How the GW myth is perpetuated

[Tonington]

I wouldn't know the truth of it, but they're standing by the story......
Usually that isn't done if it isn't substantiated.

Well they also stand by the smear that he supported the notion of an impending ice age, which is unfounded. His model was used by a scientist who did make such a claim, but he was not part of that study, only in that he allowed somebody to use his model.

 

[Extrafire]

Ah yes, what's actually happening isn't important, right?.

The upward linear trend is physical, which is mentioned. Lockwood and Froehlich erase the 11 year cycle to search for a long term trend. As I stated, this is the standard method for dealing with auto-correlation. One can not search for long term trends using autocorrelated data, it is simply too noisy.

The Lockwood and Froehlich paper passed peer review. It was published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society A, an extremely reputable journal. If you are confused about the validity of moving averages to detect trends on a larger time scale than autocorrelated fluctuations, I recommend learning more about them here, here, here, or in a decent text book on stochastic processes.

Remember, no matter the theory or the science, the bumblebee flies anyway

 

[Extrafire]

Well they also stand by the smear that he supported the notion of an impending ice age, [...].

No, that's a different group that said that.

 

[Tonington]

A different group who said what? The blog you posted is based on the story which ran in Investors Business Daily, where they say:

Hansen has some explaining to do. The public deserves to know how he was converted from an apparent believer in a coming ice age who had no worries about greenhouse gas emissions to a global warming fear monger.

He allowed Rasool to use his model. It was not his study. Yet this story spread like wildfire to all those blogs, like the one you copied from.

 

[Extrafire]

A different group who said what? The blog you posted is based on the story which ran in Investors Business Daily, where they say:



He allowed Rasool to use his model. It was not his study. Yet this story spread like wildfire to all those blogs, like the one you copied from.

I pasted two separate articles from two separate sites. The first one had this at the bottom:

Update: Hansen has denied receiving direct funding from OSI. Investors Business Daily is standing behind the story, claiming the funding first passed through the Government Accountability Project, which then used it to package Hansen for the media.

The second I don't know where it came from, they had no links, although they credited the same source. But the only story they claim to stand behind is the first one, unless you know of a claim about the second one that I don't.

 

[Niflmir]

Ah yes, what's actually happening isn't important, right?.

Thats why Svensmark and Christensen erasing the upward linear trend, which is what Lockwood and Froehlich were searching for, is spurious. It is common knowledge that the solar cycle has a period of something like 11 years, which is not what Lockwood and Froehlich wanted to study. They had to deal with this cyclical autocorrelation first before they could study the long term trend of solar radiation. In erasing this trend from the data Svensmark and Christensen can only look at the 11 year solar cycle and correlate it to 11 year variations in terrestrial temperatures; they can make no comments about the impact of solar radiation towards the increases in global temperature.

 

[Tonington]

I pasted two separate articles from two separate sites. The first one had this at the bottom:


The second I don't know where it came from, they had no links, although they credited the same source. But the only story they claim to stand behind is the first one, unless you know of a claim about the second one that I don't.

The first article you posted also contained the tidbit that Hanson switched his tune. The original article from Investors Buisness Daily also said the same thing. It's where I got the last quote from. As you said normally, reputable journalists will acknowledge when they made a mistake. Apparently misleading statements are acceptable to the editors of that publication.

 

[Extrafire]

The first article you posted also contained the tidbit that Hanson switched his tune. The original article from Investors Buisness Daily also said the same thing. It's where I got the last quote from. As you said normally, reputable journalists will acknowledge when they made a mistake. Apparently misleading statements are acceptable to the editors of that publication.

How 'bout that! I forgot that little tidbit

In 1971, Hansen wrote his first climate model, which showed the world was about to experience severe global cooling. NASA colleagues used it to warn the world that immediate action was needed to prevent catastrophe.

They didn't say he switched his tune, although since he sings the other one now it could be inferred. My impression from the first article is that what was being denied is the funding, and that's what they're standing behind. Since they won't back off, I tend to think they may be correct. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out.

As for the global cooling thing, since he's such a zealot, it wouldn't surprise me. I imagine someone there knows where to look for the evidence, but I haven't had time to check it out, and it's not a priority for me.

 

[Tonington]

They didn't say he switched his tune

Go back a few posts to see where they say exactly that.

As to the funding, well Hanson explained that. An organization which gave him legal advice was funded by George Soros. Science has been stifled down south, to the point where the scientists aren't to talk about anything without an overbearing political appointee giving the OK first. The only money that was even offered to Hanson was a $10,000 prize, which he declined, but he accepted the pro bono legal work.

 

[Extrafire]

Go back a few posts to see where they say exactly that.

As to the funding, well Hanson explained that. An organization which gave him legal advice was funded by George Soros. Science has been stifled down south, to the point where the scientists aren't to talk about anything without an overbearing political appointee giving the OK first. The only money that was even offered to Hanson was a $10,000 prize, which he declined, but he accepted the pro bono legal work.

We'll see how it plays out.

 

[Tonington]

Do you think philanthropy aimed at strengthening democracy is a bad thing? Do you think partisan government should be able to dictate what scientists say? Did you read the response from Hanson, with the letter addressing the concerns on whistle blowing?

 

[Walter]

The not-so-disappearing polar bear


By Bjørn Lomborg

Last Updated: 3:01pm BST 16/10/2007

Have your say

Read comments

The case of the not-so-vanishing polar bears shows that we shouldn't let the smartest solutions get lost amid the hype, writes Bjørn Lomborg

A forlorn polar bear stands wistfully on a melting iceberg. This evocative image brings to life the threat of global warming. At least, that's what the editors of Time magazine thought.

Bjørn Lomborg: Al Gore's claims about polar bear populations are based on a single sightingA polar bear was their choice for the cover of a climate change-themed issue, along with the warning: "Be worried. Be very worried".

Former US vice president and Nobel Peace Prize winner Al Gore says melting ice is causing polar bears to drown.
The Independent newspaper believes polar bears will soon be found only in zoos, while the World Wildlife Fund predicts they will be unable to reproduce within five years.
The polar bear is being used to spur the world to take drastic action against climate change. Facts derail this call to arms. This is the climate change scare writ small.
In the 1960s, there were probably 5,000 polar bears around the globe. Forty years later - thanks largely to a reduction in hunting - the World Conservation Union (IUCN) counts five-times that many.
advertisement

The world's 25,000 polar bears live in 20 distinct populations. Two populations are growing. Most are stable. Just two are waning.
The declining populations are in areas that have gotten colder over the past 50 years. The habitats of the two thriving groups have actually become warmer.
If polar bears are today's 'canaries in the coalmine' then the coalmine does not appear half as fearsome as some claim.
Al Gore bases his claim of "drowning" bears on a single sighting of four dead bears the day after an abrupt windstorm. The sighting occurred in an area where polar bear numbers are increasing.
Last year a Canadian polar bear specialist summed up the difference between the facts and the hype: "It is just silly to predict the demise of polar bears in 25 years based on media-assisted hysteria."


Rest of article. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/core/Con...arth/2007/10/16/eabjorn116.xml&site=30&page=0

 

[Walter]

Another Goregon(sic).
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/10/16/looking_back?mode=PF

 

[Walter]

A relatively sane voice.
http://www.junkscience.com/oct07/Global_Warming_Delusions-WSJ.com.pdf

 

[Extrafire]

Do you think philanthropy aimed at strengthening democracy is a bad thing?

I really don't know what you're getting at here. Maybe if you were more specific(but don't bother, I'm really not interested in getting going on another topic)

Do you think partisan government should be able to dictate what scientists say?

No. Neither should partisan activists be able to influence government policy on scientific matters. But they do. Another topic which I do not want to discuss.

Did you read the response from Hanson, with the letter addressing the concerns on whistle blowing?

Yes. Sounds quite real. Very convincing. The same authentic ring to it that the deniers have when they say they aren't getting funding from big oil.

As I said, we'll see how it all plays out.

 

[Extrafire]

Thats why Svensmark and Christensen erasing the upward linear trend, which is what Lockwood and Froehlich were searching for, is spurious. It is common knowledge that the solar cycle has a period of something like 11 years, which is not what Lockwood and Froehlich wanted to study. They had to deal with this cyclical autocorrelation first before they could study the long term trend of solar radiation. In erasing this trend from the data Svensmark and Christensen can only look at the 11 year solar cycle and correlate it to 11 year variations in terrestrial temperatures; they can make no comments about the impact of solar radiation towards the increases in global temperature.

But, gosh darn it, that damned bumblebee keeps flying anyway!

 

[Walter]

The Global Warming Deceptions
Analyses by Dr. Vincent Gray
By Michael R. Fox, 10/19/2007 12:19:44 PM
The scientific opposition to the discredited theory of man-made global warming has been large and enduring. It also has been studiously ignored, dismissed, or attacked.

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?2472c091-e930-4d24-90cd-ecbce4713693

19000 deniers with credentials. The oil companies have big pockets.

 

[Tonington]

I can't believe we're seeing that, do you know whose name appeared on that list of 19000 names?

Gerri Halliwell. Apparently the Spice Girl has a Ph.D. Also, Perry Mason, the famed TV lawyer. The names have since been removed.

Seitz is up to his old tricks again.
Heres a link to that story, I started a thread on this a while back
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/consensus.html

 

[Walter]

Excertpt form a piece by John Bignell.
There is no scientific theory linking carbon dioxide to the “runaway” global warming that is the basis of the calamitous predictions. The contribution of the gas to the making of a comfortable planet by the greenhouse effect is well understood, modest and self-limiting. It is only turned into a terror by computer models. These are worthless; depending as they do on extensive guesswork about the ill-understood mechanisms and interactions involved in climate, and involving so many tunable parameters and feedback factors that they could produce any desired result by appropriate tweaking. A quarter of a century ago, before science came under firm bureaucratic control, such models would have been laughed out of court.
Full article.
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/Carbon.htm

 

[Tonington]

He then goes on to say there is immense secrecy in how the models work. Wrong. I can download the models used by NASA GISS, and the appropriate instructions on how it works. I can download the source code of the newest model E if I want. I can download the model documentation, where it explains the specifications and results from different studies of that model. I can download the how to, if I didn`t know how it works.

Beating up on models is easy game, because most people do not understand how they work, and assume they wouldn`t be able to get access to them. More falsehoods.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelE/