The point was: It damages any points you may make by being related to “environmentalists.”
No matter their funding, they are driving their message better. That’s what my problem with advancing the science is. You, me, and anyone else willing can sit and howl into the wind with all of the science our lungs can force through our vocal cords, but it’s falling on deaf ears because we are “nerdy environmentalists who don’t have a grip on the ‘real world’.”
And that is due to marketing.
With respect, a web survey and a phone survey do not evidence make and it shows when recounting the history. Calling several thousand people isn’t representative of the population at large. How many people you make contact with is random. You can conduct the same phone survey 12 times a year and get wildly varying results, unfortunately. Researchers studying poll reliability have also found that asking slightly different questions has been shown to change the result of a responses.
It doesn’t matter where the condescension is coming from or aimed. We shouldn’t hit innocent bystanders with our swarthy projectiles.
No, I mean, I read the abstract and it said nothing about climate science and then I read the study itself. I can’t fathom how about 4 of these (so far) included got hit with “climate science” in the dragnet they put out. And a few others mention climate science in their abstract, but it doesn’t reference it at all in the study.
As I said: Weak points that should be discussed and understood so it can’t be considered fodder.
Not really for common folk, it is now in the political arena and we should not ignore the elephant in the room that has an (R) in the name.
Whoa, that is really getting into woo territory, the reality is that other surveys show that it is a minority what still thinks that humans are not involved or that we will never see the changes.
The problem is when the innocent bystanders even resort to deny the surveys.
The point stands, only a few get distressed by that. The only thing I can say in your case is that you are ok, but you need to take more into account the false equivalencies that are also pushed around by the contrarians.
We are now going around in circles, so I’ll be brief. This back-and-forth started when you made the following statement:
That statement is not scientifically supportable with the available evidence. Period.
You seem to believe it’s true based on an incorrect interpretation of a very rough graph which contains compounded uncertainties both from the presumed forcings and from the modeling process itself. You continue to believe it’s true even when the statements I quoted from the researchers doing the analysis EXPLICITLY CONTRADICT IT. (pardon the shouting, but that point keeps getting ignored!) Above all, you seem more interested in elevating this uncertainty about one period of time into some kind of red herring about climate change in general rather than either (a) understanding it, or (b) accepting that the evidence for the dominant influence of human impact on climate change in the post-industrial era overall and in the 20th century in particular is essentially irrefutable.
Here are the actual facts. The warming in the first half of the 20th century was very likely NOT due to natural internal variability. That leaves natural external forcings and anthropogenic forcings as causes, and it’s impossible to tell within the margins of error and modeling uncertainty which was dominant. And it’s even worse than that. The graph also fails to show that the anthropogenic components at the time were both positive (CO2) and negative (sulphate and other aerosols), so the implication that anthropogenic forcings were non-existent is very misleading. Even more important, there is evidence for slightly increased solar forcing at the time, and it’s known that solar forcing is subject to coupled regional feedbacks that causes anthropogenic CO2 to amplify its effects. Thus in addition to observational and modeling uncertainties, there is an interplay between solar and GHG forcings that blurs the distinction as to what is “natural” and what is anthropogenic. Yes, science is complicated, and that’s why eyeballing a simplistic graph doesn’t even begin to tell the story unless you understand some of the underlying facts.
i.e. you are going around in circles evading the central point.
Stop trying to confuse the issues: It’s not a matter of whether it’s scientifically supportable – it’s a matter of whether it’s a reasonable conclusion if one accepts the IPCC report. It is.
The interpretation is correct; I also linked to more higher resolution graphs which show essentially the same thing.
No they don’t – they only contradict the strawman you erected here:
See, there’s a difference between stating that (1) according to IPCC, mankind was not primarily responsible for pre-1950 warming and stating that (2) according to the IPCC mankind did not contribute at all to pre-1950 warming.
You pretended that I said the second when in fact I said the first. I gave you the usual chance to back up your claim or retract it and apologize. Which you of course ignored.
In any event, I have no interest in a discussion where the other person insists on misrepresenting my position. Which you have done repeatedly.
While I am sure it’s very satisfying for you to relentlessly attack strawman, it holds no interest for me. This exchange is concluded.
Well, welcome to the club **wolfpup **that means that he will not pay attention to any thing one will say, it is really an enforcement of willful ignorance.
Apparently in your frame of reference, a statement that is not scientifically supportable – and contradicts the clear statements of the researchers – can still be “a reasonable conclusion”!
I think that’s about all that needs to be said about that.
Hahahaha. Since it was SKEPTICS who have discovered several errors in the man-made-CO2-must-be-at-fault camps “scientific” findings, I can see why it’s important for the MMCO2MBAF camp to, at least attempt to, undermine any skeptical input.
The MMCO2MBAF camp had to acknowledge their errors once they were exposed, didn’t they.
I have to wonder why were the errors weren’t exposed by the IPCC’s usual friends-and-family-only style vetting? Is there any possibility that the “acceptable” vetters aren’t actually vetting and are only rubber stamping the studies they are given?
That still leaves the IPCC and it’s supporters with a BIG credibility problem. A credibility problem that you are not helping. Thanks for that.
Ignorance shows, the skeptics scored once and it did not change the readings much, the conclusions made before stand, also if you are referring to the Himalayas error, it was not skeptics who found it but scientists did and corrected.
Yes, but you have to notice that you came even denying that. And the point still stands, you have offered NOTHING to show that there are new errors or that the past error is still being followed by the new research.
Keep piling the ignorant points. It is not me the one that has a problem.
As even real scientists of the SDMB tellme that I’m correct more often, the problem is really on your ignorance of looking why your points are old, nor relevant and silly.
If the IPCC and it’s feeder organizations were truly honest about proving the results of their reports, they would welcome the input and vetting of skeptical people. It’s obvious that the IPCC and its supporters have missed errors that should have been discovered by any organization that was actually verifying the data and man-made inputs.
Current and previous reports used the paleoclimate data from Mann and othes, as the leaked emails from “climategate” 2.0 showed Mann actually approached one of his harshest critics and together released an update of Mann’s early work, you bet skeptics looked at it, and one can bet that your sources did not tell you that.
Nothing much left to say when it is clear that you are willfully ignoring the skeptical research by Muller and Berkeley Earth that found no significant errors at all.
Incidentally, Mann’s later temperature reconstructions – and those of about a dozen other paleoclimate teams – fully corroborated his early work.
The criticisms of Mann are a good case study in the kinds of criticisms being advanced here – the ones that try to say “look – an error was found!! An error!! Therefore the whole field is suspect!!”
Case in point: Mann was primarily criticized by some for applying a type of statistical analysis called de-centered principal component analysis on his data, which was said to be capable of skewing the data and creating an artificial “hockey stick” uptick in 20th century temperatures. He was also criticized for using temperature proxies of allegedly questionable accuracy.
This was widely trumpeted by “skeptics” as definitively invalidating all his work (as if the “hockey stick” shape of post-industrial warming was all just a statistical artifact). Never mind that there is a mathematical basis for de-centered PCA and that Mann’s proxy validations were exceptionally rigorous. But the real clincher came with papers by Wahl and Amman in 2006 and 2007. They repeated the reconstruction without the use of PCA, and with the controversial proxies removed, and obtained essentially the same result. They also found major blunders in the criticisms that had been directed against Mann. Since then, many other teams using independent techniques have confirmed his results and Mann has become widely respected as a major pioneer in paleoclimatology.
This is tactic #1 in denialism: find any error, or anything that can even be questioned, and inflate it into an attempt to discredit an entire body of work. It’s amazing how much denialism $900 million a year in PR spin can buy.
Pardon my Cynicism, but can anyone tell when the global warming will return? I’m getting a little frigid freezing my A$$ off here on the north east coast! Seriously is global warming only an issue during summer?
As in my previous post it was “SUMMER” in Antarctica when those two freighters got stuck in the ice!
Also correct me if I’m mistaken but wasn’t Al Gore’s movie dealing with global warming shot full of holes by someone?
I’m not one way or the other on this matter, but it seems as though it hard to be on one side of the fence or the other when the fence itself don’t seem too sturdy! Is this a political issue? a financial/greed issue? or an environmental issue?
Addendum, I meant ICEBREAKERS above not freighters. You would think they’d have an easy job breaking ice during summer in Antarctica especially with the onslaught of global warming!
Apparently not!
What if it is here already? Would you know it? Climate scientists talk in terms of a global temperature increase of 2°C or so: what if it was that much warmer where you are? Could you tell?