the hundreds of articles posted in these threads this is the one you are singling out...

My belief is that once you filter out the "bad science", this consensus you refer to evaporates. From what I have seen there is far far more junk science on the alarmists side. Which makes sense, since there far far more money there too ( and as you so astutely pointed out, that more than any ideological position is what is driving this wave of garbage)...
I've actually picked on a few articles posted, but I'm mostly staying within my comfort zone of spotting bad science as opposed to responding to technical points that I'm barely literate at. OldDude's animal article and commentary about jumping to conclusions does seem fair. What they have is a few data sets and a far-reaching conclusion. Even if they prove the migration, does that mean they can point to a cause? But without a journal report to look at I can't be certain that Yahoo just isn't taking things out of context for a better "story"

The Lindzen and Choi article seems just fine to me, refining your work after criticism is how it is supposed to be done. It does not mean they are now necessarily correct though, but more likely closer then they were before. And as they get closer, that data can be used to refine studies from the other side until we get true predictions.
__________________
“Ridicule is the only weapon that can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.” -- Thomas Jefferson

"The candle flame gutters. Its little pool of light trembles. Darkness gathers. The demons begin to stir." --Carl Sagan
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-11, 03:32 PM   #143
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: MI
Posts: 25,005
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonF View Post
I get the distinction you're making and I agree with it, but wouldn't you agree that if animals are expanding into habitats they previously did not inhabit, that is evidence consistent with climate change?
Maybe. We can't tell from the bad article whether "global range" is expanding northward (or to higher elevation) or these are isolated areas (heat islands or microclimate changes).

We also don't know whether the local climate changed or the species became more cold adapted. Man obviously didn't start in Alaska, but he did invent coats (which might be cheating). Polar bears branched off some other species that lives at lower latitudes and adapted to life at higher latitudes. Does that prove the North Pole is warm? Adaptation is real, too.

Fleeing involves abandoning territory, which they didn't prove. As to whether the new range is species adaptaption, local (microclimate) change or global change is an open issue. I don't have the Science article so I don't know if it is bad or the journalist did a bad write-up ( but I have seen other articles in Science that seem poorly done. Maybe I can catch this one at the library)

PS: Speaking of fleeing, did polar bears flee lower latitudes because:
*They REALLY like seals
*It was too damned hot
*They wanted to avoid competition from other bear species.
__________________
9/11/2001 - You have awakened a sleeping giant, and filled him with a terrible resolve. - paraphrased from Yamamoto

Last edited by OldDude; 08-20-11 at 04:09 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-11, 03:51 PM   #144
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Navinabob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 8,803
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonF View Post
Oh, please. This thread might as well be renamed as "The One and Only movielib Makes Condescending Posts About Global Warming Thread."
Meh... I know I'm in hostile territory and understand that most things posted are pretty biased. But, all-in-all, people have been very patient and helpful while I catch up.
__________________
“Ridicule is the only weapon that can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.” -- Thomas Jefferson

"The candle flame gutters. Its little pool of light trembles. Darkness gathers. The demons begin to stir." --Carl Sagan
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-11, 05:01 PM   #145
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Unknown
Posts: 4,089
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Navinabob View Post
Meh... I know I'm in hostile territory and understand that most things posted are pretty biased. But, all-in-all, people have been very patient and helpful while I catch up.
No hostility intended from me. Yours is a welcome voice to this thread. While I might not agree with all of your conclusions, you strike me as someone who is more about getting the science right, above all else. In this way we are quite similar.

I'm guessing the condescension implication was more of a misunderstanding. If one reads that post as being directed at only one person, it may come off as condescending. But if it is read as just adding some background information for those who might not know about how peer reviews work, than I see it as a helpful addition. The fact of the matter is, that even in my field, where we deal with peer review quite a bit, a fair amount of my colleagues don't really know how it works ( or care for that matter).

As for movielib's style of discussing the alarmist scientists and propagandists he covers here...well, some people really deserve to be condescended to....
__________________
"Have fun storming the castle!"
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-11, 06:19 PM   #146
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,732
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonF View Post
Oh, please. This thread might as well be renamed as "The One and Only movielib Makes Condescending Posts About Global Warming Thread."
I think I am more derisive than condescending toward the alarmists who spout nonsense (they all don't but, come on, many do) but I try to not be either toward people who post in the threads. Perhaps I fail sometimes.

You are entitled to your opinion (now that was condescending).
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-11, 06:25 PM   #147
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,732
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Quote:
Originally Posted by dave-o View Post
No hostility intended from me. Yours is a welcome voice to this thread. While I might not agree with all of your conclusions, you strike me as someone who is more about getting the science right, above all else. In this way we are quite similar.

I'm guessing the condescension implication was more of a misunderstanding. If one reads that post as being directed at only one person, it may come off as condescending. But if it is read as just adding some background information for those who might not know about how peer reviews work, than I see it as a helpful addition. The fact of the matter is, that even in my field, where we deal with peer review quite a bit, a fair amount of my colleagues don't really know how it works ( or care for that matter).
The particular post in question just got to me and at a time when I was feeling a little testy. I think your interpretation is correct. I choose to now take it the latter way and withdraw my comment. I am editing it to remove it.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-11, 06:42 PM   #148
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,732
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Navinabob View Post
The Lindzen and Choi article seems just fine to me, refining your work after criticism is how it is supposed to be done. It does not mean they are now necessarily correct though, but more likely closer then they were before. And as they get closer, that data can be used to refine studies from the other side until we get true predictions.
Excellent points. I completely agree.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-11, 06:48 PM   #149
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,732
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Navinabob View Post
Meh... I know I'm in hostile territory and understand that most things posted are pretty biased. But, all-in-all, people have been very patient and helpful while I catch up.
I have many times admitted I am biased.

I still try to be fair.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-11, 10:18 PM   #150
DVD Talk Hero
 
JasonF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 37,994
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Quote:
Originally Posted by movielib View Post
You are entitled to your opinion (now that was condescending).
See?!!!?!!!!!!?!!!!???!!


__________________
These are my DVDs
360 GamerTag: William T Bunny
PSN ID: William_T_Bunny
"JasonF can do no wrong!" -- Rockmjd23
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:08 AM.


Copyright 2011 DVDTalk.com All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0