Climate Change, separating science from propaganda.
David Springer has indicated that Uncommon Descent is the place to find out the truth about global warming. However, there are those who are unable to post queries or alternative views as Dave controls access to his threads.
So, in the hope that Dave is pursuing this topic in the light of furthering human knowledge, rather than taking a particular propaganda line ( You do live in Texas, after all, Dave), I offer this thread to all who have questions, additional evidence and material that they are unable to post at Uncommon Descent.
Naturally, I invite Dave and any fellow contributors and commenters from Uncommon Descent to participate if they wish. Usual minimal rules apply, (no obscenity, no spam) and as an additional request can I ask everyone to restrain themselves from using gratuitous abuse.
15 comments:
From this comment
DaveScot
02/18/2007
6:39 am
Pretty incredible. I take one look at the real satellite temperature data instead of the pencil whipped crap that’s foisted upon the public and in a few hours figure out the real cause of global warming and then find the studies that confirm my suspicions. Gawd I’m good. We’ve been lied to. C02 greenhouse effect is a lame duck. All politics and no science.
Dave, if you are saying we should leave the politics out of the Climate Change issue and try and filter the genuine science from the propaganda, I wholeheartedly agree. We are both on the side of humanity, it would seem.
The invite is up at UD:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/science/get-yourself-informed-on-temperature-anomalies/#comment-92204
Dave is becoming JAD, one big long thread with him replying to himself.
I've got the tinfoil for my hat ready, Dave. Protect me from zero wavelength radiation!
It is amazing...
We have the sycophantic acolytes at Uncommon Drooling declaring that a religious studies professor ha no business critiquing Dembski's math because he does nto have a PhD in math like Dembski does (nevermind that Dembski pontificates on genetics, evolution, etc. and yet has no degrees of any sort in these topics). And then we have the very idiots that complain about that pontificating themselves on issues like this - and not one of them has any relevant education or degrees or anything else.
The hypocisy of the UD crowd is almost as staggering as their overwhelming collective sense of intellectual superiority.
It is a shame that the bulk of them are too ignorant to know how ignorant they are, Springer being the most obvious.
Great idea, I posted some comments regarding glacial melting and quickly got banned. I was trying to be polite and reasonable. I guess DaveScot cannot tolerate any comments that go against his opinion.
So here I'll respond to some of his comments about my comments. My comments were posted here:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/education/antarctic-temperatures-disagree-with-climate-model-predictions/
First, he says "Glacier melting is a regional phenomenon. "
That's absolutely not true. Glaciers are retreating worldwide (except in Norway). For thorough discussion, see:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=157
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=129
Not to mention hundreds of other papers documenting glacial retreat and the consequences to humans.
Next, he says "Keep in mind Greenland was so named because 1000 years ago it was all green and was farmed."
That is so NOT true. Greenland has always been cold and icy. Vikings named it Greenland in an attempt to trick other settlers to come join them on their chunk of ice. Vikings settled it during a warm period, but it was still cold and rather inhospitable. Read some history, for crying out loud. And by the way, even if all the Greenland ice melted, it would not be a good place for farming. The soil is very thin and there have always been serious problems with erosion there. Even grazing is problematic.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=16928
Next, he says "Are glaciers in the upper northern hemisphere retreating? You bet. Is meltwater in the spring less? You bet. But the precipitation isn’t less. It’s not being captured and released when needed. That’s why dams were invented. People not fortunate enough to have glaciers who need the precipitation in the winter capture the precipitation in reservoirs and hold it there until needed for irrigation."
That is so absurb I'm not sure where to start. Huge amounts of fresh water are locked up in glaciers, and you need to go read some scientific literature about the global hydrology cycle to understand that when glaciers melt, water cannot simply be trapped by dams to provide the same amount of water. I get the impression that none of the readers of Uncommon Descent care very much about the turmoil people living in these areas will experience when they have almost no fresh water. At least, they never answered my questions about the moral implications of the issue.
Next, he asks me to "get myself informed" by going to a NASA web page. Since that office is located in my hometown and I know many scientists who work there, I can say I'm already more informed than he is about that data. I talk about this kind of thing with NASA scientists for fun and even took a climate change course with one of the PhD scientists in that group. In addition, all of the scientists at the Global Hydrology Center seem to agree with the basic premise of climate change, except for one, Dr. John Christy. The others all think the data points to warming.
That's all for now. I think it's disappointing that politics has gotten so caught up in climate science, but luckily, folks like DaveScot are in the minority. I am also heartened by Democratic wins in Congress. This is unfortunately a political issue and at least we now have some leaders who are willing to listen to science.
Looks like I can post on UD - only Dave has to release whatever I have written.
Dave - in case you are browsing. This really doesn't work. Stuff gets released out of sequence and it just isn't worth the effort of looking things up etc if you are not sure what's going to happen to your post.
Anyhow I see Dave is now posting on Climate Audit and Real Climate. Someone on Climate Audit (the sceptics site) has pointed out the problem with the supposed "Big Mistake Found in IPCC Report". I suggest it is best to let him thrash it out with the experts.
Ummm, it isn't that the data points to warming. The question is about what is causing it.
But it seems that sycophantic acolytes, like doppleganger, can't even understand that simple fact.
Oh well...
It looks like Dave has deleted the post inviting him. There's a suprise.
*puts tinfoil away*
I actually took a closer look at the web page DaveScot said I should look at to "educate" myself about this issue. Turns out that the data is from a dataset that in 2005 was found to contain a huge error. The study was done at my university too, so I've heard all about this! Turns out that when the data was corrected, the temperature data fell pretty much in line with other models. I posted some links on my blog.
I guess if you want to deny global warming, it helps to cite discredited data.
You'd have lasted a little longer Jennifer, if you'd have introduced him to your hot Marine Corps girlfriend.
Just so y'know.
Hi Jennifer,
Enjoyed reading your blog. Worth a look folks.
Hi Joe
What's your take on Climate Change? Do you see anecdotal evidence that the weather is getting warmer and more perturbed? Do you consider the possibility that human activity is contributing to any such change? Are you not persuaded by the fact that remedies suggested to help reduce the impact of human activity will also improve the environment (reduction of pollution, conservation of fossil fuel stocks, etc)?
Are you at all convinced by David Springer's "hypothesis"?
Mark
As dave is now actively soliciting your and Mike Dunford's presence at Uncommon Descent, and I sense a certain reluctance to continue a discussion with him there under the strictures imposed, please feel free to repeat the invitation to continue here. I reiterate only the most minimal moderation will apply.
Well I tried. Dave is going to remove my post and his reply so I repeat them here for posterity.
###############################
ME:
Dave
I am afraid I am not prepared to conduct a discussion where my replies are queued up and may or may not be posted some unpredictable time in the future depending on your decision. Also where other contributors who make polite and relevant points are dropped because you decide they are bluffing or whatever.
Should you want to continue the discussion on Alan Fox’s blog I understand the offer is still open. If I get time this evening I will try to post some comments on his blog - but, to be honest, your are in far more expert hands than mine on Real Climate and Climate Audit.
Cheers
#############################
Dave's reply
Mark Frank
I am afraid I am not prepared to conduct a discussion where my replies are queued up
I guess that rules out realclimate for you and a million other blogs with moderation. [shrug]
Should you want to continue the discussion on Alan Fox’s blog
Fox’s blog has no google rank. I prefer that when I write on certain subjects it gets indexed on google with a high ranking. Because of Alan’s anything-goes-as-long-you-don’t-cuss policy his threads inevitably turn into all heat and no light insult fests when there’s any disagreement. If I want to trade insults and avoid having it show up on google searches I’ll be sure to come over to Alan’s blog to do it, ok?
P.S. I want to keep this comment thread on topic so this response and yours will both be disappearing soon. Don’t freak out when it does.
#########################
Oh Joe, will you never learn?
Ummm, it isn't that the data points to warming. The question is about what is causing it.
Then you'd best inform your pal, Dave Springer.
But it seems that sycophantic acolytes, like doppleganger, can't even understand that simple fact.
Funny - I did not comment one way or the other on the issue of global warming. I only pointed out the collective ignorance and hypocrisy of the crowd at UD - who are, in fact, certainly many of them, sycophantic acolytes.
I suggest, Joe, that you use your electronics engineering degree and look up those latrge words in an online dictionary.
If you do this, you will see that I am neither a sycphant nor an acolyte.
Oh well...
Indeed...
DaveTard:
I prefer that when I write on certain subjects it gets indexed on google with a high ranking.
Ahh! Something His Tardness and I can agree on. I do so love when his comments are indelible.
Post a Comment