The Gig Is Up
ALARMIST GLOBAL WARMING CLAIMS MELT UNDER SCIENTIFIC SCRUTINY
June 30, 2007
BY JAMES M. TAYLOR
In his new book, The Assault on Reason, Al Gore pleads, "We must stop tolerating the rejection and distortion of science. We must insist on an end to the cynical use of pseudo-studies known to be false for the purpose of intentionally clouding the public's ability to discern the truth." Gore repeatedly asks that science and reason displace cynical political posturing as the central focus of public discourse.
If Gore really means what he writes, he has an opportunity to make a difference by leading by example on the issue of global warming.
A cooperative and productive discussion of global warming must be open and honest regarding the science. Global warming threats ought to be studied and mitigated, and they should not be deliberately exaggerated as a means of building support for a desired political position.
Many of the assertions Gore makes in his movie, ''An Inconvenient Truth,'' have been refuted by science, both before and after he made them. Gore can show sincerity in his plea for scientific honesty by publicly acknowledging where science has rebutted his claims.
For example, Gore claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame. Yet the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported, "Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame."
Gore claims the snowcap atop Africa's Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that global warming is to blame. Yet according to the November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine, "Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests' humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine."
Gore claims global warming is causing more tornadoes. Yet the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in February that there has been no scientific link established between global warming and tornadoes.
Gore claims global warming is causing more frequent and severe hurricanes. However, hurricane expert Chris Landsea published a study on May 1 documenting that hurricane activity is no higher now than in decades past. Hurricane expert William Gray reported just a few days earlier, on April 27, that the number of major hurricanes making landfall on the U.S. Atlantic coast has declined in the past 40 years. Hurricane scientists reported in the April 18 Geophysical Research Letters that global warming enhances wind shear, which will prevent a significant increase in future hurricane activity.
Gore claims global warming is causing an expansion of African deserts. However, the Sept. 16, 2002, issue of New Scientist reports, "Africa's deserts are in 'spectacular' retreat . . . making farming viable again in what were some of the most arid parts of Africa."
Gore argues Greenland is in rapid meltdown, and that this threatens to raise sea levels by 20 feet. But according to a 2005 study in the Journal of Glaciology, "the Greenland ice sheet is thinning at the margins and growing inland, with a small overall mass gain." In late 2006, researchers at the Danish Meteorological Institute reported that the past two decades were the coldest for Greenland since the 1910s.
Gore claims the Antarctic ice sheet is melting because of global warming. Yet the Jan. 14, 2002, issue of Nature magazine reported Antarctica as a whole has been dramatically cooling for decades. More recently, scientists reported in the September 2006 issue of the British journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series A: Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences, that satellite measurements of the Antarctic ice sheet showed significant growth between 1992 and 2003. And the U.N. Climate Change panel reported in February 2007 that Antarctica is unlikely to lose any ice mass during the remainder of the century.
Each of these cases provides an opportunity for Gore to lead by example in his call for an end to the distortion of science. Will he rise to the occasion? Only time will tell.
James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at the Heartland Institute.
June 30, 2007
BY JAMES M. TAYLOR
In his new book, The Assault on Reason, Al Gore pleads, "We must stop tolerating the rejection and distortion of science. We must insist on an end to the cynical use of pseudo-studies known to be false for the purpose of intentionally clouding the public's ability to discern the truth." Gore repeatedly asks that science and reason displace cynical political posturing as the central focus of public discourse.
If Gore really means what he writes, he has an opportunity to make a difference by leading by example on the issue of global warming.
A cooperative and productive discussion of global warming must be open and honest regarding the science. Global warming threats ought to be studied and mitigated, and they should not be deliberately exaggerated as a means of building support for a desired political position.
Many of the assertions Gore makes in his movie, ''An Inconvenient Truth,'' have been refuted by science, both before and after he made them. Gore can show sincerity in his plea for scientific honesty by publicly acknowledging where science has rebutted his claims.
For example, Gore claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame. Yet the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported, "Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame."
Gore claims the snowcap atop Africa's Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that global warming is to blame. Yet according to the November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine, "Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests' humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine."
Gore claims global warming is causing more tornadoes. Yet the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in February that there has been no scientific link established between global warming and tornadoes.
Gore claims global warming is causing more frequent and severe hurricanes. However, hurricane expert Chris Landsea published a study on May 1 documenting that hurricane activity is no higher now than in decades past. Hurricane expert William Gray reported just a few days earlier, on April 27, that the number of major hurricanes making landfall on the U.S. Atlantic coast has declined in the past 40 years. Hurricane scientists reported in the April 18 Geophysical Research Letters that global warming enhances wind shear, which will prevent a significant increase in future hurricane activity.
Gore claims global warming is causing an expansion of African deserts. However, the Sept. 16, 2002, issue of New Scientist reports, "Africa's deserts are in 'spectacular' retreat . . . making farming viable again in what were some of the most arid parts of Africa."
Gore argues Greenland is in rapid meltdown, and that this threatens to raise sea levels by 20 feet. But according to a 2005 study in the Journal of Glaciology, "the Greenland ice sheet is thinning at the margins and growing inland, with a small overall mass gain." In late 2006, researchers at the Danish Meteorological Institute reported that the past two decades were the coldest for Greenland since the 1910s.
Gore claims the Antarctic ice sheet is melting because of global warming. Yet the Jan. 14, 2002, issue of Nature magazine reported Antarctica as a whole has been dramatically cooling for decades. More recently, scientists reported in the September 2006 issue of the British journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series A: Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences, that satellite measurements of the Antarctic ice sheet showed significant growth between 1992 and 2003. And the U.N. Climate Change panel reported in February 2007 that Antarctica is unlikely to lose any ice mass during the remainder of the century.
Each of these cases provides an opportunity for Gore to lead by example in his call for an end to the distortion of science. Will he rise to the occasion? Only time will tell.
James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at the Heartland Institute.
posted by John | 1:14 AM
51 Comments:
I like the Heartland group.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute
-ROFLAO
I tried to fact check some of your statements.
There is no Jan. 14, 2002, issue of Nature magazine nor is there a November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine
If you want to spew more lies I suggest doing a better job next time of quoting sources that make up things....
-NEO
I "spewed" nothing. I reproduced an article by Mr. Taylor of the Heartland Group. Take it up with him.
I think you should be more careful who you copy from the inaccuracies of the article is astounding.
got anything that is supported by the facts??
Does Al Gore?
Mr. Taylor took issue with Gore's inaccuracies (after doing his own fact-checking), and you disqualify him as a shill for the tobacco companies.
Well anonymous has you there. There is no January 14, 2002 issue of Nature. The article that Mr. Taylor is referring to is actually in the January 31, 2002 issue of Nature. It is written by the following cast of characters:
Antarctic climate cooling and terrestrial ecosystem response
Peter T. Doran1, John C. Priscu2, W. Berry Lyons3, John E. Walsh4, Andrew G. Fountain5, Diane M. McKnight6, Daryl L. Moorhead7, Ross A. Virginia8, Diana H. Wall9, Gary D. Clow10, Christian H. Fritsen11, Christopher P. McKay12 and Andrew N. Parsons9
1. Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago, 845 West Taylor Street, Chicago, Illinois 60607, USA
2. Land Resources and Environmental Sciences, 334 Leon Johnson Hall, Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana 59717, USA
3. Byrd Polar Research Center, Ohio State University, 1090 Carmack Road, Scott Hall, Columbus, Ohio 43210, USA
4. Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Illinois, 105 South Gregory Street, Urbana, Illinois 61801, USA
5. Department of Geology, Portland State University, Portland, Oregon 97207, USA
6. Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, 1560 30th Street, Campus Box 450, Boulder, Colorado 80309, USA
7. Department of Earth, Ecological and Environmental Sciences, 2801 W. Bancroft Street, University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio 43606, USA
8. Environmental Studies Program, Dartmouth College, 6182 Steele Hall, Hanover, New Hampshire 03755, USA
9. Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523, USA
10. USGS—Climate Program, Box 25046, MS 980, Denver Federal Center, Denver, Colorado 80225, USA
11. Division of Earth and Ecosystem Sciences, Desert Research Institute, 2215 Raggio Parkway, Reno, Nevada 89512, USA
12. Space Science Division, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffet Field, California 94035, USA
If anonymous wishes, I can take up his/her lazy researching efforts, but really I do not have the time.
But none of this will touch anonymous. He/She is a High Priest of the Climate Religion, and instead of looking at the science for what it says, on both sides, his/her mind is already made up, and sees all opposing viewpoints as "spewing lies." Real scientific language there, anonymous. Brilliant.
P.S. The Article was posted online at Nature on January 13, 2002, so perhaps that is where Mr. Taylor got his reference date.
Thank you, James. :)
Anon, Anon, Anon. Poor Anon.:(
Mr. Taylor corrects the ERRORS OF FACT of Gore's sloppy research (if not outright lies) and all you can do is disqualify him because the group he belongs to is a conservative organization while you fixate on publishing dates, accuse them of being non-existent, and so--in an astonishing leap of illogic--dismiss the entire substance as being devoid of "facts" (while saying absolutely NOTHING about the substance!).
Then good Phelonius proves that, while attacking Mr. Taylor's lack of "The Facts" solely because of supposedly non-existent publication dates (and ergo, by your reckoning, a non-existent substance), it is you, you, YOU who is WRONG--if not sloppy--about your research!
It is YOU, messieur, who "should be more careful (about) inaccuracies" and making accusations that are not supported by...(drum roll)...
...THE FACTS!!!
And now, fool, do YOU "got anything that is supported by the facts??"
I think not.
I repeat: The gig is up.
Dismissed.
John, Since he cannot argue the facts anonymous uses the distraction of the miss labeled date as his argument rather than engaging in fact for fact debate.
James, {high fiver}, great little bit of research there. I am sure it didn't take you very long to come up with the source of that article. That is all it took to track it down...and yet anonymous just jumps without doing his homework. Good job!
Kelly said:
"John, Since he cannot argue the facts anonymous uses the distraction of the miss labeled date as his argument rather than engaging in fact for fact debate."
Uh...right.
Didn't I already say as much?
"James, {high fiver}, great little bit of research there. I am sure it didn't take you very long to come up with the source of that article. That is all it took to track it down...and yet anonymous just jumps without doing his homework. Good job!"
And welcome to the blog of Kellicus!
Now see here, Kelly, I'm the Captain Kirk of this enterprise. There's no co-captain on this bridge.
Now please return to your seat THIS INSTANT.
James, uh, what Kelly said.
Kelly,
Well, truth be known, I am trained as a researcher. It would not be fair, I guess, to say that it was utter simplicity to find this stuff....but, again.....it took me all of 15 minutes. See, the thing is, I really do not mind being told the opinions of opposing viewpoints on just about anything. What gripes me is when an opposing side simply dismisses an argument based on trivialities, such as dates on publications. Those are easy to get wrong and have nothing to do with the argument at hand.
Captain Republicus, permission to exit the bridge?
I dunno. You better ask the admiral (i.e. Kelly).
Here's the thing
you don't generally get the dates wrong on several of your sources unless you probaby haven't read them....
Which is obviously the case for the author of the article and most likely all of you.
Let's do a check of that article actually says, some quotes from it
"The average air temperature at the Earth's surface has increased by 0.06 °C per decade during the 20th century1, and by 0.19 °C per decade from 1979 to 1998"
opps!!! that doesn't seem to contradict global warming? but here's more....
The dry valleys region is the largest ice-free area on the Antarctic continent. It is a cold desert, comprising a mosaic of perennially ice-covered lakes, ephemeral streams, arid soils, exposed bedrock, and alpine glaciers. "
they only look at the dry valley areas ....got it
"Annual temperatures at individual dry valley sites are strongly controlled by exposure to wind; the dry adiabatic lapse rate and distance to the coast are of secondary importance...."
"In the dry valleys, the cooling trend is significantly correlated with decreased winds and increased clear-sky conditions over the period of record. These changes are indicative of the strong influence that winds (mostly onshore during the summer and katabatic during other seasons) have on the dry valley climate"
so they say the temp here is controlled by winds and the the CLIMATE IS CHANGING
no refutation of global warming from this article and only an indication of the prime result of global warming ....CLIMATE CHANGE
Otherwise If any of you dolts want to explain how this article somehow refutes global warming I'm listening
LOL
-Neo
Kelly,
since you say you are trained researcher. What do think of people who misquote ones research or worse then that reinterpret it to say something that isn't supported by the data(ie that this nature article somehow refutes global warming)???
looking forward to hearing from a fellow "researcher"
-Neo
Kelly,
my mistake that last post should have been directed to phelonius
Phelonius,
what say you?
Neo
Flamethrower:
Meet the waterhose.
(1) As good Phelonius discovered, Taylor did NOT (necessarily) get the publication dates wrong; he was citing the online posting date.
Did you even read that? Or is it true that your side stubbornly refuses to even bother?
Go back and read what Phelonious discovered (and, by his own admission, it didn't take rocket science to confirm Taylor's citation).
Did you read it? Good. Now do you seriously want to persist in making an issue of the "publication date?"
(2) No one here that I can recall disputed a mean global temperature
increase (the oft-mentioned one degree fahrenheit over the past century--with a dip, it should be added, following the postwar industrial boom, CONCURRENT WITH A DRAMATIC SPIKE IN CO2 EMISSIONS AROUND THE WORLD, DOH!!!).
What is in dispute is the size of the role the combustible engine and the factories that make them
have on it.
And don't even waste your time--and mine-- trying to hypnotize me by swinging a wristwatch on a chain before my eyes and intoning over and over: "The science is indisputable and settled among scientists; There's a consensus; The science is indisputable and settled among scientists; There's a consensus; The science..."
(2) I'm really not sure where it says that "THE CLIMATE IS CHANGING" (those are your own emphasized words), but I gather that what you're trying to point out is that the cold weather is masking the actual climate change.
Or, in other words, Global Warming can actually cause GLOBAL COOLING in some places on the globe when factoring in weather effects (which, if you insist, has nothing to do with climate), but, make no mistake, despite "cooling trends" in a warming climate, the climate is-- when subtracting the weather effects, which don't count because weather does not equal climate-- nevertheless indeed getting warmer.
I got it. You're on drugs.
Aye, aye, captain Kirkicus!
Man its good to have the ole John back :D
Anon said, "you don't generally get the dates wrong on several of your sources unless you probaby haven't read them...."
Phelonius said...
"P.S. The Article was posted online at Nature on January 13, 2002, so perhaps that is where Mr. Taylor got his reference date. "
...
Now, for the meet of this...the point in all this discussion is that Al Gore's 'facts' are unproven.
An hypothesis is NOT proof.
Another thing...why is it that these "trolls" come in here as anonymous? Their purpose is not to share their opinions in a blog of their own, but to spread discontent among other blogs.
{{Kelly shakes head vigorously}}
----
Now, captain John Kirkicus...don't let this ship go without its captain again...It just might bring us to take over the ship.
...now where is that ignition key?
That's very funny. Now go sit over there at the communications console. You're Lieutenant Uhura. That's an order.
;)
Waiting your orders, sir!!
lol
You're good.
I wonder what part of "I am not disputing the fact that the planet is getting warmer" you do not get, NEO?
As Mr. Taylor says in this article "A cooperative and productive discussion of global warming must be open and honest regarding the science. Global warming threats ought to be studied and mitigated, and they should not be deliberately exaggerated as a means of building support for a desired political position."
He is not disputing a warming trend, he is disputing an alarmist response that is deliberately constructed for a political end. Then he takes Al on on a point by point basis. He makes a plea that "Gore can show sincerity in his plea for scientific honesty by publicly acknowledging where science has rebutted his claims."
I do think that the contradictory conclusions by scientists on both sides of the question "should we politicize this issue or not" indicates that the jury is still out, and my response to Al Gore and friends is that they had better wait on drastic changes until we understand things like:
1. how exactly DOES the sun affect this problem?
2. What is the engine behind the fluctuations of the ice ages?
3. Is global warming in fact the precursor to another ice age?
4. Why are other planets, like Mars, also warming at the same time?
5. Why won't people shut up about Paris Hilton? ...ooops.....sorry....that was for a different article...
I found the article by Taylor interesting. You say that he draws the wrong conclusion. So say you. Others may disagree. The article he quoted, and you find somehow lacking, states that instead of getting warmer, the antarctic has been getting steadily colder. Mr. Taylor only used this article in a single point, and you can take his conclusion or leave it. You say that Taylor likely did not even read the publication. What a statement! If he did not, then he is a mind reader, because what he says reflects the source he uses pretty accurately. It makes perfect sense to me that if the antarctic is getting colder, then it must be the result of a climate change, by definition that is what it is. In this case, it appears that the climate is getting colder there. Mr. Gore has stated otherwise.
What difference does it make if the article was read by an on-line post on one day and was published in paper on another date? As a researcher, I CAN tell you that getting publication dates on scientific papers can be daunting. Frequently they are published in more than one place, and many times are proceeded by on-line postings, as was the case this time.
I said Taylor misrepresents the research he quotes.
I said he likely didn't read them, but if he did then he is being dishonest about what the research articles say......
For example Taylor says
"Gore claims the Antarctic ice sheet is melting because of global warming. Yet the Jan. 14, 2002, issue of Nature magazine reported Antarctica as a whole has been dramatically cooling for decades."
That article doesn't analyze the ice sheets, it analyzes the dry, ice free deserts of continental antarctica. In fact the authors acknowledge warming on the antarctic peninsula (where the ice sheets are)
If Taylor thinks that the nature article refutes ice sheet melting means one of two things
1) HE DIDN'T READ THE ARTICLE.
2) HE READ IT AND IS BEING DISHONEST ABOUT WHAT THE STUDY ADDRESSES
I'll ask again
What do think of people who misquote ones research or worse then that reinterpret it to say something that isn't supported by the data (ie Taylor)
PS
I don't listen to politicians or think tank ideologs. I listen to scientists
-Neo
Then listen to them. There are plenty who have come forward and have disputed the party lines I mean "The Science."
Well, it seems that I'm guilty of not paying attention to your arguments and the stages of this one, as well.
You addressed my recently repeated opinion that deforestation is a bigger CO2 emitter than the burning of fossil fuels, here:
(from Neo)
"1) current deforestation is putting about 1/5 the amount of CO2 into the atmosphere compared to fossil fuels. Deforestation has acutually stablized in 1st world and is primarly occuring 3rd world countries.
2) Plant matter can't possibly compensate for current CO2 increase. First you would have to recover deforestation just to get back to baseline. Second the halflife of CO2 (counting cycling) is on the order of 100+ years..."
But those arguments must have been countered by the skeptical scientists, and I would need to hear their side before making a decision (specifically on how the measurements were taken and the figures arrived at).
You also addressed the post-war dip in temperatures concurring with the boom in CO2 output. You say there was a lagtime.
But that can only be a hypothetical supposition, not a demonstrable scientific fact.
Nevertheless, I can't deny that higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere trap heat.
But I can persist in saying that manmade CO2 emissions have not been proven to be the causus causata of the phenomenon and the driving force.
Proof, remember, provides a 100% certainty, and even the Global Grillers on the UN committee had to admit the engagement of alarmist rhetoric and tone it down (with a lot of "probably" and "maybe" and "most likely" and "97.9999% certainty" stuff).
Remember, this post, and Mr. Taylor's article, as Phelonius pointed out, is not about debunking Global Warming per se, but is about pointing out Gore's alarmist rhetoric and how it compromises sober, scientific study on the subject.
In short, Gore is peddling junk science (and mongering fear in the process).
Well, ok, Neo, you are reading one thing out of that article and I am seeing another. Let me qute them:
"Climate models generally predict amplified warming in polar regions3, 4, as observed in Antarctica's peninsula region over the second half of the 20th century5, 6, 7, 8, 9. Although previous reports suggest slight recent continental warming9, 10, our spatial analysis of Antarctic meteorological data demonstrates a net cooling on the Antarctic continent between 1966 and 2000, particularly during summer and autumn. The McMurdo Dry Valleys have cooled by 0.7 °C per decade between 1986 and 2000, with similar pronounced seasonal trends. Summer cooling is particularly important to Antarctic terrestrial ecosystems that are poised at the interface of ice and water. Here we present data from the dry valleys representing evidence of rapid terrestrial ecosystem response to climate cooling in Antarctica, including decreased primary productivity of lakes (6–9% per year) and declining numbers of soil invertebrates (more than 10% per year). Continental Antarctic cooling, especially the seasonality of cooling, poses challenges to models of climate and ecosystem change."
The way I read this is that the dry valley research was only a part of this study, and that the article does in fact refer to the antarctic continent as a whole, and it specifically refers to the places where water and ice are meeting. That makes it fairly obvious that the study is not restricted to the dry valley regions.
Seems clear to me.
Me too.
Look at figure 2 in the nature paper. The two areas with most of the ice (peninsula region and ross ice shelf area) clearly are marked as having warming.
In fact according to that figure the almost the entire region of the map encompassing the ocean regions surrounding antarctica have warmed significantly. Except for the small region (which the authors focused on ) in continential antarctica which shows cooling
ANYONE WHO EVALUTATED FIGURE 2 would see the data supports ice sheet warming
I'll say it again:
If Taylor thinks that this nature article refutes ice sheet melting means one of two things
1) HE DIDN'T READ THE ARTICLE.
2) HE READ IT AND IS BEING DISHONEST ABOUT WHAT THE DATA SHOWS
"our spatial analysis of Antarctic meteorological data demonstrates a net cooling on the Antarctic continent between 1966 and 2000, particularly during summer and autumn."
That is from the paper you are talking about, Neo.
Further, you have not yet talked about:
"More recently, scientists reported in the September 2006 issue of the British journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series A: Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences, that satellite measurements of the Antarctic ice sheet showed significant growth between 1992 and 2003. And the U.N. Climate Change panel reported in February 2007 that Antarctica is unlikely to lose any ice mass during the remainder of the century."
I notice that we have gone from disputing the fact of whether or not the article exists to whether or not Taylor is representing it accurately. That at least is progress. I have also noticed that there are a few other points that have not been covered. If we can get beyond the dating of journal entries now, perhaps you can go over why you think that the rest of Taylor's article references are inaccurate or misrepresented.
Also, I would like to state that earlier I allowed myself the entertainment of abusing Neo by calling him a sloppy researcher. The ad hominem approach is generally one that makes me uncomfortable and is not usually my style.
I wish to retract that statement.
As a result I was called a "dolt," and because of the nature of my earlier attack, I deserved that. True reasoning does not need to rely on weak rhetorical gestures. Please accept my apology for that, Neo.
James, your initial, irrefutable pile-driving was beautiful to behold.
I could not have said it better myself.
Then, it would seem, some kind of Roman Catholic charity and humility compelled you to reach your hand down and pull Neo off the ground you landed him on and...APOLOGIZE?!?
Because you PROVED his sloppiness?
LOL.....thanks John.
I feel that just because the opposing viewpoint is expressed by calling names and being derisive, I should not necessarily fall into the same trap. The research WAS sloppy, but ad hominem gets in the way.
I am trying to see if I can draw Neo into a dialog about what Taylor's article really talks about, and that is the politicizing of climate science.
( sigh )I guess it is my christian background and education coming to the front. I have been reading a lot of St. Thomas lately, and he makes the statement that you cannot reason with someone about what they believe unless you discuss matters in their terms. In other words, you cannot talk to an atheist about God if you begin the discussion by using the Bible.
James, I would like to see NEO take you up on that dialogue. Personally, I don't see it happening.
Now, I would like to be pleasantly surprised.
BTW...I was impressed by your charity, as well.
and John, LT Uhura doesn't like sitting for very long.
Permission to use the restroom granted.
ROFL!!
...do I have permission to ROF and L?
Can Uhura get up to get a drink, too?
Its very simple
The article is not about the ice sheets, it does not study the area where the ice sheets are. He also gets the publication date wrong which makes me think he didn't read it.
Furthermore the data presented (FIGURE 2) clearly show a warming trend in the area where the ice sheets are (again taylor probably didn't read it)
Taylor misquoted the publication date, the data and the authors conclusion (both of which do not refute ice sheet melting). Furthermore the paper is from 2002.
HOW about the up to date studes....
In 2002 satellite data did indeed show ice sheet increasing in the previous years. Since the cold air of antarctica can't hold much moisture a warming trend would tansport more moisture to the sheets consistent with global warming....
HERE'S THE ADDITIONAL IGNORANCE/DISHONESTY IN TAYLOR'S STATEMENT....
Recent satellite data supports a decrease in ice sheets and a melting trend.
Velicogna, I. and Wahr, J. 2006. . Sciencexpress: 10.1126science.1123785.
Velicogna and Wahr concluded that "the ice sheet mass decreased significantly, at a rate of 152 ± 80 km3/year of ice, equivalent to 0.4 ± 0.2 mm/year of global sea level rise,"
and....
"the ice sheet in West Antarctica (WA) is losing mass (-47 ± 4 Gt a-1) and the ice sheet in East Antarctica (EA) shows a small mass gain (+16 ± 11 Gt a-1) for a combined net change of -31 ± 12 Gt a-1 (+0.08 mm a-1 SLE)."
Zwally etal, 2005. 1992-2002. Journal of Glaciology 51: 509-527.
TAYLOR misrepresents the article he quotes and ignores newer studies that don't support what he' trying to say....
SO what is he
ignorant or intellectually dishonest???????
I await your opinion
Since we are focusing on the Antarctic region, I am going to quote from a source that would generally otherwise support a lot of Mr. Taylor's opponents: "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Summary for Policymakers." This was published in February of this year.
On page 6 of this publication, under the section called "Some aspects of climate have not been observed to change," they state:
"Antarctic sea ice extent continues to show inter-annual variability and localized changes but no statistically significant average trends, consistent with the lack of warming reflected in atmospheric temperatures averaged across the region."
You can find the full text at http://www.tudelft.nl/live/
binaries/54bb9bea-fba7-4d95-8c25
-fc3bffe85c77/doc/
IPCC_SPM2feb07.pdf
Now this would seem to be backed by the data that you presented earlier as it states that in the western antarctic there was mass loss and in the eastern antarctic there was mass gain. I would also like to add that in general I find that that the methodology that the IPCC uses (the so-called SRES) is a bit questionable. If you read that text you will notice that they put a lot of emphasis on emission scenarios that use a lot of terms like 'likely,' 'very likely' and 'not likely,' which betrays their use of statistical models almost exclusively. Still, it is an interesting read.
Even at that, I think you have to agree that not even all of those in the camp against Mr. Taylor can agree on the loss of antarctic ice sheets of late. I do not think he is being dishonest about that.
THAT is my opinion.
That's fine if Taylor wants to make his arguement from the IPCC document. (Do remember what the IPCC is though, its a political consensus document based on science). But the nature article by no means backs up the point he's trying to make.
If you look at the other studies he quotes few support the points he makes. Taylor does not make an honest assessment of the science but misrepresents it to make his point.
I'll move on to the other Taylor misrepresentations...
Hurricane frequency/intensity
There is evidence that global warming is causing an increase in not total number of hurricanes but in the number of high intensity hurricanes.
"There's a strong suggestion of a link" between the growing greenhouse and intensifying tropical cyclones,
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/309/5742/1807
http://www.sciencemag.org/sciext/katrina/#climate
the destructive potential of tropical cyclones has nearly doubled over the past 30 years, and is highly correlated with tropical sea-surface temperature. Storms are on average lasting longer and developing greater intensity than they did in the mid-1970s.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v436/n7051/edsumm/e050804-11.html
Seems Taylor completely ignores these studies? why is that?
Actually, Neo, this is where this entire quagmire of political controls on environmental issues really gets my goat.
There are so many articles and studies about climate changes now that I do not see where anyone, either for or against, can possibly hit every article being presented. Mr. Taylor may or may not have been aware that these articles were out there. Since Taylor did not reference these article, I can only surmise.
Mr. Gore evidently was a bit picky about his references as well. Taylor points out that:
"Gore claims global warming is causing more tornadoes. Yet the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in February that there has been no scientific link established between global warming and tornadoes."
That is in there. I checked it.
I also checked up on William Gray, and Taylor seems to have used his reference there accurately. You should read his stuff if you have not. He is one interesting guy. One of the issues that he has talked about is that there really was no real measuring of hurricane activity in scientific criterion until relatively late into the last century. Even the IPCC document uses terms such as "likely" when talking about links between human engineered emissions and hurricane activity. "Likely" is nice, but that is really not a scientific conclusion.
It is really not even a hypothesis, since that requires repeatable scientific results subject to testing. At the very best it can be described as an 'educated guess.'
The point is that Taylor is not presenting a political solution to a set of scientific 'best guesses' as Mr. Gore has been doing. Taylor's grievance, as well as mine, is that politics means power. If power is now going to come to a group bent on making laws to regulate our lives, then "likely" and "most likely" and even "not likely" are just not good enough.
If we had taken an AL Gore approach to the scare in the 70's of global cooling, then we should have been chopping down trees and producing as much CO2 as we possibly could in the past three decades. I opposed those that thought as much as well.
It is Gore that that calls for treating science with respect. He only does so when it is convenient to his POLITICAL ends. That is Mr. Taylor's beef, and mine.
That is precisely the argument here...that Gore has chosen his sources to support his political agenda. Sure, Taylor may have made the same choices. But it still shows that Gore's premise is flawed.
Don' listen to Al Gore (haven't read his book or watch his movie) he's a politician not a scientist
Don't listen to Taylor, he writes policy and works for a policy institution that is funded by big tobacco. He has no scientific expertise as far as I can tell.
I wouldn't even listen to IPCC its a political document based on science
I listen to the science and its is damning. I suggest you do to because the data is very hard to argue against.
BTW
That's great that Taylor quoted Gray correctly - except its irrelevent. The major papers linking hurricane activity and global warming talk about INTENSITY NOT FREQUENCY.... IF TAYLOR IS HAVING AN HONEST DEBATE WHY IS HE REFUTING SOMETHING THAT ISN'T A GLOBAL WARMING CONNECTION TO BEGIN WITH????
PSS
You said
"It is really not even a hypothesis, since that requires repeatable scientific results subject to testing. At the very best it can be described as an 'educated guess."
actually its above "educated guess" and "hypothesis" and is by definition a theory. I thought you claimed you were a researcher or something? You don't even seem to know the technical differences of the three!!
Actually if you want to see a real critique by real scientists (not think tank quasi-politicos like Taylor).
check out a real scienfically based review of Gore's movie
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/al-gores-movie/
Dear me Neo. Get up on the wrong side of the bed?
We were taught in college that a hypothesis is a conjecture that proposes to explain natural phenomena, and makes a prediction that should be verified by experiment.
A theory is a hypothesis that has been tested in laboratory conditions and the predictions proven separately, and so gains widespread support.
An "educated guess" is a hypothesis that cannot be verified by experimentation, by my understanding. I meant exactly what I said.
It is my opinion that Global Warming itself is a theory. Global Warming as a result of human emissions is at best a hypothesis.
I tend to agree with you very much about listening to Al Gore, the IPCC or any other of the political organizations that talk about science but do not actually participate in the science itself.
This article that John put up is one opinion against another widespread opinion, namely, that of Al Gore.
But, if you are so bent on ignoring Al Gore, why do you rally to his defense so vehemently? The reason that I agreed more with Taylor than Al Gore is, again, that Mr. Gore is the one asking that the US join into economically destructive treaties with other nations to create, at best, questionable climate results. In this particular debate, we cannot dismiss Al Gore out-of-hand, because he is the one that Taylor is focusing on.
You do evidently agree that Gore should be ignored, but for different reasons than Taylor does.
I am happy with that result in either case.
James, I was curious as to why NEO discounted Gore as inconsequential in this discussion when I thought that is what the article was about in the first place. So, I was glad to see that you pointed out that glaring oversight.
Ooops! John, I forgot to request permission to stand. ;)
{Uhura returns to her seat.}
Its very simple.
Al Gore is taking the points, data theory and consensus developed by scientists and reiterating them
The points Taylor is trying to refute are by and large not Al Gore's original ideas but those determined by a large body of scientists.
If you stack up the science against what Gore or Taylor says Gore is well supported for much what he says although he does make some errors(ie tornado-global warming connection). Taylor, as I have been pointing out is either ignorant or dishonest about his arguement
Here's another TAYLOR MYTH
Taylor states:according to the November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine, "Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the more likely culprit.
The "study" is in reality no scientific study at all, but a news piece devoted almost entirely to Euan Nesbit's proposal to save the Kilimanjaro glacier by wrapping it in a giant tarp. The article never says who the "experts" are, nor does it quote any scientific studies supporting the claim.
TAYLOR AGAIN IS EITHER IGNORANT OR DISHONEST - AND ITS NOT EVEN A "STUDY" HE QUOTES THIS TIME
Well, Neo, lets take a look a this debate so far.
In the first place there was the claim made that Taylor was using sources that simply did not exist. That claim was shown to be erroneous.
The second part of this debate was taken up by the claim that even if the sources exist, Mr. Taylor was misrepresenting the sources. Some of that was shown to be in error, and some of it was shown to be factual.
The third stage of this debate was a result of that argument, in which you finally conceded that Al Gore, as a politico, was someone that one should not pay attention to.
I agreed.
Now, in this fourth stage of the debate, you now claim that in fact, Al Gore is truly representing everything factual and that he has not distorted a single thing.
That is interesting to me, because you said that:
"Don' listen to Al Gore (haven't read his book or watch his movie) he's a politician not a scientist [sic]"
The question remains, then, as to how you know that Al Gore is as pure as the driven snow when you have never seen his movie or read his book? Did your circle of genius science professor friends tell you this? Are you watching TV and your favorite newscaster tells you this?
How can you claim to have any kind of reasonable defense of Al Gore when you have never seen nor read the man's productions?
I have to tell you that I consider this debate to be at an end. The only thing that we have established between us is that political entities should not be speaking about things that they do not know about. This we can whole-heartily agree upon.
What you and I cannot agree upon, Neo, is this strange allegiance to a writer/politician/movie maker that you have admitted to have never read nor seen. You said:
"Al Gore is taking the points, data theory and consensus developed by scientists and reiterating them"
Some of them, Neo, but not nearly all of them.
Such as it is. I bid you farewell and good luck.
Phel
You state
"It is Gore that that calls for treating science with respect. He only does so when it is convenient to his POLITICAL ends. That is Mr. Taylor's beef, and mine. "
As I have shown clearly Taylor misrepresents science. Defending Taylor is how you show respect(still waiting for your opinion on how fig 2 of the nature article Taylor quotes doesn't contradict him)?
I guess you haven't read any reviews of Gore's work by real scientists. Why do you only read and quote from a person with no science expertise from a tobacco industry funded ideological think tank?
Is that how you support science?
what kind of researcher are you again?
BTW
You may quote the definitions of hypothesis, theory and educated guess correctly but you don't use them correctly. You state the connection between hurricane intensity and global warming is at best an educated guess. Emmanuels science paper and a whole lot other data elevates that idea to a verified hypothesis -otherwise known as a theory
Give it up NEO. Phel is done! You have talked your way into so many circles that it makes my head spin to keep up with it.
I understand Phel with clarity. Yet, I have no idea what point you are trying to make...other than to be objectionable.
...sigh.
So you trust a lawyer who works for an institute funded by Tobacco and Exxon who dishonestly misrepresents his sources to explain the current state of science?
If you put your faith in that then I truely don't have anything to debate about.
Come on, Neo, we went over this.
And you're projecting. You trust "scientists" who dishonestly misrepresent their sources to explain the current state of science.
This threads topic is about Taylor's diatribe calling for an open and honest discussion on global warming.
He's full of crap and I called him on it.
Neither you nor Phelonus seem to want to that discuss though. If you want to talk about Gore then start another thread.
No, Neo, the Global Grillers are full of it, and Taylor called them on it.
The dynamic here is like this:
The Global Grillers are equivalent to the fear-mongering Neocons.
Taylor is equivalent to whistle-blower Joseph Wilson III (or IV; I lost count).
And you, Neo, going after Taylor is like Cheney going after Wilson.
Yes. Ironic...
Post a Comment
<< Home