Comments on: Some General Thoughts

By: TCO

TCO — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 15:47:53 +0000

I respect that you don’t censor, that you do read, and that you choose to avoid disscussion in comments. However, my previous comments stand: that you re an advocate and that you don’t seriously think about and examine things. That your posts tend to be crits of popular media stuff…or that when they are on science, they are innumerate and lack statistical significance.

Oh…and since you haven’t responded to my points on the Pielke line extensions, I will accept that my points were well made and you had no reponse. Too bad. Was really hoping to “push the thinking” further by having you point something out new. But that’s ok. I don’t need the satisfaction of having you admit a flaw. I’ll just take it as tacit.

By: dreamin

dreamin — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 05:51:06 +0000

"But why isn't there the same scrutiny applied to the motives of the climate alarmists?"

I totally agree. At a minimum, it seems like concern about AGW would stimulate and sustain climate research funding. And yet I have had warmers deny that there's any such incentive.

By: lenf

lenf — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 01:33:12 +0000

5. “hear”, 6. “Seemingly”

By: Daniel

Daniel — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 18:42:19 +0000

A couple points. If aerosols are masking the warming, then why isn’t there an agreed upon aerosol model used in the global climate models. Instead, all the GCMs get their results to conform to the temperature record by using different aerosol model. That is pretty fishy.

On the GISS, how ironic is it that the temperature record that most closely matches James Hansen’s predictions in James Hansen’s temperature record. http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/001330temperature_trends_1.html That is pretty fishy.

Lastly, Warren notes that many of the climate alarmists are distrustful of the motives of skeptics. They say that skeptics are climate “deniers” (similar to holocaust deniers), funded by ExxonMobil, etc. But why isn’t there the same scrutiny applied to the motives of the climate alarmists? As noted above, James Hansen’s temperature record most closely matches his predictions (and shows a higher temperature than others). And people at federally-funded climate science institutions have had very close ties to environmental organizations. For example, John Firor was Executive Director of the National Science Foundation sponsored National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) at the same time he was Chairman of the Board of Environmental Defense Fund. Diana Josephson was on NCAR’s Advisory Council at the same time as she was the senior vice president of Environmental Defense. Having influence at NCAR and an environmental activist group isn’t necessarily a problem, but imagine the uproar if the Executive Director of NCAR sat on ExxonMobil’s board.

By: dreamin

dreamin — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 16:26:16 +0000

In terms of tweaking models, I think we need a demonstration. Somebody needs to come up with a Global Climate Model that (1) assumes little or no sensitivity to CO2; and (2) matches beautifuly with the historical temperature record. I'm pretty confident I could do this, but I don't have a lot of uninterrupted time on my hands and I haven't programmed a computer in years.

We need this model to counter the warmers' argument that "if it's so easy to fudge a climate model, then why hasn't anyone come up with one that matches history but is insensitive to CO2?"

By: Adirian

Adirian — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 14:49:51 +0000

Al Fin, if you’re making an argument for the reliability of their models based on the “amount of money and political moment invested in them,” you’re shooting yourself in the foot. What would happen to James Hansen if he presented evidence AGAINST the political investment? Nevermind the money – political investment mean he and his bosses have staked their careers on a particular result.

The future of the planet is a distant speck – their immediate unemployment might just figure higher into their wager, particularly since these are individuals who have invested their entire LIVES into their careers.

By: Al Fin

Al Fin — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 08:48:50 +0000

But Warren, when you tweaked your models, did the outcome of your models have the same amount of money and political moment invested in them, as the outcome of IPCC models and James Hansen models?

These people are gambling the future of the planet on their tweakings.