…Yet Another Anthropomorphic Climate Change Thread.
So conservative friend of mine sent me a link to PowerLineBlog:
Rather than jump in with the fact that the general scientific consensus seems to be on the other side of things, I thought I’d ask the Teeming Millions:
What is a rational take on the situation?
Which situation? And what’s a yaacct?
Yet Another Poster Who Doesn’t Read The OP (YAPWDRTOP)
------------dupe
The rational take on the situation is, if you don’t have any grounds (or lack the skills required) to believe that the article is scientifically wrong, to accept that the data that the article represents shows no significant human induced warning.
The “religious”/dogmatic take on the situation is to dismiss the article out of hand, and try to impugn the honesty of the authors of the article, their credentials or their motivation.
Please point to the paragraph in the OP where ACC is discussed and I will comment on the facts and opinions set forth. All I see is a link to an undescribed blog post.
Said blog post doesn’t even contain a link to the study in question. Here you all go:
Perhaps the OP would like to tell us his or her thoughts on polynomial cointegration tests? Or maybe the OP doesn’t know fuck all about polynomail cointegration tests (nothing wrong with that), in which case we may have an opportunity for an edifying discussion in GQ.
I think the rational take would be more akin to
The rational take on the situation is, if you don’t have any grounds (or lack the skills required) to believe that the article is scientifically wrong, to accept that the data that the article represents may shows no significant human induced warning.
One of the purposes of publishing studies is so that they can be double-checked. Sometimes scientists make mistakes.
Rationally, this is just another data point to be considered. It shouldn’t be accepted out of hand. Not rationally.
There’s also a rational basis for dismissing something rather than refuting something. If I were to publish a paper with a great deal of arcane and esoteric evidence of w/e sort showing that the Earth was indeed a flat disc instead of a spheroid object, it’s not irrational to dismiss the conclusion rather than refute it given the seemingly overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The decision to engage in the effort to learn and then refute the provided plethora of arcane and esoteric evidence would be irrational given that the benefit would be so low.
While dismissing something is not the same as refuting it, it can also be a rational choice.
Yet another unclear title that doesn’t even give a hint of what the subject might be about.
It’s pronounced “Throat wobbler Mangrove”
It would be the latter, thus my posting here where I felt there would be a few of the teeming millions who might have more data and/or a more informed opinion.
I’d like to see some of that in this thread as well. The OP didn’t bother pointing it out, but the owners of the blog where the story is carried pretty clearly have a stake in a specific answer to the question of whether [del]AGCC[/del]* anthropogenic global climate change is actually a thing.
That doesn’t PROVE anything about the validity of the story, per se, but is does suggest that a competent analysis from someone who doesn’t necessarily have that same stake would be a GOOD thing. I note that the blog writer did not assert himself to be competent to perform an analysis.
*fuck it; enough with the acronyms. Too many people are willing to make the conversation be about the decipherability of acronyms.
This was the essence of my initial post. I indicated a conservative friend sent the link to me.
My research in the past led me to the general opinion that the majority of studies and experts seemed to raise concerns regarding Anthropomorphic Global Climate Change. This is a specific very recent study that seems to indicate there should not be concerns.
I’m trying to determine the impact/value of this to the general informed opinion regarding this issue.
Correlation is not causation? That’s their notion? They’re piling up heaps of data that have nothing to do with each other so they can say “Look! These have nothing to do with each other!”
golf clap
Better to start by dismissing the source.
At any rate, here’s the abstract of the article in question:
And here’s the complete paper.
(When I saw the name “Beenstock” on it I was sure this must be a subtle joke/hoax, but apparently not . . .)
It seems thay they were spotted before, not impressing many of the sources I check.
As one can notice, when the experts are economists and not climate scientists that is the thing that should stick like a sore thumb and makes us conclude that their say so that “this is demonstrating an emerging consensus [that the theory of Anthropological global warming is wrong]” is just a pile of horse shit, the consensus will be “emerging” if it was the experts in the field doing that “emerging”.
I am not a climatologist or a mathematician or even an economist however,
what I think they might of done is this.
Knowing that Co2 has only become the dominant forcing on climate in the last 30-40 years, they ran this statistical technique over the full 130year record (knowing that it would be a poor match for most of it). And then wrote last few decades as off as a “temporary effect”.
quote from the paper
I could very well be wrong, fully understanding this paper is beyond me. The only proper way to judge this papers scientific merit is wait for the follow up and counter-papers to be published.
They also did not include the ENSO effect in there comparisons which smells a bit off as it has a huge effect on measured global temperature.
Power Line blog simply linked to the article, they didn’t write it or publish it. Is that nevertheless sufficient for you to dismiss it?
There’s an argument to be made that it is sufficient. Until and unless the same article is linked by someone else who can’t be characterized as having an agenda-driven ax to grind.
Yes, it’s possible for a site with a reputation for disinformation to direct people to a worthwhile resource once in a while. The probability that such a site would be the ONLY ones pointing toward that same resource is so vanishingly small that it isn’t even worth worrying about.
The article has been published in an academic journal, Earth System Dynamics, which is a mainstream AGW journal as far as I can tell.
Have you made any attempt to determine how many other sites link to this article?