Global Warming?

mysteryman wrote:

maporsche wrote:
flaja wrote:
Because we don't know what the past frequency has been. Thus we cannot predict whether that frequency will increase or decrease for one reason or another. But global warmongers have forecast that the frequency of hurricanes will go up because of global warming.

No kidding flaja! I agree with this point.

What I'm asking is WHERE do "global warmongers" say that the frequency of hurricanes will go up because of GW?

IAre you are asking for evidence or links to where people have made that claim, or are you asking "where" as in what part of the world will experience more frequent hurricanes?

Either way, I believe these articles will interest you.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070730092544.htm

http://www.webpennys.com/hurricane_frequency_study/index.html

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N17367701.htm

The first article you posted actually talks about the frequency of hurricanes being caused by GW, but does make the point that it is impossible to PREDICT the frequency or intensity. I'll have to reasearch this particular article a little more.

The 2nd article only cites GW for the number of hurricanes reaching the USA, not the overall number of hurricanes forming. I could see how more intense storms may last or travel further than less intense storms, and GW is cited as a cause for increased intensity.

And the 3rd article only talks about the intensity, not the frequency.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

maporsche wrote:

What I'm asking is WHERE do "global warmongers" say that the frequency of hurricanes will go up because of GW?

Where have you been? Did you forget a couple of years ago or whenever Katrina hit? Thats all we heard for a while, among other things about how Bush blew up the dikes, and whatever else.

I remember hearing about more damaging hurricanes, stronger hurricanes, but I was unsure if frequency of hurricanes had been discussed. When I began to research this more I've found few articles that claim that GW causes MORE total hurricanes worldwide.

0 Replies

flaja wrote:

Whether or not there is global warming is cause enough for debate. You are demanding that I agree with at least part of your global warming beliefs before you will even enter into a discussion of the issue. This shows the folly of your position. You insist on having your argument half-won before you will agree to even consider any opposing view. I don't call it global warming dogma for nothing.

Several people tried to engage you on that very topic and all you did was reject data from NASA and MSU saying that their techniques are faulty. You've suggested other methodologies, but we can't review those methodologies since they don't seem to be available on the Internet for us to review and comment on. It seems we are at an impasse. You won't accept data we find on the Internet and your data is not available.

Several groups of scientists and laymen have speculated on what the impact of global warming might be. Some of these speculations are alarmist and some are only based loosely on science. Because some of these speculations don't appear to be accurate doesn't mean the globe isn't warming. The hurricane tangent is a good example of this. Yes, some group or another suggested the 2005 whopper season was due to global warming (based on nothing). 2006 and 2007 seem to refute that, but in reality we know so little about hurricane formation that it is doubtful anyone could state a good hypothesis about the impact of global warming on hurricanes in the first place. Global temperature seems to be a very small contributor to hurricanes.

0 Replies

engineer wrote:

Several people tried to engage you on that very topic and all you did was reject data from NASA and MSU saying that their techniques are faulty.

Because their techniques are faulty.[/i] You do not measure the temperatures in the atmosphere by factoring in temperatures at the surface. You do not put satellites in orbit, use them to measure temperature data for 20 years and then decide that they are not working properly because the data do not agree with what you want to claim.

[quote]You've suggested other methodologies, but we can't review those methodologies since they don't seem to be available on the Internet for us to review and comment on.[/quote]

That doesn't mean that these other methodologies don't exist or aren't valid. If the sum total of your reality is found only on the internet, you are in a very sad state.

[quote]Because some of these speculations don't appear to be accurate doesn't mean the globe isn't warming.[/quote]

The inaccuracies do, however, show how eager global warmongers are to put forth falsities regarding their pet theory. If they can make such simple mistakes as not realizing their satellites are faulty until they have been used for decades, and if they make blatantly outlandish predictions (such as an increase in the frequency of hurricanes) then what faith can anyone put in their other claims and data?

0 Replies

I'm not saying you're wrong, only that we are at an impasse.

You can say that the techniques of experts in the field are faulty. I don't know enough to defend their techniques, but I defer to their expertise. If I want insight into a medical problem, I ask a doctor. Of course, I apply common sense to the answer I get, but I still respect a competent doctor's knowledge. The same with scientists presenting global warming data. It's not like the folks at NASA are pro-global warming. They're an arm of the US government. I can't compare those techniques to the ones you feel are valid unless I want to take a quick trip to the library. You haven't represented yourself as an expert in the field so I have no reason to accept your interpretation of the data and the authors you mentioned don't seem to have those credentials either.

You can't make me believe that global warming is not occurring with what you've presented when I've reviewed data that says otherwise. Likewise, it is obvious that those trying to convince you will not be successful either. Seems futile to continue on.

0 Replies

engineer wrote:

I'm not saying you're wrong, only that we are at an impasse.

You can say that the techniques of experts in the field are faulty. I don't know enough to defend their techniques, but I defer to their expertise. If I want insight into a medical problem, I ask a doctor. Of course, I apply common sense to the answer I get, but I still respect a competent doctor's knowledge. The same with scientists presenting global warming data. It's not like the folks at NASA are pro-global warming. They're an arm of the US government. I can't compare those techniques to the ones you feel are valid unless I want to take a quick trip to the library. You haven't represented yourself as an expert in the field so I have no reason to accept your interpretation of the data and the authors you mentioned don't seem to have those credentials either.

You can't make me believe that global warming is not occurring with what you've presented when I've reviewed data that says otherwise. Likewise, it is obvious that those trying to convince you will not be successful either. Seems futile to continue on.

Since the human body is far less complex than the workings of the entire earth and medicine does lend itself to the scientific method, i.e., experimentation, doctors know more about medicine than climatologists do about climate trends.

BTW: how many scientists at NASA (and every other government agency, department or bureau) are there under the civil service system meaning that they can say and believe anything they wish to believe and not be fired?

0 Replies

flaja wrote:

engineer wrote:
I'm not saying you're wrong, only that we are at an impasse. ...

Since the human body is far less complex than the workings of the entire earth and medicine does lend itself to the scientific method, i.e., experimentation, doctors know more about medicine than climatologists do about climate trends.

BTW: how many scientists at NASA (and every other government agency, department or bureau) are there under the civil service system meaning that they can say and believe anything they wish to believe and not be fired?

At this point, we aren't debating what is causing global warming or what the impact of global warming is. We can't even agree that there is global warming. Do I trust scientists who specialize in the field to develop adequate methodology to measure global temperature? Yes I do. You are essentially saying that of all the scientists trying to measure global temperature, only those seeing an increase are posting their data on the Internet. That doesn't make sense to me.

As for civil service protecting scientists, it doesn't protect their supervisors and it is pretty hard to publish government work on government websites if your supervisors don't agree. We already seen examples of the present administration editing scientists' work to keep in line with administration policy.

0 Replies

Inasmuch as scientists begin to venture into the world of politics, then perhaps it is entirely warranted that politicians might see fit to edit the reports, just my opinion. I am skeptical enough of some of this stuff that I am not going to take at face value the accusations of so-called scientists that may also be presenting data with a political vector to it.

In defense of Flaja, I am not prepared to argue there is no climate change, however, we do know that some temperature readings are in fact open to question and may have accuracy issues. I tend to think surface air temperatures are more open to errors and effects due to land use, urban heat islands, and skewed local conditions around weather stations, as well as possible errors in instrumentation in times past. After all, we are talking about a fraction of a degree, C. The change we are talking about may not much exceed the margin of error in terms of our ability to measure it. Sort of like polling data. That is why I tend to take ocean temperatures a bit more seriously, and there we are now seeing temperatures as of November, 2007 only around 0.25 C above the historical average, well within the realm of what the effects of solar cycles may be bringing about, as calculated.

0 Replies

engineer wrote:

Do I trust scientists who specialize in the field to develop adequate methodology to measure global temperature? Yes I do.

If you trust scientists who have a political axe to grind or whose aim is to support a particular philosophy or worldview, then you are a fool.

Quote:

You are essentially saying that of all the scientists trying to measure global temperature, only those seeing an increase are posting their data on the Internet.

I haven't said this at all, and I have provided weblinks to information showing that the available data are not consistent. Even people who believe in global warming admit that some of their data indicate falling temperatures in some places.

Quote:

As for civil service protecting scientists, it doesn't protect their supervisors and it is pretty hard to publish government work on government websites if your supervisors don't agree.

Wouldn't the supervisors be civil service employees as well? When it comes to the federal bureaucracy a President has little opportunity to imprint his own beliefs and opinions on people that technically work for him.

Quote:

We already seen examples of the present administration editing scientists' work to keep in line with administration policy.

I find it ironic that the Left has claimed that GWB is stifling science because he won't let global warming data reach the public when you have pointed out how NASA scientists have still been "allowed" to publish data in support of global warming. You cannot have it both ways. If the President has the power to muzzle the entire executive branch of the federal government and keep it from saying things that he doesn't want said, GWB is doing a very poor job. Low and even medium level government employees are not legally bound to do the President's bidding because he cannot fire them for violating his wishes.

0 Replies

flaja wrote:

engineer wrote:
Do I trust scientists who specialize in the field to develop adequate methodology to measure global temperature? Yes I do.

If you trust scientists who have a political axe to grind or whose aim is to support a particular philosophy or worldview, then you are a fool.

As far as I can tell, you define all scientists who support global warming as ones with political axes to grind and the smaller number who don't as great minds with pure motives. I see most scientists as interested in obtaining the definitive answer faster than everyone else. In order to win in the world of science, you have to have the correct answer first. Your approach must be able to withstand attack from other scientists who want to be first themselves. Putting out the wrong answer because of politics is not a successful strategy. I'm not saying scientists are saints. I work with lots of them and they can be aloof, arrogant and parochial, but I've never met one who would willingly hang his hat on the wrong answer for any reason.

flaja wrote:

engineer wrote:
As for civil service protecting scientists, it doesn't protect their supervisors and it is pretty hard to publish government work on government websites if your supervisors don't agree.

Wouldn't the supervisors be civil service employees as well? When it comes to the federal bureaucracy a President has little opportunity to imprint his own beliefs and opinions on people that technically work for him.

I disagree. At the highest level, the supervisor is a political appointee and serves at the pleasure of the President. The director of NASA is a good example. All those fired federal attorneys were not protected by any civil service legislation. All those ambitious civil servants know that their careers are dependent on making the boss happy.

flaja wrote:

engineer wrote:
We already seen examples of the present administration editing scientists' work to keep in line with administration policy.

I find it ironic that the Left has claimed that GWB is stifling science because he won't let global warming data reach the public when you have pointed out how NASA scientists have still been "allowed" to publish data in support of global warming. You cannot have it both ways. If the President has the power to muzzle the entire executive branch of the federal government and keep it from saying things that he doesn't want said, GWB is doing a very poor job...

Bush's administration can't edit the data. Facts are facts. What they can and have done is to manage the interpretation of the data. I know the link I provided above is one you probably considered tainted by those nasty liberals (likewise I consider the one you sent to Senator Inhofe's site as tainted given his extreme bias on warming) but it does make for interesting reading. It shows a long running and consistent effort to sow doubt and spread confusion around the global warming issue.

0 Replies

engineer wrote:

As far as I can tell, you define all scientists who support global warming as ones with political axes to grind and the smaller number who don't as great minds with pure motives.

Any scientist that insists that the globe is warming (even though a good amount of data says it is not) is not being honest. Therefore such scientists have motives other than science.

Any scientist that insists that human activity causes global warming when thee is absolutely no experimental data to this effect is a fraud.

Quote:

I disagree. At the highest level, the supervisor is a political appointee and serves at the pleasure of the President.

But that highest ranking supervisor has very little input into the government's day to day work. If a government employee wishes to spout global warming dogma on the government's time, there isn't a whole lot the highest ranking supervisor or the President can do about it.

Quote:

The director of NASA is a good example.

And he has little say in how NASA's civil service employees do their job because he cannot fire these civil service employees.

Quote:

All those fired federal attorneys were not protected by any civil service legislation.

They weren't scientists either. Any presidential appointee serves at the discretion of the President that appointed him. Civil service employees (the overwhelming bulk of federal government employees, including NASA scientists) serve for as long as they wish to (providing they don't end up in jail), and neither the President, nor any of his non-civil service appointees, have much say in how they do their work.

Quote:

All those ambitious civil servants know that their careers are dependent on making the boss happy.

You don't really understand how the civil service system in this country works, do you?

Quote:

Bush's administration can't edit the data.

But yet Bush's Administration can tell the scientists what the truth is for political reasons by telling the scientists to keep their mouths shut? How can the Bush Administration distort the work of government scientists if the Bush Administration cannot edit the data?

You are on both sides of this argument and don't realize it.

Quote:

(likewise I consider the one you sent to Senator Inhofe's site as tainted given his extreme bias on warming) but it does make for interesting reading.

I don't recall specifically linking to an Inhofe site; can you tell me which one it was?

And just how do you know that your interpretation of the available data is any better than anyone else's interpretation? Is an interpretation legitimate when you agree with it and bogus otherwise?

0 Replies

flaja wrote:

I don't recall specifically linking to an Inhofe site; can you tell me which one it was?

And just how do you know that your interpretation of the available data is any better than anyone else's interpretation? Is an interpretation legitimate when you agree with it and bogus otherwise?

My mistake. Okie linked to that site.

I don't know that those I've read have the best interpretation, but I feel they are valid in their approaches and you don't. Moreover, you feel that anyone that concludes as they have must inherently be biased politically. By your definition you win. All who don't agree with your position are lying for political reasons and all who support you are true and honest. We don't even have a common reference for debate and no data or argument I could make to you will change your position. By even making such arguments or by putting credence in the work of scientists, I must be a lefty political hack, naive or a fool by your definition. Like I said, we are at an impasse.

0 Replies

engineer wrote:

I don't know that those I've read have the best interpretation, but I feel they are valid in their approaches and you don't.

What makes their approach valid?

Quote:

Moreover, you feel that anyone that concludes as they have must inherently be biased politically.

Until I see scientists, who accept global warming as fact, support practical measures for combating global warming, I will stand by my conclusion that they all have political motives for accepting global warming. As long as the only solution to global warming is something like Kyoto, then global warming is a political issue, not a scientific one.

Quote:

By your definition you win. All who don't agree with your position are lying for political reasons and all who support you are true and honest.

Not my position at all. I can see where a scientist who works for business and industry can conclude that global warming isn't happening because the scientist doesn't want to make business and industry look bad (substitute Exxon scientist for NASA scientist). All I am asking for is that all of the data be considered in an open, honest and forthright manner and that conclusions either way not be based on incomplete or inconsistent data and that whatever hypothesis is put forward be tested by experimentation.

0 Replies

flaja wrote:

engineer wrote:
Moreover, you feel that anyone that concludes as they have must inherently be biased politically.

Until I see scientists, who accept global warming as fact, support practical measures for combating global warming, I will stand by my conclusion that they all have political motives for accepting global warming. As long as the only solution to global warming is something like Kyoto, then global warming is a political issue, not a scientific one.

You mean like this guy who repudiated 30 years of global eco activism to support an all out push for nuclear power to slow global warming?

0 Replies

engineer wrote:

flaja wrote:
engineer wrote:
Moreover, you feel that anyone that concludes as they have must inherently be biased politically.

Until I see scientists, who accept global warming as fact, support practical measures for combating global warming, I will stand by my conclusion that they all have political motives for accepting global warming. As long as the only solution to global warming is something like Kyoto, then global warming is a political issue, not a scientific one.

You mean like this guy who repudiated 30 years of global eco activism to support an all out push for nuclear power to slow global warming?

As an energy source that produces no carbon-dioxide, nuclear power is fine. But nuclear power produces other waste materials that we definitely know are dangerous. Even without global warming it was stupid to ever have considered nuclear power until we had exhausted other renewable energy sources (namely biodiesel and biomass methane, which are proven low-tech options that can be implemented on a small scale at the local level while solving some other problems at the same time). In a post 9-11 world nuclear power is absolutely ludicrous.

I would venture that Mr. Lovelock is a plant by the nuclear power industry.

0 Replies

flaja wrote:

I would venture that Mr. Lovelock is a plant by the nuclear power industry.

0 Replies

Aside from what is politics or science, this subject lends itself to anybody with a slight bit of common sense and intelligence to look at the graphs and data and form their own opinions. Some people say believe me because I am a scientist and you aren't, while they also say don't believe that guy because he is being paid by an oil company. My opinion is, look at the data, and if the data are valid and support their conclusion, who cares who paid for it? In my opinion, the government funded studies are just as suspect as privately funded studies, if not moreso.

0 Replies

Global Warming?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know