# How many people take Global Warming totally on faith? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 21, 2007, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-people-take-global-warming-totally-on-faith/416356 "2007-08-21T13:06:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 21
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2007, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-people-take-global-warming-totally-on-faith/416356/401 "2007-08-26T02:21:07Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] Did you notice that was an editorial? Anyway, if you do a web search you can find a list of many scientists who don’t go along with the “consensus” [/quote] Of course, but then you have to bring evidence that she is lying about the National Academy of Sciences, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, otherwise you are just falling into a fallacy. And consensus is not the same as unanimity. > [@](#): > > We’ve been through this already so there’s no need to rehash it. Anyway, do you dispute that the Earth regularly goes through warming and cooling trends? Or that the recent observed changes in temperature are well within the range of natural fluctuation? Since the example you brought was discredited, I have to say I still have to doubt that the current change is natural. > [@](#): > > Do you dispute that there has been a big increase in funding for climate research? Do you agree that concerns about AGW are part of the reason for this increase? The historical evidence shows that it was by accident that climate research concentrated now on AGW, since correlation does not mean causation 🙂 getting more funding can also be explained for the fact that indeed many governments want to be sure of what is going on, and I can say now that some governments were expecting that there would be nothing to worry about. > [@](#): > > I can’t speak for others, But yet you demand that we speak for others when defending semantic errors. > [@](#): > > but I’m not wedded to any position. Just this afternoon I was reading a critique of the “Great Global Warming Swindle” video. Some decent points were made and I’m open to the possibility that the video has lies in it. And that is good, I have to say that there where some things I learned too, I knew that CO2 allows short wavelength solar radiation to pass through the atmosphere and then it keeps long wavelength radiation in, what I did not realize is that scentists in the early half of the last century when testing the effects of CO2 at sea level pressure missed what CO2 does high in the atmosphere (The reason why \*\*tagos \*\* and others had no respect at all for you when you also missed that the experiment you proposed would not show much of anything.) Once new information came it was that science began to change. [http://www.aip.org/history/exhibits/climate/co2.htm](http://www.aip.org/history/exhibits/climate/co2.htm) > [@](#): > > The complacent view that CO2 from human activity could never become a problem was overturned during the 1950s by a series of costly observations. This was a consequence of the Second World War and the Cold War, which brought a new urgency to many fields of research. American scientists enjoyed massively increased government funding, notably from military agencies. The officials were not aiming to answer academic questions about future climates, but to provide for pressing military needs. Almost anything that happened in the atmosphere and oceans could be important for national security. Among the first products were new data for the absorption of infrared radiation, a topic of more interest to weapons engineers than meteorologists.(23) > > The early studies sending radiation through gases in a tube had an unsuspected logical flaw — they were measuring bands of the spectrum at sea-level pressure and temperature. Fundamental physics theory, and a few measurements made at low pressure in the 1930s, showed that in the frigid and rarified upper atmosphere, the nature of the absorption would change. The bands seen at sea level were actually made up of overlapping spectral lines, all smeared together. Improved physics theory, developed by Walter Elsasser during the Second World War, and laboratory studies during the war and after confirmed the point. At low pressure each band resolved into a cluster of sharply defined lines, like a picket fence, with gaps between the lines where radiation would get through.(24) > > These measurements inspired the theoretical physicist Lewis D. Kaplan to grind through some extensive numerical computations. In 1952, he showed that in the upper atmosphere the saturation of CO2 lines should be weak. Thus adding more of the gas would make a difference in the high layers, changing the overall balance of the atmosphere. Meanwhile, precise laboratory measurements found that the most important CO2 absorption lines did not lie exactly on top of water vapor lines. Instead of two overlapping bands, there were two sets of narrow lines with spaces for radiation to slip through.(25) > > Nobody could say anything more specific without far more extensive computations. By 1956, these could be carried out thanks to the increasingly powerful new digital computers. The physicist Gilbert N. Plass took up the challenge of calculating the transmission of radiation through the atmosphere, nailing down the likelihood that adding more CO2 would increase the interference with infrared radiation.(26) Going beyond this qualitative result, Plass announced that human activity would raise the average global temperature “at the rate of 1.1 degree C per century.” The computation, like Callendar’s, paid no attention to possible changes in water vapor and clouds, and overall was too crude to convince scientists. “It is almost certain,” one authority scolded, “that these figures will be subject to many strong revisions.”(27) Yet Plass had proved one central point: it was a mistake to dismiss the greenhouse effect with spectroscopic arguments. He warned that climate change could be “a serious problem to future generations” — although not for several centuries. Following the usual pattern, Plass was mainly interested in the way variations in CO2 might solve the mystery of the ice ages. “If at the end of this century the average temperature has continued to rise,” he wrote, then it would be “firmly established” that CO2 could cause climate change.(28) > > None of this work met the argument that the oceans would promptly absorb nearly all the CO2 humanity might emit. Plass had estimated that gas added to the atmosphere would stay there for a thousand years. Equally plausible estimates suggested that the surface waters of the oceans would absorb it in a matter of days.(29) Fortunately, scientists could now track the movements of carbon with a new tool — the radioactive isotope carbon-14. This isotope is created by cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere and then decays over millennia. The carbon in ancient coal and oil is so old that it entirely lacks the radioactive isotope. In 1955, the chemist Hans Suess reported that he had detected this fossil carbon in the atmosphere. > > The amount that Suess measured in the atmosphere was barely one percent, a fraction so low that he concluded that the oceans were indeed taking up most of the carbon that came from burning fossil fuels. A decade would pass before he reported more accurate studies, which showed a far higher fraction of fossil carbon. Yet already in 1955 it was evident that Suess’s data were preliminary and insecure. The important thing he had demonstrated was that fossil carbon really was showing up in the atmosphere. More work on carbon-14 should tell just what was happening to the fossil carbon.(30) > > Suess took up the problem in collaboration with Roger Revelle at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. (Some other carbon-14 experts attacked the topic independently, all reaching much the same conclusions.) From measurements of how much of the isotope was found in the air and how much in sea water, they calculated the movements of CO2 (link from below). It turned out that the ocean surface waters took up a typical molecule of CO2 from the atmosphere within a decade or so. Radiocarbon data also showed that the oceans turned over completely in several hundred years, an estimate soon confirmed by evidence from other studies.(31) At first sight that seemed fast enough to sweep any extra CO2 into the depths. > > But Revelle had been studying the chemistry of the oceans through his entire career, and he knew that the seas are not just salt water but a complex stew of chemicals. These chemicals create a peculiar buffering mechanism that stabilizes the acidity of sea water. The mechanism had been known for decades, but Revelle now realized that it would prevent the water from retaining all the extra CO2 it took up. A careful look showed that the surface layer could not really absorb much gas — barely one-tenth the amount a naïve calculation would have predicted. > > A supplementary essay on Revelle’s Discovery tells this crucial story in full, as a detailed example of the complex interactions often found in geophysical research. > Revelle did not at first recognize the full significance of his work. He made a calculation in which he assumed that industry would emit CO2 at a constant rate (like most people at the time, he scarcely grasped how explosively population and industry were rising). This gave a prediction that the concentration in the air would level off after a few centuries, with an increase of no more than 40%. Revelle did note that greenhouse effect warming “may become significant during future decades if industrial fuel combustion continues to rise exponentially.” He also wrote that “Human beings are now carrying out a large scale geophysical experiment of a kind that could not have happened in the past nor be reproduced in the future.”(32) > > As sometimes happens with landmark scientific papers, written in haste while understanding just begins to dawn, Revelle’s explanation was hard to grasp. Other scientists failed to see the point that was obscurely buried in the calculations, and continued to deny there was a greenhouse effect problem. In 1958, when Callendar published a paper to insist once again that CO2 observations showed a steady rise from the 19th century, he noted Revelle’s paper but still confessed that he did not understand why “the oceans have not been accepting additional CO2 on anything like the accepted scale.”(33) Finally in 1959 two meteorologists in Sweden, Bert Bolin and Erik Eriksson, caught on. They explained the sea water buffering clearly — so clearly that during the next few years, some scientists cited Bolin and Eriksson’s paper for this decisive insight rather than Revelle and Suess’s (only in later years was Revelle always cited for the discovery).(34) The central insight was that although sea water did rapidly absorb CO2, most of the added gas would promptly evaporate back into the air before the slow oceanic circulation swept it into the abyss. To be sure, the chemistry of air and sea water would eventually reach an equilibrium — but that could take thousands of years. Arrhenius had not concerned himself with timescales shorter than that, but geoscientists in the 1950s did. > In the late 1950s a few American scientists, starting with Plass, tentatively began to inform the public that greenhouse gases might become a problem within the next few centuries. Revelle in particular warned journalists and government officials that greenhouse warming might come within the foreseeable future, and deserved serious attention. The stakes were revealed when Bolin and Eriksson pursued the consequences of their calculation to the end. They assumed industrial production would climb exponentially, and figured that atmospheric CO2 would rise some 25% by the end of the century. That was a far swifter rise than anyone before had suggested. In 1962, a still stronger (although not widely heeded) warning was sounded by the Russian climate expert Mikhail Budyko. His calculations of the exponential growth of industrial civilization suggested a drastic global warming within the next century or so. > > Once meteorologists understood that ocean uptake was slow, they found it possible that CO2 levels had been rising, just as Callendar insisted.(35) Yet it was only a possibility, for the measurements were all dubious. By the mid 1950s, researchers were saying that it was important to measure, much more accurately, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.(36) A Scandinavian group accordingly set up a network of 15 measuring stations in their countries. Their only finding, however, was a high noise level. Their measurements apparently fluctuated from day to day as different air masses passed through, with differences between stations as high as a factor of two. Only much later was it recognized that their methods of analyzing the air had been inadequate, and responsible for much of the noise.(37) A leading authority summarized the scientific opinion of the late 1950s: “it seems almost hopeless to arrive at reliable estimates [of CO2]… by such measurements in limited areas.” To find if the gas level was changing, measurements would have to “be made concurrently and during a great number of years” at many locations.(38) > Charles David (Dave) Keeling held a different view. As he pursued local measurements of the gas in California, he saw that it might be possible to hunt down and remove the sources of noise. Technical advances in infrared instrumentation allowed an order of magnitude improvement over previous techniques for measuring gases like CO2. Taking advantage of that, however, would require many costly and exceedingly meticulous measurements, carried out someplace far from disturbances. Most scientists, looking at the large and apparently unavoidable fluctuations in the raw data, thought such precision irrelevant and the instrumentation too expensive. But Revelle and Suess had enough funds, provided by the International Geophysical Year, to hire Keeling to measure CO2 with precision around the world. > > A supplementary essay tells the precarious story of Keeling’s funding and monitoring of CO2 levels as a detailed example of how essential research and measurements might be fed — or starved. > Revelle’s simple aim was to establish a baseline “snapshot” of CO2 values around the world, averaging over the large variations he expected to see from place to place and from time to time. After a couple of decades, somebody could come back, take another snapshot, and see if the average CO2 concentration had risen. Keeling did much better than that with his new instruments. With painstaking series of measurements in the pristine air of Antarctica and high atop the Mauna Loa volcano in Hawaii, he nailed down precisely a stable baseline level of CO2 in the atmosphere. In 1960, with only two full years of Antarctic data in hand, Keeling reported that this baseline level had risen. The rate of the rise was approximately what would be expected if the oceans were not swallowing up most industrial emissions.(39\*) > > Lack of funds soon closed down the Antarctic station, but Keeling managed to keep the Mauna Loa measurements going with only a short hiatus. As the CO2 record extended it became increasingly impressive, each year noticeably higher. Soon Keeling’s curve, jagged but inexorably rising, was widely cited by scientific review panels and science journalists.(40) For both scientists and the public it became the primary icon of the greenhouse effect. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2007, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-people-take-global-warming-totally-on-faith/416356/402 "2007-08-26T02:42:54Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] For example, I made the following point to you and **Sage Rat** , and unless I missed something, neither of you came up with a coherent response: [/QUOTE] > [@](#): > > If they are asking the world to spend billions of dollars as a result of their research, there should be 100% disclosure. Everything, including source code, failed models – everything. :sigh: Yes you did miss it, based on your latest cite then, it was a moot point. Of course disclosure is good, and it is clear that you still can grasp the concept that I was not defending people who do not disclose things. But your example was extremely misleading, with the data available I would expect better from the deniers, instead I see more reasons why not to trust them. It still amounts to an attempt at distracting from the fact that the deniers mentioned grabbed the data and made mistakes in the effort to discredit the findings, In the context of this thread you may have a Pyhrric victory. In the context of people taking GW totally on faith (Not true as it is clear now), one really has to have faith when one can consider that a victory. I grant you that.. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2007, 5:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-people-take-global-warming-totally-on-faith/416356/403 "2007-08-26T05:43:11Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] Did you notice that was an editorial? Anyway, if you do a web search you can find a list of many scientists who don’t go along with the “consensus” [/QUOTE] I’m curious if you’ve seen the list of scientist who do not accept evolution. Do you agree or disagree that there is a consensus about that? There are a lot of scientists in the world, many with no more knowledge of a particular controversy than the average Joe. It is easy to get a list on both sides. What matters is if there is a consensus of those with relevant training and experience. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2007, 9:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-people-take-global-warming-totally-on-faith/416356/404 "2007-08-26T09:43:36Z")
[QUOTE=GIGObuster] I have to say I still have to doubt that the current change is natural. [/quote] Fine, but that’s not an answer to my question: Do you dispute that the Earth regularly goes through warming and cooling trends? Or that the recent observed changes in temperature are well within the range of natural fluctuation? > [@](#): > > getting more funding can also be explained for the fact that indeed many governments want to be sure of what is going on, and I can say now that some governments were expecting that there would be nothing to worry about. Fine, but that doesn’t contradict my point that there is a lot of social and economic pressure to exaggerate the amount of certainty over AGW and its potential effects. > [@](#): > > But yet you demand that we speak for others when defending semantic errors. You took it upon yourself to jump in and defend **Sage rat** ’s false statement. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2007, 9:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-people-take-global-warming-totally-on-faith/416356/405 "2007-08-26T09:54:28Z")
[QUOTE=Voyager] I’m curious if you’ve seen the list of scientist who do not accept evolution. [/quote] I haven’t. I just did a couple web searches and could not find it. Can you link it please? > [@](#): > > Do you agree or disagree that there is a consensus about that? I don’t know. I had always assumed that there was a consensus, but I would like to see this list. > [@](#): > > There are a lot of scientists in the world, many with no more knowledge of a particular controversy than the average Joe. It is easy to get a list on both sides. What matters is if there is a consensus of those with relevant training and experience. Sure, as long as you don’t define “relevant training and experience” too narrowly. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2007, 10:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-people-take-global-warming-totally-on-faith/416356/406 "2007-08-26T10:06:20Z")
[QUOTE=GIGObuster] :sigh: Yes you did miss it, [/quote] Then would you mind quoting your response and telling me which post it occurred in? > [@](#): > > Of course disclosure is good, and it is clear that you still can grasp the concept that I was not defending people who do not disclose things. Well, it seems that the people whose theories you support have a practice, in general, of disclosing far less than 100%. Don’t you agree that this is a big problem? If Hansen had fully disclosed everything back in 1988, then we could have a legitimate test of the AGW hypothesis. > [@](#): > > It still amounts to an attempt at distracting from the fact that the deniers mentioned grabbed the data and made mistakes in the effort to discredit the findings, Maybe they did, and maybe they didn’t. I don’t think it affects any of the points I have made. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2007, 11:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-people-take-global-warming-totally-on-faith/416356/407 "2007-08-26T11:30:22Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] Cite? According to this source – > **[Flat Earth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth)** > > Flat Earth is an archaic and scientifically disproven conception of the Earth's shape as a plane or disk. Many ancient societies subscribed to a flat-Earth cosmography. The model has undergone a recent resurgence as a conspiracy theory in the 21st century. The idea of a spherical Earth appeared in ancient Greek philosophy with Pythagoras (6th century BC). However, the early Greek cosmological view of a flat Earth persisted among most pre-Socratics (6th–5th century BC). In the early 4th century... Augustine said the following: [/QUOTE] I no longer have the book, but I did read it in the City Of God about 25 years ago. I would have to get the book to re-read it then give you the quote,but it astounded me when I read it. Monavis ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2007, 11:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-people-take-global-warming-totally-on-faith/416356/408 "2007-08-26T11:40:21Z")
Feh, **brazil84** is indeed just nitpicking and not dealing with the evidence now, no wonder he has made that impression here: > **[Brazil84, take a fucking nap!](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=434199)** > > Holy crap. Today’s posts on the GD thread How many people take Global Warming totally on faith?: 4:58 AM (my clock) 5:00 AM 5:05 AM 6:13 AM 6:49 AM 9:11 AM 9:59 10:43 12:00 PM 12:22 1:20 1:38 1:55 2:19 2:40 2:46 3:36 3:52 4:15 ... You really do not want to take this road **brazil84** , there are already many items mentioned that you are not taking back (or do you still think everyone has forgotten that you showed that you can not follow the evidence by proposing a useless experiment?) and on top of that, your latest tirade can flow only by your selective quoting. By selectively cutting “based on your latest cite then, it was a moot point.” from the quote then it is possible to attempt to fools others into thinking they should still assume you are debating in good faith. The only points you are trying to demonstrate now are only for your own ego. Now, going back to subject, it is still more clear to me that faith is guiding the deniers more than the proponents of AGW as the OP mentioned. > [@](#): > > Bush Administration Ordered to Write Global Warming Reports > > SAN FRANCISCO, California, August 23, 2007 (ENS) - The Bush administration has been ordered by a federal judge to produce two scientific reports on global warming sought in a lawsuit filed by conservation organizations. > > U.S. District Court Judge Saundra Armstrong ruled Tuesday that the Bush administration had violated the Global Change Research Act of 1990 when it failed to meet deadlines for an updated U.S. Climate Change Research Plan and National Impact Assessment. > > The judge ordered the Bush administration to issue the draft overdue research plan by March 1, 2008, with a final version of the plan no later than 90 days thereafter, and the National Assessment by May 31, 2008. > > The last National Assessment was issued in late 2000 under the Clinton administration. > > … > > The White House’s “piecemeal approach” lacks an “explicit plan for…assessing the effects of global change on the eight areas enumerated in the act: the natural environment, agriculture, energy production and use, land and water resources, transportation, human health and welfare, human social systems, and biological diversity,” wrote the GAO, the investigative branch of the U.S. Congress. > > “From muzzling NASA’s top climate scientist to political cronies in the White House editing climate science reports, the Bush administration has repeatedly tried to obscure and deny the science, while attempting to run out the clock on his administration,” said John Coequyt, energy policy analyst with Greenpeace, the third plaintiff group in the lawsuit. > > The U.S. Office of Science and Technology Policy, which was named in the lawsuit, had no comment on the ruling. I can not take AGW totally on faith, I will always demand new evidence and constant confirmation of what was found before, even when there is a consensus there is still the need to confirm. It is a pity that so far the evidence shown has make me distrust the deniers even more. Science has gone from refusing to acknowledge AGW to accepting it in about a generation based on evidence, Until I see religion go from changing it’s own canon (like seeing the Catholic Church turn into Unitarians) then I would begin to see it possible to claim that people are taking Global Warming totally on faith. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2007, 12:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-people-take-global-warming-totally-on-faith/416356/409 "2007-08-26T12:14:33Z")
[QUOTE=GIGObuster] Feh, **brazil84** is indeed just nitpicking and not dealing with the evidence now, [/quote] Is it “nitpicking” to make the following point?: > [@](#): > > Well, it seems that the people whose theories you support have a practice, in general, of disclosing far less than 100%. Don’t you agree that this is a big problem? > > If Hansen had fully disclosed everything back in 1988, then we could have a legitimate test of the AGW hypothesis And why do you keep ignoring it? > [@](#): > > no wonder he has made that impression here: If you prefer to attack me personally because you don’t have good answers to my arguments, maybe you should go join the pit thread. By the way, it appears that your earlier statement: > [@](#): > > That is the graphic from the 2004 McKitrick and Michaels paper: Was also false. The graphic apparently came from a 2005 paper – not the 2004 paper referred to in your “realclimate” piece. But that’s just more nitpicking, I suppose. Does it matter if a party to a debate makes a false statement? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2007, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-people-take-global-warming-totally-on-faith/416356/410 "2007-08-26T12:41:57Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] Is it “nitpicking” to make the following point?: And why do you keep ignoring it? If you prefer to attack me personally because you don’t have good answers to my arguments, maybe you should go join the pit thread. [/quote] I did not ignore it, but you had to omit part of my quote to tell yourself this is so. Useless to get again into. > [@](#): > > By the way, it appears that your earlier statement: > > Was also false. The graphic apparently came from a 2005 paper – not the 2004 paper referred to in your “realclimate” piece. > > But that’s just more nitpicking, I suppose. Does it matter if a party to a debate makes a false statement? There is a big difference between a mistake and a false statement: What you did is nitpicking because I did notice before that they did not correct much even by that latest example. [http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=121](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=121) > [@](#): > > 1. Basically then the MM05 criticism is simply about whether selected N. American tree rings should have been included, not that there was a mathematical flaw? > > Yes. Their argument since the beginning has essentially not been about methodological issues at all, but about ‘source data’ issues. Particular concerns with the “bristlecone pine” data were addressed in the followup paper MBH99 but the fact remains that including these data improves the statistical validation over the 19th Century period and they therefore should be included. > > So does this all matter? > > No. If you use the MM05 convention and include all the significant PCs, you get the same answer. If you don’t use any PCA at all, you get the same answer. If you use a completely different methodology (i.e. Rutherford et al, 2005), you get basically the same answer. Only if you remove significant portions of the data do you get a different (and worse) answer. > > 1. Was MBH98 the final word on the climate of last millennium? > > Not at all. There has been significant progress on many aspects of climate reconstructions since MBH98. Firstly, there are more and better quality proxy data available. There are new methodologies such as described in Rutherford et al (2005) or Moberg et al (2005) that address recognised problems with incomplete data series and the challenge of incorporating lower resolution data into the mix. Progress is likely to continue on all these fronts. As of now, all of the ‘Hockey Team’ reconstructions (shown left) agree that the late 20th century is anomalous in the context of last millennium, and possibly the last two millennia. So yes, that example you posted still remains a lousy one. [http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/10/hockey-sticks-round-27/#more-199](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/10/hockey-sticks-round-27/#more-199) ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2007, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-people-take-global-warming-totally-on-faith/416356/411 "2007-08-26T12:49:57Z")
[QUOTE=GIGObuster] I did not ignore it, but you had to omit part of my quote to tell yourself this is so. [/quote] Did you or did you not answer my question? It’s a simple question. > [@](#): > > Well, it seems that the people whose theories you support have a practice, in general, of disclosing far less than 100%. Don’t you agree that this is a big problem? > [@](#): > > There is a big difference between a mistake and a false statement: If a statement is false, it is false. If it’s unintentional, it’s a mistake. If it’s intentional, it’s a lie. I gave you and **Sage rat** the benefit of the doubt by referring to your false statements as false statements. And not as lies. > [@](#): > > So yes, that example still remains a lousy one. Even if it’s “lousy” it still shows that **Sage rat** was wrong. So you are the one who is nitpicking. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2007, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-people-take-global-warming-totally-on-faith/416356/412 "2007-08-26T12:54:34Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] Did you or did you not answer my question? It’s a simple question. If a statement is false, it is false. If it’s unintentional, it’s a mistake. If it’s intentional, it’s a lie. I gave you and **Sage rat** the benefit of the doubt by referring to your false statements as false statements. And not as lies. Even if it’s “lousy” it still shows that **Sage rat** was wrong. So you are the one who is nitpicking. [/QUOTE] Ok, you take the nitpick trophy, I take the “demonstrated to be not by faith AGW” one. Hey, I’m easy. 🙂 And the graphs from other sources show that the medieval heath was not as intense as what we are experiencing now. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2007, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-people-take-global-warming-totally-on-faith/416356/413 "2007-08-26T13:00:42Z")
[QUOTE=GIGObuster] Ok, you take the nitpick trophy, I take the “demonstrated to be not by faith AGW” one. [/quote] I’ll answer my own question: It’s outrageous that the researchers who claim that AGW is real don’t immediately (the same day as a paper is published) release every last shred of data, source code, failed models, etc. With the internet, it would be very easy to publicize and archive this information. The nondisclosure seriously undermines their credibility. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2007, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-people-take-global-warming-totally-on-faith/416356/414 "2007-08-26T13:08:44Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] I’ll answer my own question: It’s outrageous that the researchers who claim that AGW is real don’t immediately (the same day as a paper is published) release every last shred of data, source code, failed models, etc. With the internet, it would be very easy to publicize and archive this information. The nondisclosure seriously undermines their credibility. [/QUOTE] And you are still missing that I basically agree with that and you still can not grasp that I clarified that before. On top of that the evidence was indeed released later only to show that deniers can not really deal with the evidence or be trusted. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2007, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-people-take-global-warming-totally-on-faith/416356/415 "2007-08-26T13:11:15Z")
[QUOTE=GIGObuster] And you are still missing that I basically agree with that and you still can not grasp that I clarified that before. On top of that the evidence was indeed released later only to show that deniers can not really deal with the evidence or be trusted. [/QUOTE] No, it’s you who are missing the point. I’m not just talking about Mann. I’m talking about all the researchers. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2007, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-people-take-global-warming-totally-on-faith/416356/416 "2007-08-26T13:15:52Z")
> [@](#): > > On top of that the evidence was indeed released later only to show that deniers can not really deal with the evidence or be trusted. By the way, your post shows an interesting bias. If a “warmer” makes a “mistake,” it’s just a mistake by a single researcher. If a “denier” makes a “mistake,” it shows that “deniers can not really deal with the evidence or be trusted.” ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2007, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-people-take-global-warming-totally-on-faith/416356/417 "2007-08-26T13:20:34Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] No, it’s you who are missing the point. I’m not just talking about Mann. I’m talking about all the researchers. [/QUOTE] As if you are paying attention. I was also talking about all researchers. I already did mention before that one of the cites you pointed at did say that this is standard procedure for most researchers. Don’t agree, but I do understand there are reasons why they do not disclose the methods used. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2007, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-people-take-global-warming-totally-on-faith/416356/418 "2007-08-26T13:29:16Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] By the way, your post shows an interesting bias. If a “warmer” makes a “mistake,” it’s just a mistake by a single researcher. If a “denier” makes a “mistake,” it shows that “deniers can not really deal with the evidence or be trusted.” [/QUOTE] Is that supposed to be an argument? That is more like argumentum ad ignorantiam or ad nauseam. > [@](#): > > Was MBH98 the final word on the climate of last millennium? > > Not at all. There has been significant progress on many aspects of climate reconstructions since MBH98. Firstly, there are more and better quality proxy data available. There are new methodologies such as described in Rutherford et al (2005) or Moberg et al (2005) that address recognised problems with incomplete data series and the challenge of incorporating lower resolution data into the mix. Progress is likely to continue on all these fronts. As of now, all of the ‘Hockey Team’ reconstructions (shown left) agree that the late 20th century is anomalous in the context of last millennium, and possibly the last two millennia. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2007, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-people-take-global-warming-totally-on-faith/416356/419 "2007-08-26T13:42:49Z")
[QUOTE=GIGObuster] As if you are paying attention. I was also talking about all researchers. [/quote] When you said " On top of that the evidence was indeed released later" it sounded like you were talking about 1 particular incident. > [@](#): > > Is that supposed to be an argument? It’s more of an observation than an argument. I’m just pointing out the bias reflected by your posts. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2007, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-people-take-global-warming-totally-on-faith/416356/420 "2007-08-26T13:51:47Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] When you said " On top of that the evidence was indeed released later" it sounded like you were talking about 1 particular incident. It’s more of an observation than an argument. I’m just pointing out the bias reflected by your posts. [/QUOTE] What is clear is that you do not want to deal with what they say. Regarding this, have you found if the Washington Post was lying about all the scientific organizations that ageed with AGW? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-people-take-global-warming-totally-on-faith/416356.md?page=20) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-people-take-global-warming-totally-on-faith/416356.md?page=22)