The New Global Warming Thread

[Lucky Shot]

Originally Posted by AMosely

Point taken, and a valid comparison. My point regarding him receiving money is that it was an article about a paid speaker, paid to present their viewpoint. That's a clear sign of bias. To the same degree, I would agree with someone claiming that Hansen is biased, especially if one were to cite one of his public speaking engagements. The difference to me, though, is that Hansen is biased by his own research, and that counts for something.

Hmmm.... So your saying that Hansen is not receiving money to present his viewpoint? Or are we now starting to disregard any article that covers a public speaking engagement? I see a bigger bias in someone who is receiving funding to deliver a certain result.

Originally Posted by Amosely

Almost every scientific theory, hypothesis and model can be nitpicked. For every model of success there is a nearly identical model for failure. The 2-percent genetic difference between man and ape seems far more significant than two-percent, yet the facts dictate otherwise.

I don't claim to be an expert on these matters, nor do I believe anyone here at TG is. I've said time and time again that my personal belief is that we are the stewards of the Earth. Who are we to determine how much is too much, or how far is too far? I tend to try and take the least arrogant path in matters dealing with the Earth. This planet existed long before our species did, and will almost certainly last longer. Who are we to think we are more important than it? The human race is doing things that alter the health of the planet, sometimes in seemingly insignificant yet profound ways - again, think of the genetics of ape and man - 98% similar, yet profoundly different. I believe this to be a similar case. We are arrogant to assume that our perception of minor dents in the Earth's atmosphere could not possibly have a meaningful effect. They have, they are, and they will until our species collectively discovers that we do not, in fact, come first.

I actually enjoy debating the philosophical aspects of this debate more than the scientific ones. For some reason I feel that they are more tangible - and relevant.

Your saying a 2% difference is a big difference. So what would an 8% difference yield?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0315101129.htm
A further problem with the extensive use of 'the global temperature' is that there are many ways of calculating average temperatures.

Example 1: Take two equally large glasses of water. The water in one glass is 0 degrees, in the other it is 100 degrees. Adding these two numbers and dividing by two yields an average temperature of 50 degrees. That is called the arithmetic average.

Example 2: Take the same two glasses of water at 0 degrees and 100 degrees, respectively. Now multiply those two numbers and take the square root, and you will arrive at an average temperature of 46 degrees. This is called the geometric average. (The calculation is done in degrees Kelvin which are then converted back to degrees Celsius.)

The difference of 4 degrees is the energy which drives all the thermodynamic processes which create storms, thunder, sea currents, etc.

This 4 degree difference is what some are saying can drive the world from our current paradise to an unworldly hell. Changing Weather Stations, Location of Weather Stations, Statistical Data Collection all provide areas to criticize the thoughts of a Global Temperature.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0315101129.htm
These are but two examples of ways to calculate averages. They are all equally correct, but one needs a solid physical reason to choose one above another. Depending on the averaging method used, the same set of measured data can simultaneously show an upward trend and a downward trend in average temperature. Thus claims of disaster may be a consequence of which averaging method has been used, the researchers point out.

One set of numbers can provide two totally different results based on the method used to average them.

Lucky Shot

[Switch]

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

I study everything.

Haven't graduated yet. I'm still learning about all sorts of things. Biology and Ecology are just two of many.

So how about you? What do you study?

I have a BS in biology with a minor in writing.

My course work included a class called Pollution and Regulation, giving me some insight on the issue at hand.
I've worked on EPA grants for brown field redevelopment and geochemical surveys for vernal ponds. I've got a good environmental background though my focus on is on general biology.

All that and I've got my txt book at my side for those of you who want straight credible and cited information that didn't come from a website that is supported by pro or con global warming lobbies.


Wasn't ad hominem asking for education will help qualify peoples opinions.

[Kerostasis]

Originally Posted by Switch

All that and I've got my txt book at my side for those of you who want straight credible and cited information that didn't come from a website that is supported by pro or con global warming lobbies.

I've seen plenty of inaccurate and/or biased textbooks in my day. I've even seen high level college textbooks that knowingly presented fraudulant proofs for perfectly acceptable conclusions, simply because the correct proof was too complicated to describe in the space available.

Just because its a textbook doesn't mean it doesn't have an agenda. Its just fairly likely to be the same agenda as the teacher who ordered it.

[AMosely]

Originally Posted by Lucky Shot

Hmmm.... So your saying that Hansen is not receiving money to present his viewpoint? Or are we now starting to disregard any article that covers a public speaking engagement? I see a bigger bias in someone who is receiving funding to deliver a certain result.

I made the assumption that readers of this thread are by now familiar with Hansen's career path. For the past several years he has been paid to present his viewpoint at certain speaking engagements. He is not necessarily receiving funding to deliver a certain result. In fact, quite the contrary, he's been under the direct censorship from the Bush-appointed censor at NASA.

Originally Posted by Lucky Shot

Your saying a 2% difference is a big difference. So what would an 8% difference yield?

Not exactly. I'm saying that a 2-percent difference can be a little or a lot depending on one's perspective and perception. I found the genetic differences between man and ape to be a good example of this - a mathematically small difference can yield a tremendous differennce in physical perception. I think this analogy can be applied to some of the variables involved in this debate.

[Lucky Shot]

Originally Posted by AMosely

I made the assumption that readers of this thread are by now familiar with Hansen's career path. For the past several years he has been paid to present his viewpoint at certain speaking engagements. He is not necessarily receiving funding to deliver a certain result. In fact, quite the contrary, he's been under the direct censorship from the Bush-appointed censor at NASA.

Al Gore is looking to support his politics. So when he is sending "Grants" to Hansen, he is looking to create additional "reasearch" that will support Gore's politics. Therefore, the funding is driving the result. Hansen isn't a victim here, he is profiting off of this point of view.

Not exactly. I'm saying that a 2-percent difference can be a little or a lot depending on one's perspective and perception. I found the genetic differences between man and ape to be a good example of this - a mathematically small difference can yield a tremendous differennce in physical perception. I think this analogy can be applied to some of the variables involved in this debate.

So we can then base future discussion of numbers on the vagaries of a personal perception?

Lucky Shot

[Steeler]

Lucky, can we then safely assume, as a rule, that all professional global warming deniers who receive money from the energy industry, the Bush administration, or other entities with a vested interest in the status quo are therefore guilty of bias which undermines the validity of their arguments? Shall we level the playing field and say all experts are suspect, all points of view are tainted?

Oddly enough, such an attitude favors the status quo.

[Lucky Shot]

That's a better question for Mosely as we didn't start down this road until he claimed bias by alledging someone was paid to write an article. I wouldn't have discussed Hansen's grants, his job within the Bush administration or any of that had he not attacked the writer. I know that just about everyone in this game is paid with many scientists receiving funding by tying in Global Warming into their study.

Lucky Shot

[TheFatKidDeath]

Originally Posted by Lucky Shot

That's a better question for Mosely as we didn't start down this road until he claimed bias by alledging someone was paid to write an article. I wouldn't have discussed Hansen's grants, his job within the Bush administration or any of that had he not attacked the writer. I know that just about everyone in this game is paid with many scientists receiving funding by tying in Global Warming into their study.

Lucky Shot

Your right that many scientists in the game receive funding by tying Global Warming into their study.

However, I hope your not offering the "everyone has a bias" argument to discredit the mountains of peer reviewed science which shows human activity as a primary cause of Global Warming.

I would agree with Steelers point that this line of reasoning favors the status quo and detracts from the science at hand.

[xTYBALTx]

May I offer the "bias doesn't matter" argument?

It's an important argument because it's true.

"An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim."

...

"Ad hominem circumstantial involves pointing out that someone is in circumstances such that he is disposed to take a particular position. Essentially, ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a person. The reason that this is fallacious is that pointing out that one's opponent is disposed to make a certain argument does not make the argument, from a logical point of view, any less credible; this overlaps with the genetic fallacy (an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source)."

From Wikipedia's list of examples of Ad Hominem fallacious reasoning:

Fallacious Reasoning: "Tobacco company representatives are wrong when they say smoking doesn't seriously affect your health, because they're just defending their own multi-million-dollar financial interests."

...

"An appeal to authority or argument by authority is a type of argument in logic, consisting on basing the truth value of an assertion on the authority, knowledge or position of the person asserting it. It is also known as argument from authority, argumentum ad verecundiam (Latin: argument to respect) or ipse dixit (Latin: he himself said it). It is one method of obtaining propositional knowledge, but a fallacy in regard to logic, because the validity of a claim does not follow from the credibility of the source. The corresponding reverse case would be an ad hominem attack: to imply that the claim is false because the asserter is objectionable."

Example of an Appeal to Authority: Referring to scientific research published in a peer-reviewed journal. "Science (in the form of an article in a prestigious journal) says X, therefore X is so."

Falsifying information matters. Lying matters. Presenting information in a biased manner matters. But personal bias - on it's own - does not. Personal bias is often good reason not to instantly trust someone's information. Personal bias provides good reason to looks deeper into someone's sources, reasearch, and to suspect their methods. But personal bias does NOT "discredit" one's research, it does NOT mean someone is wrong, and is NOT evidence that someone is wrong. Nor is that lack of personal bias evidence that someone is right.

[AMosely]

Originally Posted by Lucky Shot

Al Gore is looking to support his politics. So when he is sending "Grants" to Hansen, he is looking to create additional "reasearch" that will support Gore's politics. Therefore, the funding is driving the result. Hansen isn't a victim here, he is profiting off of this point of view.

I apologize for not doing a good enough job of explaining my comments in this latest round.

When I said I was assuming that readers of this thread were familiar with Hansen's career, I meant the whole career: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen. Hansen pre-dates Gore. He's spent the better part of four decades studying atmospheric climate change. Much of his findings have been proven sound (by other scientists and the IPCC), and his models proven statistically more correct than incorrect. So while he may seem biased, he frankly has as much or more backing to that bias as a preacher claiming that god is exists.

Hansen's paid public speaking engagements (or Gore funding) is only comparable to the point of view presented by a Augie Auer (Australian meteorologist and TV weatherman) to a New Zealand farmer's union in the fact that both are paid in advance to present a pre-established position. I would therefore discredit any press report of such speech as biased unless it took into account the underlying research behind every claim. The article provided in this case did not, and was therefore (to continue the preacher analogy) merely citing one man's targeted sermon as truth.

In looking in to Augie Auer's credentials, I noticed that he passed away two days ago, so we won't be hearing his point of view anymore.

[Lucky Shot]

Originally Posted by AMosely

I apologize for not doing a good enough job of explaining my comments in this latest round.

When I said I was assuming that readers of this thread were familiar with Hansen's career, I meant the whole career: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen. Hansen pre-dates Gore. He's spent the better part of four decades studying atmospheric climate change. Much of his findings have been proven sound (by other scientists and the IPCC), and his models proven statistically more correct than incorrect. So while he may seem biased, he frankly has as much or more backing to that bias as a preacher claiming that god is exists.

Hansen's paid public speaking engagements (or Gore funding) is only comparable to the point of view presented by a Augie Auer (Australian meteorologist and TV weatherman) to a New Zealand farmer's union in the fact that both are paid in advance to present a pre-established position. I would therefore discredit any press report of such speech as biased unless it took into account the underlying research behind every claim. The article provided in this case did not, and was therefore (to continue the preacher analogy) merely citing one man's targeted sermon as truth.

In looking in to Augie Auer's credentials, I noticed that he passed away two days ago, so we won't be hearing his point of view anymore.

Gore paid Hansen, not for public speaking, but deliver a result in his research. I am not talking about a certain speech, but his research itself. You claim bias based on him being paid for a speech, well his research is paid for partially by Gore. This I would hold is to continue to manufacture results in his research tainting his work.

Interesting hearing you compare environmentalism to a religion. I agree that many environmentalists treat it the same way. Guess I am an Environmental Atheist.

Lucky Shot

[Steeler]

Do you have specific evidence that Hansen has compromised his research in order to collect a check? In scientific circles that is an especially vicious sin, especially for one so high placed. You better have some significant info to back that up. Or are you just assuming for the sake of your own prejudices?

[Lucky Shot]

Originally Posted by Steeler

Do you have specific evidence that Hansen has compromised his research in order to collect a check? In scientific circles that is an especially vicious sin, especially for one so high placed. You better have some significant info to back that up. Or are you just assuming for the sake of your own prejudices?

Making the same assumption that Mosely is around independent journalism. People question why certain scientists receive money from Tobacco companies or Oil companies. It is fair to ask the same about Hansen.

Lucky Shot

[AMosely]

Originally Posted by Lucky Shot

Making the same assumption that Mosely is around independent journalism. People question why certain scientists receive money from Tobacco companies or Oil companies. It is fair to ask the same about Hansen.

You're taking what I said way out of context, and this is getting old. An article (independent or not) written about a well-known, paid speaker to an eligible (willing) audience and uses that speaker/speech as its only source is biased to the views of the speaker. It's not news, and it's not new information. I agreed that similar coverage of a James Hanson speech could be judged in the same way. I did not say that would hold true for his 35 years of climate research. If you'd like to submit some of Augie Auer's research, that would be welcome.

I suggested that we try and keep citations in this thread away from press reports (of any kind) and instead turn to direct sources - scientists, journals and research organizations. While not always unbiased, this is the best we can hope for.

Don't carry that argument or logic into how scientists secure their funding. I'm sure that Hansen has received money for speaking engagements, but frankly it's impossible for one to make the argument that he was in some way biased by Al Gore, or any environmental organization because he was establishing his conclusions long before the viewpoint existed. He is one of the creators of the global warming movement - how can you claim that he's also a product?

I'm more interested in this comment:

Originally Posted by Lucky Shot

Interesting hearing you compare environmentalism to a religion. I agree that many environmentalists treat it the same way. Guess I am an Environmental Atheist.

Absolutely agreed that there are similarities between environmentalism and religion. Many religious groups and leaders believe they are intertwined. I certainly do not. I'm curious about 'environmental atheism.' Can you describe what you mean by that? Specifically, how can one deny the existence of the environment, or environmentalism? Both truly exist. You can deny their validity or relevance/importance, but to declare all environmentalism - including the earth sciences that drive it - as rubbish is sickeningly shameful.

[Lucky Shot]

Originally Posted by AMosely

You're taking what I said way out of context, and this is getting old. An article (independent or not) written about a well-known, paid speaker to an eligible (willing) audience and uses that speaker/speech as its only source is biased to the views of the speaker. It's not news, and it's not new information. I agreed that similar coverage of a James Hanson speech could be judged in the same way. I did not say that would hold true for his 35 years of climate research. If you'd like to submit some of Augie Auer's research, that would be welcome.

I suggested that we try and keep citations in this thread away from press reports (of any kind) and instead turn to direct sources - scientists, journals and research organizations. While not always unbiased, this is the best we can hope for.

Don't carry that argument or logic into how scientists secure their funding. I'm sure that Hansen has received money for speaking engagements, but frankly it's impossible for one to make the argument that he was in some way biased by Al Gore, or any environmental organization because he was establishing his conclusions long before the viewpoint existed. He is one of the creators of the global warming movement - how can you claim that he's also a product?

I said he received money for political reasons around his research.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics....20060323a.html

The scientist touted by CBS News' "60 Minutes" as arguably the "world's leading researcher on global warming" and spotlighted as a victim of the Bush administration's censorship on the issue, publicly endorsed Democrat John Kerry for president and received a $250,000 grant from the charitable foundation headed by Kerry's wife.

And no, I reject your request to limit sources to your hand picked few. Especially from a Political Donor/Advocate or from a government organization that's attempting to manufacture a reason for a worldwide tax (IPCC).

I'm more interested in this comment:


Absolutely agreed that there are similarities between environmentalism and religion. Many religious groups and leaders believe they are intertwined. I certainly do not. I'm curious about 'environmental atheism.' Can you describe what you mean by that? Specifically, how can one deny the existence of the environment, or environmentalism? Both truly exist. You can deny their validity or relevance/importance, but to declare all environmentalism - including the earth sciences that drive it - as rubbish is sickeningly shameful.

I didn't say I don't believe in the environment, I don't believe in what overboard environmentalists preach. This "Religion" of the environmentalist wackos is more harmful to those who live in the areas that they profess that they are protecting.

Lucky Shot