Catholicism and Climate Change

[kimmielittle]

Bush, the oil man’s, appointees, perhaps?

Are you saying this list of names is discredited, somehow?

Have you ever seen a “White Paper”?
Do you understand that this page…is PART of that “White Paper”? page 8, I think ]. You can buy a copy.

I remember in the mid-80s a person working at the EPA told my niece (who was working for a chemical analysis co) that So&So (our distant relative) had worked her way up in the EPA by “looking the other way” re toxic sites. People know who’s buttering their bread.

So you hold “old lady gossip” As evidence? If you do, it might help explain a lot to me.

The other issues with such lists are 1) do they really have the expertise to assess the paper, and 2) do they really agree with the paper.

They were PART of the “paper”…

 

[kimmielittle]

1. Exactly

Before jumping on “The Agree Train” you might go back over my posts and see - that many times, “I lead " ,” Challenge" , or 'bait" …in order to find out just where they get their ideas OR how well they can defend those ideas.

This allows an honest debate based on knowledge, instead of speculation.

See my last post. Those are “Team Member Names” On that “White Paper”.

 

[kimmielittle]

But really I read through Roy Spencers thoughts and while I didn;t understand some of what he was saying his explanation to me did make sense I think. And he is a skeptic so I am thinking that he has reason for hoping that this guy is right. In fact I think he even said he wished the guy was right or something along those lines. But right now it seems the evidence is not holding his theory up.

Produce that “evidence”, please.

Frankly, I look forward to the debate on Dr M’s Theory …

Why? Because, to debunk it …AGW’s will have to finally admit, the OTHER drivers of Climate

I have ALWAYS held, that there are a… “Chain of Drivers” working in Concert - AGW hypothesis denies this and attributes only CO2 as the driver.

Getting a paper published and people to agree with you doesn;t equal being right.

Seems, that NASA took it serious See Dr. Judith Curry’s remarks AND new Graph at NASA ]

However so far AGW has held up to the evidence.

Not according to those Scientists bailing from the AGW hypothesis.

After nearly 30 years 3decades ] and ** Trillions ** of dollars, spent to “prove” The hypothesis of AGW…Well…The Claims made don’t hold up to OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE

Though there is obviously still debate. Over things like impacts, the actual amount of warming. Feedbacks effects and how those will effect things…and so on.

Hmmmmm…are we making progress, here?

I thought you originally defended AGW hypothesis as “Settled” - Here, you agree it is not???

 

[kimmielittle]

Though there is obviously still debate. Over things like impacts, the actual amount of warming. Feedbacks effects and how those will effect things…and so on.

Let me explain how math, science, equations work.

For AGW to be accepted Actually, ANY math or Hypothesis ] - one must ** ACCEPT ALL ** of the equation / Hypothesis presented.

If we question say, for example:
1 + 1 = 3

Let’s say the number three here, represents amount of warming - or feedbacks amounts - or other claimed effects

3 - Three being part of their , AGW’s Math Hypothesis ] AND 3 is found faulty ** For any reason ] **…Then the whole equation dies.

The OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE has shown - that the number three doesn’t hold up to its hypothesized CLAIMS.

AGW’s seem bent, not to acknowledge this LAW.

You were taught this in grade school - Yet, you are being told to ignore this TRUTH?

 

[kimmielittle]

Someone asked can’t we just change the 3 in the below example to the rightful number of 2?

Yes, if it were only a math computation.
Because, math has established rules of value - It’s not a hypothesis.
Things change when we use math equations as arguments to promote a hypothesis.

So no we can’t - Not in a hypothesis equation.

In a hypothesis equation, weights or values are issued as arguments - FOR the hypothesis summary / conclusions.-

EACH must work

1 + 1 = 3

HAS not 3 values.

Because it’s a hypothesis… it HAS 5 weighted / valued …arguments

It is saying:
IF this first Value is… 1st argument ]
AND
IF we ADD + ] to this next value… 2nd argument ]
AND
IF this Second value is… 3rd argument ]
AND
IF these two values are correct then we should be able to equal to find a sum = ] … 4th argument ]
AND
If ALL are correct, we hypothesis that sum to be … 5th argument ]

If ANY part of this simple 5 part hypothesis argument fails…ALL of it fails

 

[kimmielittle]

The problem when making a ** prediction hypothesis ** - The claims have to be **observed **…as evidence.

The original claim.

CO2 is the only driver of climate
Increase of CO2 causes warming
This warming causes … all sorts of claims - not one has stood / been supported by the observational evidence ]

Now, they AGW’ers ] had a pretty good run at the warming part, while 11 year solar cycles and El Nino were in heavy play. BTW: These were mentioned in Email leaks see climategate emails - 11 year cycle - and the shame that temperatures are going down ]

Once these two KNOWN warmers were receding, temperatures receded.

This is when we find the “Hide the decline” email.

The hypothesis, as claimed, DEMANDS it’s prediction ALWAYS holds true. In other words, the warming HAS to Continue - NO MATTER WHAT.

CO2 IS THE ONLY DRIVER OF CLIMATE
CO2 ALWAYS CREATES GLOBAL WARMING

All other claims by AGWer’s are based upon these above Hypothesis.

Yet, we KNOW by OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE - this Hypothesis isn’t working as claimed.

You can not ADD when things don’t go right with Observational Evidence ] In an effort To make the original Hypothesis work.

The Original Hypothesis HAS to stand - OR fall - on it’s own merits
,

 

[portarica]

I just asked…we have replaced them 5 times and they still need the regular type hot water heaters…because when the panels go out, it takes months to get them replaced

Are you replacing them with the same brand that continues to break?There are brands on the market that last for decades, so unless yours have been up for 50 years (according to this post) or 40 (according to the previous post) you may have been better off going with a different model.

Peace

 

[Ender]

This is when we find the “Hide the decline” email.

I hate to be picky, and especially so as you’ve been doing such a fine job of puncturing the AGW balloon, but I think the “hide the decline” comment referred specifically to the decline that appeared in the modern tree ring data. It is really no less deceitful to trumpet the accuracy of proxy data right up to the point where it can be compared with temperature data and then jump ship when it starts to diverge than it would be to fudge the actual data (well, OK, they did that too), but nonetheless I think the decline they wanted to hide was in the proxy data, not the actual temperature data.

Ender

 

[lynnvinc]

I hate to be picky, and especially so as you’ve been doing such a fine job of puncturing the AGW balloon, but I think the “hide the decline” comment referred specifically to the decline that appeared in the modern tree ring data. It is really no less deceitful to trumpet the accuracy of proxy data right up to the point where it can be compared with temperature data and then jump ship when it starts to diverge than it would be to fudge the actual data (well, OK, they did that too), but nonetheless I think the decline they wanted to hide was in the proxy data, not the actual temperature data.

Ender

Yes, if I recall, the problem was the tree-ring data didn’t match recent climate trends. The main mistake, I think, was that when they made a chart of the warming, they didn’t explain that the first part of it was from tree-ring data, and the last part from temp measurements (and they use some “tricks” to splice the two data sets together).

But tree rings aren’t the only climate proxy. See this post by a young paleoclimatologist commenting on a RC post:
Something this article (and many others) ignores is that there are far more paleoclimate proxies than tree rings. Chironomids, foraminifera, cosmogenic isotopes, conodonts (if you wanna get “really” paleo), varves, oxygen isotope ratios in clam shells and other organic matter, and of course, more well known ice cores. I’m a budding paleoclimatologist, not a statistician, so I can’t speak to any of the methods used, but there seems to be an attitude in many circles and in this article that tries to pretend that tree rings are all we have, which couldn’t be further from the truth. The best use of proxies is when combining several methods. Take a look at this paper on Baffin Island glyfac.buffalo.edu/Faculty/briner/buf/pubs/Thomas_et_al_2010.pdf On the 14th page, you can see the a graph depicting the use of several proxies and how they all agree quite nicely, especially considering the temporal scale in question. The McShane and Wyner article claim it’s very difficult to reconstruct past climates, but apparently, they haven’t been paying attention. There are people out there who have gotten pretty good at it.

Comment by Shirley J. Pulawski — 25 August 2010 @ 3:46 PM
I’m also thinking about why trees don’t make good proxies in recent years. I’ve been studying about how AGW & its effects (& increased CO2) affect plants. There could be some good reasons for trees being affected differently in our time.

 

[lynnvinc]

Climate change skeptics (incl Bjorn Lomberg) jumping ship, doing an “about face” – abc.net.au/pm/content/2010/s2998746.htm

 

[kimmielittle]

Are you replacing them with the same brand that continues to break?There are brands on the market that last for decades, so unless yours have been up for 50 years (according to this post) or 40 (according to the previous post) you may have been better off going with a different model.

Peace

Hiyas

Our home is less than 10 years old.
This is the third or fourth company

 

[kimmielittle]

I hate to be picky,

Hiyas

I LOVE picky , especially when factual

and especially so as you’ve been doing such a fine job of puncturing the AGW balloon,

Thank you

but I think the “hide the decline” comment referred specifically to the decline that appeared in the modern tree ring data.

YEPPERS!!! I think you are correct, thank you for catching that

It is really no less deceitful to trumpet the accuracy of proxy data right up to the point where it can be compared with temperature data and then jump ship when it starts to diverge than it would be to fudge the actual data (well, OK, they did that too), but nonetheless I think the decline they wanted to hide was in the proxy data, not the actual temperature data.

Ender

 

[kimmielittle]

Yes, if I recall, the problem was the tree-ring data didn’t match recent climate trends. The main mistake, I think, was that when they made a chart of the warming, they didn’t explain that the first part of it was from tree-ring data, and the last part from temp measurements (and they use some “tricks” to splice the two data sets together).

The main problem is the warming receded after the11 year sun cycle and El Nino ENSO } Oscillations.

Tree rings and other data are SECONDARY Hypothesis. To be used as secondary Observational Evidence - only … Part of the Observational Evidence - That As it turns out, ALSO doesn’t support the Original prediction Hypothesis ]

The ORIGINAL hypothesis, as claimed, DEMANDS it’s prediction ALWAYS holds true. In other words, the warming HAS to Continue - NO MATTER WHAT.

CO2 IS THE ONLY DRIVER OF CLIMATE
CO2 ALWAYS CREATES GLOBAL WARMING

 

[Calliso]

Yes, if I recall, the problem was the tree-ring data didn’t match recent climate trends. The main mistake, I think, was that when they made a chart of the warming, they didn’t explain that the first part of it was from tree-ring data, and the last part from temp measurements (and they use some “tricks” to splice the two data sets together).

But tree rings aren’t the only climate proxy. See this post by a young paleoclimatologist commenting on a RC post:
Something this article (and many others) ignores is that there are far more paleoclimate proxies than tree rings. Chironomids, foraminifera, cosmogenic isotopes, conodonts (if you wanna get “really” paleo), varves, oxygen isotope ratios in clam shells and other organic matter, and of course, more well known ice cores. I’m a budding paleoclimatologist, not a statistician, so I can’t speak to any of the methods used, but there seems to be an attitude in many circles and in this article that tries to pretend that tree rings are all we have, which couldn’t be further from the truth. The best use of proxies is when combining several methods. Take a look at this paper on Baffin Island glyfac.buffalo.edu/Faculty/briner/buf/pubs/Thomas_et_al_2010.pdf On the 14th page, you can see the a graph depicting the use of several proxies and how they all agree quite nicely, especially considering the temporal scale in question. The McShane and Wyner article claim it’s very difficult to reconstruct past climates, but apparently, they haven’t been paying attention. There are people out there who have gotten pretty good at it.

Comment by Shirley J. Pulawski — 25 August 2010 @ 3:46 PM
I’m also thinking about why trees don’t make good proxies in recent years. I’ve been studying about how AGW & its effects (& increased CO2) affect plants. There could be some good reasons for trees being affected differently in our time.

Yeah as I understand it I think it was mainly trees in northern latitudes as well. But really they didn;t mean to be deceptive better labeling would have been nice though. But really when you have an insturmental record that says one thing and most proxies that say the same thing. Well it kinda makes sense that when one very specific proxy in a pretty specific location doesn;t fit that maybe something is wrong with that proxy maybe something is going on with trees in more recent decades that cause those readings.

And of course it should be noted that trick is no evidence of deception and fraud. The word trick is used all the time across many scientific fields. Also it should be noted once again several I think about FOUR investigations have gone into this email hack and the CRU and not one found any evidence what so ever of fraud and deception.

 

[lynnvinc]

RE models, here’s a software engineer who thinks climate models pose problems by possibly UNDERESTIMATING the nasties from AGW (sort of what I thought all along) …see easterbrook.ca/steve/?p=1140#more-1140

The climate modellers I’ve spoken to are generally very reluctant to have their models used to generate predictions of future climate – the models are built to help improve our understanding of climate processes, rather than to make forecasts for planning purposes. I was rather struck by the attitude of the modellers at the Hadley centre at the meetings I sat in on last summer in the early planning stages for the next IPCC reports – basically, it was “how can we get the requested runs out of the way quickly so that we can get back to doing our science”…

Climate models do play a major role in climate science, but sometimes that role is over-emphasized. Hansen lists climate models third in his sources of understanding of climate change, after (1) paleoclimate and (2) observations of changes in the present and recent past. This seems about right – the models help to refine our understanding and ask “what if…” questions, but are certainly only one of many sources of evidence for AGW…

Much of the concern is over the potential for “big surprises” – the chance that actual changes in the future will lie well outside the confidence intervals of these probabilistic forecasts (to understand why this is likely, you’ll have to read on to the detailed notes). And much of the concern is with the potential for surprises where the models dramatically under-estimate climate change and its impacts…

 

[kimmielittle]

Climate change skeptics (incl Bjorn Lomberg) jumping ship, doing an “about face” – abc.net.au/pm/content/2010/s2998746.htm

Did you read the article?

Do you know who Bjorn Lomberg is? Hint economist ]
How about Michael Hanlon? Hint Journalist ]

Here is a bit from your article

BOB CARTER: What’s with all these economists? It’s just astonishing. The climate change issue is an issue of science.

Professor Shapiro who chaired the InterAcademy Council is an economist at Princeton University. We have in Australia at the moment the author of the discredited report done for the British government about three years ago, Nicholas Stern, giving talks. He’s an economist. And now we have Bjorn Lomborg who is a statistician and also in a sense an economist, a social scientist issuing a new book on climate change.

It’s about time that people especially governments started asking scientists. The economists only come into play in this debate if there is a problem. **There first has to be demonstrated a problem with dangerous global warming caused by human carbon dioxide emissions.

That has not yet been demonstrated. And until it has most of these books by economists are beside the point. They’re discussing a problem which hasn’t even yet been shown to exist. **

 

[kimmielittle]

Also it should be noted once again several I think about FOUR investigations have gone into this email hack and the CRU and not one found any evidence what so ever of fraud and deception.

ALL FOUR INVESTIGATIONS said
These people practiced Shoddy scientific practices.
These people deliberately withheld Freedom of Information

AT LEAST ONE INVESTIGATION Oxford ] Said the Scientists involved were “agenda driven”

Now, let’s put this into HONEST perspective and be done with this

If FOUR separate MEDICAL INVESTIGATIONS showed your family Doctor practiced shoddy Medical Procedures - Would you allow that Doctor to operate on your Loved One?

ESPECIALLY, when Billions of taxpaper Dollars Supported Their Science / Medical Practices?

C’mon

.

 

[kimmielittle]

RE models,

Models only are as HONEST as the person feeding them.

EACH of the Temperature Models, under investigation in a scientific review, have been shown to have been manipulated / adjusted to show warming.

 

[lynnvinc]

“6 Global Warming Skeptics who Changed Their Mind” (incl Lomberg, who, yes, is a statistician & economist, but WAS a darling of the denialist camp): theweek.com/article/index/206686/6-global-warming-skeptics-who-changed-their-minds

 

[lynnvinc]

ALL FOUR INVESTIGATIONS said
These people practiced Shoddy scientific practices.

Not

These people deliberately withheld Freedom of Information

Yeah, from denialists using the FOI Act to harass the socks off them…plus they just didn’t have the manpower to answer the flood of requests.

Best just to trust the experts…esp when the message has got to be true, since it is such a terrible message no one would want to put out there fallaciously.

Ridiculous and big fat sins to harass and threaten to kill the messengers.