Kyoto Protocol

[WIAF]

Re: Kyoto

Extrafire,

But Daly was an expert.

On what do you base this expertise? Please be specific.

I made no dogmatic statements about the "hockey stick".

Your comments on the "hockey stick" have included,

Much of that so-called science, such as the Mann hockey stick graph, has been debunked by real science...Did you check out the website that debunks the "hockey stick" graph? Did you examine the links to the papers on sunspot activities? No, you didn't. You should. There you will find real science...They then proceeded to expose his work for the fraud that it was...Then you agree with me that Mann's hockey stick is not real science

If you feel there is a more appropriate word to describe your comments, I'd be happy to hear it.

You have objected to the Rev referring to Daly as a "charlatan who misinterpreted data and used strawman arguments", yet you have levelled some accusations of your own,

I know for a fact that he (Suzuki) has spread falsehoods about my area of expertise (BC forestry) whether deliberately or through ignorance, so I wouldn't trust him at all on the environment.....

Twila asked specifically for details, yet you can't remember anything other than your outrage. What do you think an unsupported charge of dishonesty or ignorance does to your credibility?

Are you suggesting that unless people have letters after their names, they have low intelligence?

At the risk of butting in, I believe Derry meant credentials or expertise when referring to "letters". Intelligence has nothing to do with it. Is this a little strawman of your own?

 

[WIAF]

Re: Kyoto

How scientifically literate do you need to be to read a graph?

This would depend largely on which graph you're "reading". Are you referring to one of these? If so, which?

Mann et al., 1998, Nature, 392, 779-787
Mann and Jones, 2003, Geophysical Research Letters, 30, CLM 5-1 - 5-4
Jones and Mann, 2004, Reviews of Geophysics, 42
Mann et al, 2003, Eos, 84, 256-258.

 

[Derry McKinney]

Re: Kyoto

And if you do a little more checking you'll find that Australian government data says the sea isn't rising enough to cause Tuvalu's problems.

You will also find that the Austrailian government has some very serious political and upcoming legal problems because of Tuvalu. Notice though that you have switched from "the sea isn't rising" to "the sea isn't rising enough." Two quite different statements.

Are you suggesting that unless people have letters after their names, they have low intelligence?

No, I'm suggesting that some people are experts in some fields and others would like to be, but lack the proper education.

For instance, I can raise goats. I can tell you the bloodlines and why I chose a specific breeding pair. I can also fix my own equipment. I am an expert at raising goats, having studied it extensively. I am not an expert at fixing equipment because it's something I've learned as I went along.

But Daly was an expert.

No he wasn't an expert. His work has been shown to be flawed at its core because of his lack of understanding of the intricacies of the scientific method and the collection and appraisal of data.

How scientifically literate do you need to be to read a graph?

Usually a high school education will do that for you. However, to understand where the data was collected, how and why it was used, and the statistical methods used to appraise it, you need to be at least as knowledgable as the scientist that made the graph.

 

[Extrafire]

Re: Kyoto

Notice though that you have switched from "the sea isn't rising" to "the sea isn't rising enough." Two quite different statements.

Yes, two different statements. The claim made by environmentalists is that the sea level is rising fast. That claim has been debunked. There is a normal, very small sea level rise that has been known for a long time (1.5 cm per century or something like that, can’t remember exactly) but the claims of rapid increase of sea level just don’t hold water. I had ignored the actual rise just for the sake of brevity, but then thought I should include it, because no doubt, someone would have mentioned it.

Quote:
Are you suggesting that unless people have letters after their names, they have low intelligence?


No, I'm suggesting that some people are experts in some fields and others would like to be, but lack the proper education.

For instance, I can raise goats. I can tell you the bloodlines and why I chose a specific breeding pair. I can also fix my own equipment. I am an expert at raising goats, having studied it extensively. I am not an expert at fixing equipment because it's something I've learned as I went along.

But you could study it and learn enough to become an expert, whether you have letters after your name or not, couldn’t you?

I have a brother-in-law who has only a grade 12 education. Somehow he ended up working for a high-tech company designing new products and is paid very well for his work. Out of curiosity, his employers asked him to write a related engineering exam, without any study or preparation. He aced it.

Do not disqualify anyone on the basis of their education or official qualifications.

No he wasn't an expert. His work has been shown to be flawed at its core because of his lack of understanding of the intricacies of the scientific method and the collection and appraisal of data.

Actually, his work was consistently proven to be correct. Understanding intricacies is worthless if your conclusion is incorrect.

Quote:
How scientifically literate do you need to be to read a graph?


Usually a high school education will do that for you.

I would think elementary school is enough.

However, to understand where the data was collected, how and why it was used, and the statistical methods used to appraise it, you need to be at least as knowledgable as the scientist that made the graph.

There is no need to understand any of that to read a graph. In reading Mann’s graph, I see that it is inconsistent with historical records. Therefore it is wrong. If the conclusion is wrong, it is reasonable to assume the work used to arrive there must be flawed somehow, but you don’t have to know anything more. This is basic logic.

If there were no historic records then you would indeed have to go back through all the background work and show where the error lies. But since there are records to compare to, all that becomes irrelevant, since it is obvious whether the final result is correct or wrong.

 

[Derry McKinney]

Re: Kyoto

The claim made by environmentalists is that the sea level is rising fast. That claim has been debunked.

No actually, it hasn't been debunked. In fact it has been supported.

But you could study it and learn enough to become an expert, whether you have letters after your name or not, couldn’t you?

I could, just as you could go and become a scientific statistician and begin to understand how the data that makes up the hockey stick graph works. I haven't though, and neither have you.

Actually, his work was consistently proven to be correct. Understanding intricacies is worthless if your conclusion is incorrect.

No, it was proven to be based on inaccurate and poorly gathered data.

I would think elementary school is enough.

I'm sorry...I thought you'd been to high school.

There is no need to understand any of that to read a graph.

There is if you are going to dispute a graph that is based on complex data and uses complex methodologies.

In reading Mann’s graph, I see that it is inconsistent with historical records. Therefore it is wrong.

Yet the conclusions are backed up by data from several other fields of study. Therefore it is right.

If the conclusion is wrong, it is reasonable to assume the work used to arrive there must be flawed somehow, but you don’t have to know anything more. This is basic logic.

But the conclusion isn't wrong. In fact the conclusion matches everything from ice core sample studies and tree rings to computer models. Both the methodology and the conclusion passed peer review.

The only here drawing the wrong conclusion is you.

 

[Extrafire]

Re: Kyoto

No actually, it hasn't been debunked. In fact it has been supported

Yes it has, no it hasn't, yes it has, no it hasn't...enough said.

No, it was proven to be based on inaccurate and poorly gathered data.

That was the claim made to discredit him, but his results were accurate.

I'm sorry...I thought you'd been to high school.

:lol: :lol: Good one! :lol: :lol:

Yet the conclusions are backed up by data from several other fields of study. Therefore it is right.

So are you suggesting that the historical records are wrong? :lol:

 

[Derry McKinney]

Re: Kyoto

Yes it has, no it hasn't, yes it has, no it hasn't...enough said.

It's been supported by peer reviewed science.

That was the claim made to discredit him, but his results were accurate.

No. There was no conspiracy against him. His work was fatally flawed.

So are you suggesting that the historical records are wrong?

No, I'm saying that your interpretation of the data, or rather McKittrick's and McIntyre's interpretation which you've chosen to believe, is wrong.

 

[Extrafire]

Re: Kyoto

It's been supported by peer reviewed science.

Quote:
So are you suggesting that the historical records are wrong?


No....

:lol: It's one or the other, you can't have both. Since the graph is at odds with the records, one must be wrong. Pick one.

 

[Extrafire]

Re: Kyoto

No. There was no conspiracy against him. His work was fatally flawed.

I said nothing about a conspiracy. And his work produced accurate results.

I'm saying that your interpretation of the data, or rather McKittrick's and McIntyre's interpretation which you've chosen to believe, is wrong.

I haven't interpreted any data. I haven't used McKittrick and McIntyre's interpretation. I've just looked at the graph. It is clearly at odds with the historical records. One of them must be wrong.

 

[no1important]

RE: Kyoto

Well the sea is rising, it does not take a rocket scientist to figure that out. For example the ice in the Arctic and Antarctica is melting and melting at a good rate in some areas,glaciers are melting, so where do you think the water goes, from the melted ice?

a link
Interesting read and here is a couple paragraphs, from the link.

Also, the overall mass of Antarctica may be decreasing, because coastal melt may be happening faster than internal ice sheet gain.

"Since sea levels are rising, that would be a reasonable assumption to make, although we don't know for sure," added Professor Davis.

 

[Extrafire]

Re: RE: Kyoto

Well the sea is rising, it does not take a rocket scientist to figure that out. For example the ice in the Arctic and Antarctica is melting and melting at a good rate in some areas,glaciers are melting, so where do you think the water goes, from the melted ice?

a link
Interesting read and here is a couple paragraphs, from the link.

Also, the overall mass of Antarctica may be decreasing, because coastal melt may be happening faster than internal ice sheet gain.

"Since sea levels are rising, that would be a reasonable assumption to make, although we don't know for sure," added Professor Davis.

Increasing ice in Antarctica has been known for some time now, although many, such as Rev, have disputed it.

Sea levels are currently rising at about 1.8mm per year

That's close to what normal sea level rise rate is, as I mentioned earlier.

They also mentioned Greenland. Well, we're not nearly as warm as it was 1000 years ago when the Vikings grazed cattle on Greenland. I'm not aware of any evidence that high sea levels caused any problems back then.

Here's a little something to think about: Arctic ice melting will not raise the sea level, because it is sea ice. 90% of the ice is underwater. The10% that is above water is a result of ice expanding by that amount as it freezes (otherwise it wouldn't float) with air bubbles produced by the freezing process.

Take a good look at a globe. See how much of it is covered with water. Then look at how little is ice covered. Only terrestrial ice would contribute to sea level rises, and there isn't enough to make all that much difference. Suzuki admitted that some time ago, but then said that sea level rise would be due to expansion of the water by warming.

 

[zenfisher]

RE: Kyoto

This should be easy enough to prove. Place two ice cubes and water in a measuring cup so they are at a measurable level ie. the one cup line. Allow the ice cubes to melt. If the water level is above the one cup line after the ice has melted...post your results.

The thing is ...global temperatures rising would cause terrestrial and sea ice to melt.

 

[WIAF]

Re: Kyoto

Extrafire,

I see my posts to you have been left unanswered. I'm sure it's just an oversight on your part. Here it is again.

Extrafire,

But Daly was an expert.

On what do you base this expertise? Please be specific.

I made no dogmatic statements about the "hockey stick".

Your comments on the "hockey stick" have included,

Much of that so-called science, such as the Mann hockey stick graph, has been debunked by real science...Did you check out the website that debunks the "hockey stick" graph? Did you examine the links to the papers on sunspot activities? No, you didn't. You should. There you will find real science...They then proceeded to expose his work for the fraud that it was...Then you agree with me that Mann's hockey stick is not real science

If you feel there is a more appropriate word to describe your comments, I'd be happy to hear it.

You have objected to the Rev referring to Daly as a "charlatan who misinterpreted data and used strawman arguments", yet you have levelled some accusations of your own,

I know for a fact that he (Suzuki) has spread falsehoods about my area of expertise (BC forestry) whether deliberately or through ignorance, so I wouldn't trust him at all on the environment.....

Twila asked specifically for details, yet you can't remember anything other than your outrage. What do you think an unsupported charge of dishonesty or ignorance does to your credibility?

Perhaps you should consider withdrawing accusations if you can't support them.

How scientifically literate do you need to be to read a graph?

This would depend largely on which graph you're "reading". Are you referring to one of these? If so, which?

Mann et al., 1998, Nature, 392, 779-787
Mann and Jones, 2003, Geophysical Research Letters, 30, CLM 5-1 - 5-4
Jones and Mann, 2004, Reviews of Geophysics, 42
Mann et al, 2003, Eos, 84, 256-258.

 

[Derry McKinney]

Re: Kyoto

I said nothing about a conspiracy.

You intimated that there was a conspiracy when you said,

That was the claim made to discredit him

It's one or the other, you can't have both. Since the graph is at odds with the records, one must be wrong. Pick one.

The graph is not at odds with the record though. Mann has never denied that there was a little ice age. You are arguing that because he didn't take (statistically) irrelevant data into account that his conclusions are wrong. It shows your lack of knowledge of the methodology, but does nothing to refute the conclusions.

I haven't interpreted any data.

Then you cannot be critical of the data used.

I haven't used McKittrick and McIntyre's interpretation.

You referenced the web site where their shoddy work is displayed as proof of your idea.

Increasing ice in Antarctica has been known for some time now, although many, such as Rev, have disputed it.

Rev references scientific data. It is science that disputes your claims.

Arctic ice melting will not raise the sea level, because it is sea ice. 90% of the ice is underwater. The10% that is above water is a result of ice expanding by that amount as it freezes (otherwise it wouldn't float) with air bubbles produced by the freezing process.

Salt water changes that equation, so does the temperature of the water since it thickens without freezing because of its salt content. You also have to take into account meltwater from glaciers that is finding its way out to the ocean and is not being replaced by new frozen water. Think about that...every mountain range is losing its glaciers. That all ends up in the oceans.

Then you have to consider the changing redistribution of water that has been taken up by the atmosphere. It is raing more in some places and less in others. That leads to increased melting when it rains on terrestial glaciers and to increased erosion. Increased severe weather events along coastlines also cause erosion, making sea level rises even more damaging.

 

[Extrafire]

Re: Kyoto

Hi WIAF,

Extrafire,

I see my posts to you have been left unanswered. I'm sure it's just an oversight on your part. Here it is again.

Not oversight, time constraints

Extrafire wrote:
But Daly was an expert.

On what do you base this expertise? Please be specific.

His work was consistently shown to be accurate. That would indicate expertise.

Extrafire wrote:
I made no dogmatic statements about the "hockey stick".


Your comments on the "hockey stick" have included,

Extrafire wrote:
Much of that so-called science, such as the Mann hockey stick graph, has been debunked by real science...Did you check out the website that debunks the "hockey stick" graph? Did you examine the links to the papers on sunspot activities? No, you didn't. You should. There you will find real science...They then proceeded to expose his work for the fraud that it was...Then you agree with me that Mann's hockey stick is not real science


If you feel there is a more appropriate word to describe your comments, I'd be happy to hear it.

Dogma – An established principle, tenet, or system of doctrines put forward to be received on authority. (Cassells English Dictionary)

The statements I made were responses to statements put forward by others, the give and take of argument. They in no way fit the definition of dogma. However, the insistence that Mann’s hockey stick graph is correct because of the authority of the author and peer reviewers, even though it contradicts reality (historical records) would well fit the definition of dogma.

You have objected to the Rev referring to Daly as a "charlatan who misinterpreted data and used strawman arguments", yet you have levelled some accusations of your own,
Extrafire wrote:
I know for a fact that he (Suzuki) has spread falsehoods about my area of expertise (BC forestry) whether deliberately or through ignorance, so I wouldn't trust him at all on the environment.....


Twila asked specifically for details, yet you can't remember anything other than your outrage. What do you think an unsupported charge of dishonesty or ignorance does to your credibility?

Perhaps you should consider withdrawing accusations if you can't support them.

I did reply to Twila as follows:

Oh,,,,that was a long time ago. It had something to do with logging practices and was the incident that turned me right off on Suzuki. Prior to that I had enjoyed his shows and respected him. When the nature of things became an environmentalist rant I stopped watching it all together. I’ve caught the occasional one recently. Seems to have returned to his original format.

And I also replied to you on that topic:

I remember why. He was spreading falsehoods about our forest practices. I just can't remember exactly what he said. After all, it was the late '80's or early '90's.

I recall recently hearing him extoling that idiotic doomsayer, Paul Ehrlich, but I can't remember just what he said about him, and that was recent. If I did something like this for a living I'd keep records, but I don't.

At no point did I say I was outraged. Disappointed, disillusioned, a loss of respect for a man I had admired, even a feeling of betrayal, those would apply, but not outrage. Why would you expect me to remember his exact words from 15 or 20 years ago? I’ll bet you won’t remember these words of mine 1 year from now unless you make a record.

At the risk of butting in, I believe Derry meant credentials or expertise when referring to "letters". Intelligence has nothing to do with it. Is this a little strawman of your own?

Please feel free to butt in any time. That’s part of how these forums work.

My impression was that Derry dismissed the arguments of those who didn’t have letters such as PhD after their names (credentials) as automatically having no expertise because of that lack. I sensed an implication (possibly erroneous) that such people could not obtain necessary expertise, possibly because they weren’t as intelligent as those who had the letters. Hardly a strawman. No-one needs credentials in order to gain the expertise, not me, not you, not John Daly.

This would depend largely on which graph you're "reading". Are you referring to one of these? If so, which?

No.

Mann et al, Geophysical Research Letters, 1999

 

[Extrafire]

Re: Kyoto

Derry,

You intimated that there was a conspiracy when you said,
Quote:
That was the claim made to discredit him

Conspiracy – The act of conspiring; harmonious concurrence; a secret agreement or combination between two or more persons to commit an act that my prejudice any third person. (Cassells English Dictionary)
Nope, I intimated no such thing.

The graph is not at odds with the record though.

Hmmmm……. The graph doesn’t show the little ice age, the record does. That’s as at odds as you can get.

Mann has never denied that there was a little ice age.

No, I don't believe he has.

You are arguing that because he didn't take (statistically) irrelevant data into account that his conclusions are wrong.

Nope. I’m arguing that his graph that portrays his conclusion is at odds with historical records, and therefore wrong.

It shows your lack of knowledge of the methodology,

I need no such knowledge to read a graph.

Quote:
I haven't interpreted any data.


Then you cannot be critical of the data used.

I haven’t been critical of the data. I have ignored the data. I’m looking at the graph.

Quote:
I haven't used McKittrick and McIntyre's interpretation.


You referenced the web site where their shoddy work is displayed as proof of your idea.

I have referrenced their site. However, as my own personal argument against the graph I used no interpretation.

Their work is not shoddy, stands up to scrutiny and is accepted by many scientists around the world. A recent announcement by them:
"Our research is profiled in the cover story of the Feb. 1, 2005 edition of Natuurwetenschap & Techniek (NWT), a prominent European science magazine. It is also the subject of a commentary and a lead editorial."
Cover story: http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/Climate_L.pdf
Commentary: http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/Pope_L.pdf
Editorial: http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/Thesis_L.pdf

You’ll find a revealing article here about how the peer review process can be hijacked: http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/Pope_L.pdf

Another anouncement by them: "Our article “Hockey Sticks, Principal Components and Spurious Significance” has been accepted for publication in Geophysical Research Letters, the same journal that published the version of the Mann et al. hockey stick used by the IPCC."

Quote:
Quote:
Increasing ice in Antarctica has been known for some time now, although many, such as Rev, have disputed it.


Rev references scientific data. It is science that disputes your claims.

Well the article I was commenting on was from scientific data.

Salt water changes that equation, so does the temperature of the water since it thickens without freezing because of its salt content. You also have to take into account meltwater from glaciers that is finding its way out to the ocean and is not being replaced by new frozen water. Think about that...every mountain range is losing its glaciers. That all ends up in the oceans.

Then you have to consider the changing redistribution of water that has been taken up by the atmosphere. It is raing more in some places and less in others. That leads to increased melting when it rains on terrestial glaciers and to increased erosion. Increased severe weather events along coastlines also cause erosion, making sea level rises even more damaging.

But I recall David Suzuki saying that melting ice wasn’t the problem, warmer sea water expanding is what is supposed to raise sea levels. All things that have to be taken into consideration, true. But as I mentioned before, during the Medieval Climate Optimum the earth was very much warmer than today, and there’s no record that I’m aware of that mentions any problems with high sea levels at that time.

 

[WIAF]

Re: Kyoto

Extrafire,

His work was consistently shown to be accurate. That would indicate expertise.

My impression was that Derry dismissed the arguments of those who didn’t have letters such as PhD after their names (credentials) as automatically having no expertise because of that lack. I sensed an implication (possibly erroneous) that such people could not obtain necessary expertise, possibly because they weren’t as intelligent as those who had the letters. Hardly a strawman. No-one needs credentials in order to gain the expertise, not me, not you, not John Daly.

However, those who persue academic credentials and publish their research are de facto experts in their respective fields. Depending on the nature of the field, expertise may also entail practical experience beyond "arm-chair" learning (I don't know if I would trust an armchair civil engineer or physician). The expertise of those without formal credentials can only be assessed by other experts. Are you an expert?

Moreover, I'm beginning to see an argument that runs like this, "Daly was an expert, because of his work. We should trust his work because he was an expert."

I made no dogmatic statements about the "hockey stick".

Open to interpretation, I suppose. Still, perhaps you should look up "fraud" in your Cassells English Dictionary and reconcile the definition to your description of Mann's research.

Why would you expect me to remember his exact words from 15 or 20 years ago?

No one is asking for a quote, Extrafire. Stop being disingenuous. You have gone on record that Suzuki made comments - dishonest or out of ignorance - wrt forestry. These comments "turned you off" so much that you felt "disappointed", "disillusioned", perhaps even "betrayed" to the point where you "wouldn't trust him at all on the environment", yet you can't remember what caused this?
:roll:

Mann et al, Geophysical Research Letters, 1999

You have, of course, read the article that accompanies Figure 3, haven't you? Perhaps you would provide a short yet enlightening excerpt?

 

[Derry McKinney]

Re: Kyoto

Conspiracy – The act of conspiring; harmonious concurrence; a secret agreement or combination between two or more persons to commit an act that my prejudice any third person. (Cassells English Dictionary)
Nope, I intimated no such thing.

Yes you did. You implied that a group of scientists made a false claim to discredit him.

Hmmmm……. The graph doesn’t show the little ice age, the record does. That’s as at odds as you can get.

You are misinterpreting the data due to your own lack of knowledge and predisposition not to believe in global arming.

Nope. I’m arguing that his graph that portrays his conclusion is at odds with historical records, and therefore wrong.

You are misinterpreting something out of ignorance. That ignorance can no longer be considered to be anything but purposeful.

I need no such knowledge to read a graph.

Yes you do.

I haven’t been critical of the data. I have ignored the data. I’m looking at the graph.

Which takes us back to the matter of purposeful ignorance...

I have referrenced their site. However, as my own personal argument against the graph I used no interpretation.

Since you claim not to read scientific data, how did you become aware of Mann's graph in the first place?

But I recall David Suzuki saying that melting ice wasn’t the problem, warmer sea water expanding is what is supposed to raise sea levels.

I doubt that Suzuki said that, exactly. That is a part of it. I added many other parts of it, although I likely missed many. I recall those parts from watching an episode of the Nature of Things, which is hosted by David Suzuki.

Medieval Climate Optimum the earth was very much warmer than today, and there’s no record that I’m aware of that mentions any problems with high sea levels at that time.

That was a different event and has nothing to do with global warming. Trying to introduce that into this discussion is like bringing sandals into a discussion on workboots.

McItrick and MacIntosh will again have their work discredited, as has happened so many times now.

 

[Jo Canadian]

Re: Kyoto

There's an interactive map on this page about the arctic that lists many of the changes that have been going on. You'll have to click on the link: INTERACTIVE MAP when there.

Arctic Climate Change

 

[Jo Canadian]

Re: Kyoto