jack, give me a break. Censored? Your opinion is right out there in the open for everyone to see on the main post. At this point I think the thing people are most skeptical about is whether or not you actually hold this set of enormously inconsistent opinions which is so clearly based on blatant cherry-picking of which evidence you deem worthy of believing, or if it's simply more likely that you're one of those people who have a vested interest in disinforming the public, like an writer for a hard-right-wing talk-radio show or a manager at a coal plant.

Either way, the public can read your opinions and decide for themselves whether or not you're a lone voice of truth trying to cut through a secret socialist agenda. I'm done discussing the matter with you though; you had 16 posts over the course of a week to outline your case, that's plenty. If you feel you need more, that's what this space is for.

Good luck, and may the force be with you, always.

- Logisti

jack said:

16 posts–and you were able to refute exactly 0% of what I said.

---

Well, that's up to the readers to decide.

Actually Jack, I refuted several things you posted (please see August 18, 2008 9:34 am) but you refused, twice, I might add, to respond. You misinterpret data, don't understand it's context, further along other's opinion as fact, and completely ignore what you can't refute.

Your "logic" on this issue, such as it is, shifts wildly as needed (and largely self-conflicts). I won't presume to speak for Logisti, but I think he removed you from the thread as it is impossible to have a discussion with you - you literally just restate the same things over and over, without actually responding to what anyone else posts.

It gets extremely frustrating when someone loudly and rudely accuses others of doing exactly what they're doing. And no, I'm not doing that here (well, I am doing the loud and rude part). You accuse others of ignoring "evidence" while doing it yourself.

Prove me wrong, answer the post I referenced above.

And finally, when you wrote :

But there IS an experiment that will convince me that the Earth is warming and that humans are the cause.

Find that ideal temperature. Are we above or below it? Did the possible rise coincide with the advent of human civilization(particularly industrial civilization)? Can every other possible cause be factored out? Do all that and I will believe that WE are warming the planet. No, scratch that–then I will KNOW that we are warming the planet–and so will everyone else.

That was very telling. You basically stated that there is no actual way you can be convinced that humans are causing warming. Way to look at the "best evidence".

Logisti, I appologize for ranting a bit, but intellectual dishonesty gets me going. I should follow the old axiom of "never try and convince a crazy person they're crazy".

Okay, let's look at your post–though let me first point out that I stated, at the beginning of my response to you, why I didn't initially bother to respond.

It looks like you're saying you'd like me to take this apart? Yes/ No?

while you may question scientists' motivation, many of us question yours.

Naturally, I'm asking for healthy skepticism on a subject you don't want to be skeptical about–it's a perfectly reasonable reaction.

You seem fixated on the yearly temperature data. First of all, WWII started in 1939, so only four of the top ten years on record were prior to WWII.

I wouldn't say fixated. I threw that out there because it's an example of something being found out by a 'denier' that was immediately followed by 'believers' grudgingly admitting it–with a whole lotta 'buts'–just like you.

So what, was one of the years during WW2 based on the start date? Whose start date? That little thing is a semantic difference–easily resolved by saying 5 of the top ten years were before 1950.

But none of that matters. The ONLY reason I brought it up was to show that unrelated sources are better.

Secondly, the data you keep referring to goes back to 1880. According to the same list of temperatures your keep referring to, the last 13 years have been the warmest, on average, in recorded history. On average is the key, as we're looking for trends, not spikes. And finally, this is all meaningless, since this data you seem so keen upon using time and time again as your "unbiased" basis for much of your argument is ONLY FOR THE UNITED STATES, NOT THE WORLD. It's called global warming for a reason.

It's meaningless because it was only used to illustrate my point, DBBE–that having unrelated sources is better. I don't care about the averages, the reasoning–only that the record was changed only AFTER a 'denier' made it an issue.

Now we'll move on to the Global Cooling from the 1970s. At no point was it "another situation in which the consensus of scientists agreed." It was a media-hyped situation, not a scientific one. Only a small percentage (~10%) of climate change papers during the 70's held that there would be a long-term cooling trend (and yes, I can site this if you really want).

But can you cite it without recourse to sources that have a dog in this fight? There's been a lot of talk about this issue in the debate–and a lot of 'believers' trying to prove it wasn't true.

Again, one of the most telling examples of this as hysteria that I've seen was when a 'denier' simply searched newspaper records for talk about the phenomena and discovered that the warming/cooling issue itself has been in the papers well back into the 1800s–sometimes it's warming, sometimes it's cooling. But it goes back and forth.

Now this isn't the best source–the person who put it forth clearly has an agenda–but it's possible to track down the information yourself. The records are still there. Better even than unrelated sources–you can do it yourself.

Was it a widespread issue in the 70s? It certainly looked like it to me. But I will say that science didn't seem to bear the taint I see now. They debated, compared results–there was none of this 'denier' crap.

And I have to say that ALL of this is media hyped. There's no such thing as 'consensus' in science. It's wrong or it's right–no matter how many people agree with one side or the other.

There are other things scientists arge violently about–some potentially far more dangerous than the GW debate. Do we hear about them? Do we see scientists seeking 'consensus'? No. If we look through scientific publications we can watch the debate rage–not for consensus, but for right or wrong–backed by proof–not groups of people.

About 90% still mentioned long term warming trends. In fact, in 1976 the World Meteorological Organization issued a warning that a "very significant warming of global climate" was probable. This does not sound like consensus to me.

You know, I went back and realized that all this '70s' stuff was over a throwaway line. And it might very well be true that there were far more people who thought we were in a warming trend–but they weren't getting airtime. What was being reported sounded a lot like it does today. And look–a LOT of the scientists involved in preaching AGW today were preaching the coming Ice Age then.

But the similarity is uncanny–one side dominating the media.

Hey, I've gotta look into this and find out if there are scientists on the 'denier' side today who were one the 'denier' side then. Wouldn't that be a kick in the ass.

Of course, if I do find that this is true there's probably someone out there who'll say they're all being paid by Big Oil.

Finally, I can't stand the red herring of "the earth has been much hotter than it is now". It's true, but that's not the point. If it took thousands (or tens of thousands) of years to get warmer in the past, and we duplicate the same change in a couple of hundred years, that isn't the "natural cycle". Many species can not adapt that quickly.

Well we don't know what can adapt-WE can, all we've gotta do is heat less.

But why is it a red herring? I've got a lot of plants that seem to do quite well with hot summers and mild winters. Are well looking into whether we can make this warming a good thing at all? Because it seems to me were focused on making it colder at the same time that we're focused on eliminating our heating sources in exchange for ones that aren't as efficient in cold climates.

(I won't say evolve, because that's probably another conspiracy, right?)

And then there's this. This pissed me off. I think I've actually discussed evolutionary theory on this site wrt cryptozoology.

But what it says to me is that just because I don't leap to believe what you believe to you I'm some beetle-browed Creationist who thinks science is the purview of elitist eggheads while we REAL thinkers believe the Truth, as handed down in the Bible. Should I grunt and scratch myself for you?

You don't even consider what that makes you look like to me.

Logisti has made comments and included links that I've read or researched–just so that I could have a reasoned argument. I've used those links themselves–or other AGW believer sites to refute the points made.

And all of you keep talking as if that never happened. Or worse–as if none of you bothered to check what I gave you(sadly, I do think, based on prior experience with AGW believers that even if you DID check, and even if you found my refutations to be correct, you'd STILL keep talking as if it never happened).

Understand, I lump YOU in with Creationists, fundamentalists, Atheists, and hardcore Socialists/Communists–all the religious and quasi–religious philosophies out there. You are maddenly self referential, you are way too fond of circular logic, you are far to easily infuriated by opinions other than your own, you are very willing to ignore facts that get in the way of your beliefs—I could go on and on. Should I?

No. That serves no useful purpose. Instead I try reasoned discourse. I try to point out the simple fact thay sources that have NO bias are far better than sources that can be imputed to have a bias–whether that bias actually exists or not.

I can't believe that I have to fight to get people to admit that, on this of all sites.

Y'know, I was rude there, Brenny, and I'm sorry. It's just that it is very exasperating to have someone admit that they couldn't understand the posts–and then comment derisively on the content.

But there was no call for my rudeness. I'm sorry.

I can't believe I'm actually responing - again - but….

Why? Debate is good.

So what, was one of the years during WW2 based on the start date? Whose start date? That little thing is a semantic difference–easily resolved by saying 5 of the top ten years were before 1950.

Way to change your statements after the fact. Dates are a "semantical difference" WW-II becomes before 1950.

Well, the particular article I got that from didn't provide the date–they simply said 'before WW2 started–it was an overview. From the year you gave me I took it that yours didn't co-incide with the start date the people making the claim had used. Which is fine–but unless I know both start dates used, I can't make a definitive statement–was it when Germany started their invasions? was it when the US entered? I don't know how what criteria they're using to define 'start date'.

So, yes, I altered MY statement to fit your and their start dates–and both, like WW2, are before 1950.

I don't care about the averages.

So, now we can add statistical analysis to the list of media-hyped, dogmatic believer crap. By whatever measure you want use use (standard deviations, control limits, moving averages,…) YOUR data shows that the planet is heating up.

Sigh. I don't care about the averages because it wasn't germane. It had nothing to do with what I was attempting to illustrate–which was that when a 'denier' discovered that the ACTUAL hottest year on record was not the year being claimed–and that 5 of the ten hottest occured BEFORE 1950 it was quietly changed, without fanfare, until 'deniers' made a stink–at which point the facts trumped the alarmism(though we were quickly told that these facts didn't change anything).

It's meaningless because it was only used to illustrate my point, DBBE–that having unrelated sources is better.

So, let me get this straight. You throw out "facts". Someone refutes those facts. Suddenly, facts become meaningless, only "illustrations of your point".

Meaningless? No. They are very meaningful. They actually made me go look–6 of the hottest years on record are before 1955. 6–and 1939–the year you use as your start date is one of them(and there are 4 earlier in the century). It looks like their start date was when the US entered the war(which makes them correct within THEIR semantics–and YOU correct within yours).

What's meaningless is the argument over the start date. It has no bearing on my point–the quiet alteration of the record–THAT has bearing.

At no point were we having a discussion as to what the media portrayed in the 70's. What you wrote is that Global Cooling in the 1970s was "another situation in which the consensus of scientists agreed". NO IT WASN"T. So now we must not respond to what you write - "scientific consensus", but respond to what you meant - "media hyped".

And, having lived through it, I can honestly say that I do not recall ever hearing about 'the scientific consensus' in the seventies. What I did hear, and what can be found in newspaper and periodical records, was that 'many' or 'most' scientific experts agree that… Because that's how they phrased things in those days.

Was there an actual 'consensus'? You say no. Fine But you haven't backed that up with anything–not even something from a AGW 'believer' website.

However, I DO know that we know there's this 'consensus' today because it's in the media. And I DO know that there was the same appearance of a 'consensus' then because it was in the media. But honestly, I have no idea if there's an actual consensus at either time. I haven't seen anything that confirms that–I've seen competing petitions from scientists–quite a few of which would benefit from scare quotes–on both sides of the issue.

But actuality? I have no idea. Though I have stated that science isn't a 'consensus' field–so this is yet another argument that is not relevent to my main point– I just threw it in to illustrate the malleability of the issue

And look–a LOT of the scientists involved in preaching AGW today were preaching the coming Ice Age then.

Does this have any basis other than "Rush Limbau.., er Jack's opinion"?

Here's an article from 1971 in which James Hansen and Stephen Schnieder–both still active–are involved in the thing I apparently made up about the coming Ice Age(but I'll expect that you'll ignore it)–

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost_historical/access/144703752.html?dids=144703752:144703752&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:AI&fmac=&date=Jul+9,+1971&author=By+Victor+CohnWashington+Post+Staff+Writer&desc=U.S.+Scientist+Sees+New+Ice+Age+Coming

Logisti has made comments and included links that I've read or researched–just so that I could have a reasoned argument. I've used those links themselves–or other AGW believer sites to refute the points made.

And all of you keep talking as if that never happened.

Ummm - no you haven't. At best, you come back with "they lied". This is my (main) issue with you. You don't do this at all. IF you actually follow a link, you either respond with an unsubstantiated, undocumented "it's not true", or throw out some unrelated "fact" to counter it. If you actually did this, anyone could have a reasoned disagreement with you. Interestingly, you used argument instead of disagreement or discussion.

Did you read the links? The Guardian headline states that "Katrina oil spills may be among worst on record" And the envirowonk link lists the top ten, and tells us that the Exxon Valdez was at #34. It is clearly nowhere near being among the worst on record–hell the ACTUAL worst oil spills in the US don't even make the top ten.

And this was germane to my point–it clearly shows the Guardian ignoring the facts in favor of alarmism.

…you are very willing to ignore facts that get in the way of your beliefs—I could go on and on. Should I?

Please offer a fact, any fact, so that I may have the opportunity to ignore it. Let me qualify that. Any related fact. If we are discussing polar ice caps, the "unbiased fact" regarding Innuit birthrates, while fascinating to some, doesn't really help along the discussion

I have–in this post. Check the link that shows Hansen involved in the Ice Age hysteria. Check that Guardian article–and the list on envirowonk.

Show me how what I said is wrong.

And do a bit of clear thinking–unrelated sources is not the same as unrelated facts. The fact that polar bear populations are healthy which has been stated by zoologists(healthy enough to be harvested)–is actually supported in the very document that supports listing them as 'threatened'. The first is an 'unrelated source'–the second is a source that is invested in proving that AGW is real(and yet I could find THAT statement in THEIR report–go figure)

It must be nice to be the arbiter of what's biased or not. I'll summarize. Fact, statement, or musing that supports position that there either is no global warming or that man isn't causing it - unbiased. Everything else, biased and/or part of a global conspiracy.

I keep providing links, you keep ignoring them. Should I re-link the Guardian article and the envirowonk site to make it easier?

Finally, as to your other rampling post abouth "le grande' experiment".

Rambling(yes, I know this leaves me open to spelling correction–that's okay, it just looked like it was deliberate, rather than a typo). Yes it was. I was trying to put the experiment together on the fly.

1. It's impossible. Still. And probably always will be.
2. Can't go back in time and take daily temerature readings for all of human existence.
3. "Ideal temperature" is meaningless as to this discussion. If you are making case that global warming isn't "bad", we can discuss separately. A hypothetical "ideal temperature" has NOTHING to do with whether or not WE are causing global warming.

Your 1 is a pointless statement. Particularly since it's self-contradictory. Something can't be 'impossible' and then just 'probably' impossible. But even if clarified(now after 'impossible), it still doesn't make any contributing statement.

We use ice cores to get rough temperature estimates now, and various means to extrapolate temperatures that we cannot use ice cores for. Additionally, as this debate heats up I expect new techniques to be devised. So, while we can't–at this time–be 100% precise, we can get close enough for my purposes(and probably even closer in the near future). So your 2 is not really of consequence.

Your 3 is correct though–as is your 4. But it looked, as I was thinking it through, like finding an ideal temperature would be easier–and more productive.

Finding out whether we're the cause of GW would require being able to filter out the background noise–and the fact that we can't do that yet is one of my reasons for being skeptical(kinda circular, no?–but I am looking for ways out of that circularity).

Finally, I've gotta say I don't see why there's anger here or why anyone would think this is a waste of time. When I get into conversations like this, I'm made to challenge my own beliefs, to defend what I'm saying and find corroboration–and sometimes to find out things I didn't know–like the Mineral Service trying to downplay the impact of the Katrina spills.

Life is a learning experience–enjoy it.

No need to buy it. Here is an article discussing it, and here is another refuting that article.

So you'll grant Schnieder but not Hansen? Yes? I can live with that.

I put "The Next Great Ice Age' in Yahoo and read what came up. I tried to avoid obvious 'denier' bias. The link I included was just one that I figured was clean–the Washimgton Post isn't a 'denier' supporter. Sorry it didn't work–I should've checked it. I just copied and pasted it after reading the article and seeing the screenshot from the WaPo.

I do question Hansens' current denunciation of his involvement–hindsight is 20/20, you know.

Regardless, it does appear that the paper supports the idea of AGC–not just an Ice Age, but a man made Ice Age.

You place a lot of store in that IF–as IF it's relevent. It's not. What IS relevent is that, with a minimum of effort, I found at least one person who was involved then and now. Two if you don't accept Hansens' current denials(and I will say–given some of his statements–I am not inclined to cut him any slack) that he knew what they were using it for.

Jack,

this will be my lost posting on this thread. Much as the wise Logisti did, I've given up.

Amazingly, so have I. We are arguing at cross purposes. I started this, not with the idea of convincing anyone to take my position, but rather to expound on the value of sources of information that back up one's position without even the slightest hint of any bias due to the fact that they were collecting similar(or identical) data for reasons unrelated to the debate.

You keep complaining that no one will look at your "evidence". You post a link that doesn't work.

Explaining that I found the article on a denier site and posted the link to the original material that was included at that site means nothing? I did not want to point to ANYTHING from a denier site.

You obviously never read the article that supposedly supports your claim, which it doesn't (the Washington Post article, that is).

Let us be clear here. My claim regarding the article was a simple one–that Hansen and Schneider, two people prominent in the AGW movement, has been involved in the AGC movement of the seventies. That is the entirety of the claim that had me post the faulty link–and it was made in response to YOUR insinuation that I or Rush Limbaugh were the only source.

The article was co-written by Schneider, and part of their evidence was garnered with a program written by Hansen. And it speaks of a coming ice age–that will be brought on by human actions.

Now, you dispute Hansen because he has, years after the fact, issued statements that minimize his participation. But, I have to point out that in the 1971 paper, he is not doing this–and his level of participation, however he might want it minimized, is still participation.

Which means that my claim, no matter how much you might not like it, is literally true.

You basically admitted that you didn't read the article you were citing as evidence.

Actually, I admitted that I included a bad link. You're making a HUGE assumption. I've been going on about reading–why would I not read? Reading found me all sorts of interesting things.

You keep getting on your "unbiased" high horse, yet you use an editorial, written by a "denier", that refers to an article that you haven't read, that refers to a paper about which you know nothing. That's an unbiased source of info? Again, if it agrees with you, it's unbiased.

Sigh. None of this has anything to do with my point about unrelated sources. I put out the idea that unrelated sources were better because you can find ones that are making similar or identical findings–but for reasons unrelated to the AGW debate. I posted a bit about that–and got sucked into this whole thing.

The rest of your response illustrates that. It has nothing to do with my original point and instead focuses, often hugely erroneously on the ancilliary arguments that are not and never were central to my point. The only reason I got involved in them at all was an attempt to illustrate that even a suggestion of bias can be a taint.

Your diatribe about Katrina–in which I am excoriated for providing information that contradicts what I'm saying was only included as a 'favor' to Logisti–because he failed to post a link to a single article that supported his claim that deniers were saying that there were no Katrina spills.

I–not he or you–found an article and a paper in which a government agency minimizes the impact of the spills. It is a partial affirmation of Logistis argument–NOT mine.

Do you get that at all?

It is kind of funny though. I asked you to look at the alarmist headline about the Katrina spills that Logisti had posted–and the link I posted refuting it and instead you chose the article I posted to support Logistis stance. The article from which I make MY reference to the government lying about the impact of the spills.

I showed that the government lied about the impact of the spills–as I set out to do. And you take me to task for it.

And, in the end, I have strayed far from my point which boils down to the idea that unbiased evidence is better than biased evidence.

A stance you are all, strangely, arguiing against.