Ok, you don't like being lied to. Fair enough. I don't like it either, so I'm kind of wondering where you pulled that Schneider quote from?
For those who are interested, the quote actually reads:
"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but - which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both."
Your misquotation of Schneider total changes what he was trying to say.
For example, take his critique of a paper by Micheal Mann.
He makes three statements that are all incorrect
"Using tree rings as a basis for assessing past temperature changes back to the year 1,000 AD, supplemented by other proxies from more recent centuries, Mann completely redrew the history, turning the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age into non-events, consigned to a kind of Orwellian `memory hole'..."
"At that point, Mann completed the coup and crudely grafted the surface temperature record of the 20th century (shown in red and itself largely the product of urban heat islands) onto the pre-1900 tree ring record."
Both of which are untrue according to the paper which Mann and coworkers published in 1999 (several ice-core proxies were used, the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age were specifically noted, and the surface temperature record was not grafted onto the tree-ring record (which extends past 1900)).
Interestingly, you've picked the most famous climate change skeptic of the lot. Lindzen, is hardly representative of the average climatologist.
I've attended a talk of climate change by F. Sherwood Roland (who is also a author on the report which Lindzen mentions, plus has a nobel prize for his work on atmospheric chemistry), and his description of the field of atmospheric chemistry is pretty similar to the one described by the parent poster.
The Greens aren't part of the NZ government. Rather Helen Clark specifically chose not to make any deals with them.
Methane isn't the largest greenhouse gas. Methane levels are far smaller than CO2 levels, and when the extra heating effect of methane is taken into account, the net effect of methane is still considerable less than CO2.
"The people have no legitimate need for guns but the various police agencies should be very well armed." -- Yes, this has worked very well in England, Australia, and New Zealand.
I don't mean to insert some facts into your little rant, but New Zealand's cops aren't armed for most of the time. I think (but I'm not 100% sure of it) that the same applies to the UK.
Re:BTW: ozone problem is political not enviromenta
on
Ozone As Pesticide
·
· Score: 1
There is a major flaw in the science in your post. While sea water and volcanos do emit large amounts of Cl, they tend to emit it as water soluble compounds, so it is removed by rain, pretty quickly. CFCs and the like aren't nearly so water soluble, so they make it up to the ozone layer.
Given that the O3 is going to used in small concentrations (relative to the O2 (~20%) which is already there) I would doubt that the risk of an explosion would increase by that much.
The lower atmosphere (upto and included the ozone layer) doesn't sort by density. The winds are turbulent enough to provide decent mixing. Rather the atmosphere is sorted on the basis of absorption spectra.
As the other poster stated, it's a difference of emphasis.
This piece by Paul Krugman, presents another view of the power crisis.
As I understood it, the deregulation bill was passed under the earlier Republican government, if this is true, then your comment about the liberal government not being able to let go, should apply to the conservatives as well.
Interestingly one can test these two competing views. One observation is that the highest prices hit not during summer when power usage is highest, but during a cooler period. The market manipulation theory is fine with this observation, as it predicts that the crisis was caused by power companies cutting supply rather than trying to meet demand. How would you explain this observation?
Another version would go like this; because of high electricty prices, California decided to privatise it's power generation system, but thanks to only partial deregulation, and market manipulation it ended up with large increases in the cost of power, and blackouts to go with it.
Speak for yourself. I for one am utterly bored with the political direction Slashdot has taken in the past couple of years. And it's not even good politics! When the issues of the day are domestic and international terrorism, the war in Afghanistan, the prospect of war in Iraq and elsewhere, the economy, or even the space shuttle, the prevailing topics of discussion on Slashdot still center around that same list of drivel: the RIAA, Microsoft, and stories about "chilling effects" that are just barely more than "we hate the government but we don't know why" flamefests.
What? Geeks talk about things that effect and interest them! Who ever would have thought...
By "cherry-picking", I mean that Daly looks for data that supports his case, while ignoring data that fails to support his case.
He does his science like a lawyer presents a case (tries to downplay or ignore any evidence which is damaging to his case), not as a scientist presents a theory (tries to explain all of the available evidence).
An example of this, is his graph of sea levels at Tuvalu (sp?). He presents some raw data, which is extremely difficult to interpret, and from this concludes that the sea levels are not rising. What he omits is that real analysis of the data (as opposed to just eyeballing it) some that the sea levels are rising.
Asking somebody to go through peer review isn't too much. There is no reason why he couldn't submit some of his criticism to a scientific journal, while publishing a more basic version on website.
As for you submitting his site for consideration, that's fine. But like any pseudoscientific source, expect it to be judged harshly.
He cherry picks his data to support his conclusions. If he was so certain of his results, he should submit them for peer review, but like virtually all psudoscientists, scientific peer review is a hurdle too high.
For example, his dismissal of the modelling is simply a head in sand approach. Pretty sad in my opinion. If he has specific criticisms with their analysis he should make them (I suspect that Daly has very little expert knowledge, and therefore doesn't know where to start).
He also ignores the major source of old data; Thomas Lempriere collection of tidal data for the years 1841 and 1842. These mesurements used the mark as a base point. That Daly relies on a single data point taken in 1888 (here's a hint, a single tidal data point is pretty much useless), while ignoring 2 years worth of data collection, is a pretty good indication that Daly is cherry picking the results that he wants.
Daly also uses his own single data point (which he obtained by rowing out there one day), vs. 2 years of data collected from modern tidal gauges.
A similar situation occurs when Daly and the scientists team try to estimate the rate at which the land has been rising or sinking. One group looks at some pictures of the Island, and says that because these look like modern photographs, the land can't have changed that much, the other launchs a major study of Tasmania's geology, using ancient shell beds. I'll leave it upto you to guess whether it was Daly or the scientists who did a real study on the rise and fall of Tasmania.
I have to disagree with you there. Anti-nuclearism is pretty much imbedded in a significant proportion of the population, that both Labour and National won't get rid of it. Right now it costs very little to maintain, but would cost a lot to change.
If the extra line doesn't change the meaning why did you miss it out?
It can't be because of the extra length of the quote, because its long enough as it is, and you threw it into two posts, after you couldn't find any dirt on the authors of the links I provided.
My theory is that your just flailing around, and that both of us know damm well that it totally changes the meaning.
So that would be a no, Lomborg doesn't mention criticisms of models of which his analysis of global warming depend on. Thank you, it took a while but we got there.
It's this sort of beheviour by Lomborg which got accusations of scientific dishonesty made in the first place. Selective use of evidence.
Once again, your flailing around. Your dishonest is to misrepresent Schneider. Removing sentences which would give the quote it's true meaning, is dishonest.
Your list is wholly unimpressive. The last two links don't even come close to what I wanted (a single well respected scientist who is willing to say that Lomborgs work is representative of his or her field). Instead they attack Scientific American or Steven Schneider.
The last two are both well known activists. Stott has no scientific papers related to the Skeptical Environmentalist's litany.
Lindzen, is the only one who would fit what I asked for, and if your serious about putting him forward, then your case is far weaker than I thought. Whereas you can try and slander Schneider for giving up honesty for effectiveness, Lindzen was happy to give up honesty a long time ago (he misrepresented a Gallup poll in his famous essay "Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus".
In the meantime, you bring us critiques from`scientists' such as Steven Schneider,
Rubbish, I didn't link to any critique from Schneider. I guess this means that you couldn't find any dirt to slur the people who I did link to, and so are just taking shots at random.
who famously told an interviewer from Discover magazine:
[quote snipped]
Now that's dishonesty and unscientific behavior. And to think that a man like that is accusing Lomborg...
No, it's only dishonest when you don't include the full quote, and thus ruin the context.
Unfortunally you have made some assertions, without a shred of evidence to back them up. Perhaps you didn't pay much attention to the references I have provided, because you have ignored the claims made in them.
For example, John Quiggin claims that Lomborg ignored his critisisms of the William Nordhaus model, of which Lomborg relies heavily on. Rather than state "You haven't even come close to backing up either of these claims -- indeed, you haven't even started to", perhaps you could point me to where Lomborg discusses the Quiggin criticisms.
In order to help you out, here's a formal citation of the Quiggin article; The Impact of Global Warming on Agriculture: A Ricardian Analysis: CommentJohn Quiggin and John K. Horowitz The American Economic Review, Vol. 89, No. 4. (Sep., 1999), pp. 1044-1045.
The second reference which I provided is literally chock full of examples, you should pick and chose your own one.
Wow, this is incredible. By missing out the last sentence in the Schneider quote, you have totally misrepresented him. For those who are interested, the last line runs like this
"I hope that means being both."
Look, I know that you've got an ideology to defend, but come on, this is either ignorance (not knowing the full context of the quote) or just dishonest.
Slashdot Mirror
There are two main projected causes of a sea level rise.
The first is thermal expansion, and the second is the melting of ice which sits on top of land.
Ok, you don't like being lied to. Fair enough. I don't like it either, so I'm kind of wondering where you pulled that Schneider quote from?
For those who are interested, the quote actually reads:
"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but - which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both."
Your misquotation of Schneider total changes what he was trying to say.
The problem with John Daly, is that he is a liar.
For example, take his critique of a paper by Micheal Mann.
He makes three statements that are all incorrect
"Using tree rings as a basis for assessing past temperature changes back to the year 1,000 AD, supplemented by other proxies from more recent centuries, Mann completely redrew the history, turning the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age into non-events, consigned to a kind of Orwellian `memory hole'..."
"At that point, Mann completed the coup and crudely grafted the surface temperature record of the 20th century (shown in red and itself largely the product of urban heat islands) onto the pre-1900 tree ring record."
Both of which are untrue according to the paper which Mann and coworkers published in 1999 (several ice-core proxies were used, the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age were specifically noted, and the surface temperature record was not grafted onto the tree-ring record (which extends past 1900)).
Interestingly, you've picked the most famous climate change skeptic of the lot. Lindzen, is hardly representative of the average climatologist.
I've attended a talk of climate change by F. Sherwood Roland (who is also a author on the report which Lindzen mentions, plus has a nobel prize for his work on atmospheric chemistry), and his description of the field of atmospheric chemistry is pretty similar to the one described by the parent poster.
Here's some reality for your post...
The Greens aren't part of the NZ government. Rather Helen Clark specifically chose not to make any deals with them.
Methane isn't the largest greenhouse gas. Methane levels are far smaller than CO2 levels, and when the extra heating effect of methane is taken into account, the net effect of methane is still considerable less than CO2.
Kyoto was always only designed to be a first step.
It also has one major advantage over your proposals.
It sets up a framework (carbon trading and the like) for future CO2 reductions. This should considerable reduced the pain of future CO2 reductions.
Rubbish.
Can you find a single peer reviewed scientific article predicting global cooling from 1945-1975?
You can't, because there isn't one.
Whereas global warming is backed by literally hundreds of scientific papers.
To compare the two, indicates that you've fallen for the climate skeptics propaganda.
"The people have no legitimate need for guns but the various police agencies should be very well armed." -- Yes, this has worked very well in England, Australia, and New Zealand.
I don't mean to insert some facts into your little rant, but New Zealand's cops aren't armed for most of the time. I think (but I'm not 100% sure of it) that the same applies to the UK.
One if Saddam requests it.
There is a major flaw in the science in your post. While sea water and volcanos do emit large amounts of Cl, they tend to emit it as water soluble compounds, so it is removed by rain, pretty quickly. CFCs and the like aren't nearly so water soluble, so they make it up to the ozone layer.
Given that the O3 is going to used in small concentrations (relative to the O2 (~20%) which is already there) I would doubt that the risk of an explosion would increase by that much.
The lower atmosphere (upto and included the ozone layer) doesn't sort by density. The winds are turbulent enough to provide decent mixing. Rather the atmosphere is sorted on the basis of absorption spectra.
As the other poster stated, it's a difference of emphasis.
This piece by Paul Krugman, presents another view of the power crisis.
As I understood it, the deregulation bill was passed under the earlier Republican government, if this is true, then your comment about the liberal government not being able to let go, should apply to the conservatives as well.
Interestingly one can test these two competing views. One observation is that the highest prices hit not during summer when power usage is highest, but during a cooler period. The market manipulation theory is fine with this observation, as it predicts that the crisis was caused by power companies cutting supply rather than trying to meet demand. How would you explain this observation?
This would be the Enron version of events.
Another version would go like this; because of high electricty prices, California decided to privatise it's power generation system, but thanks to only partial deregulation, and market manipulation it ended up with large increases in the cost of power, and blackouts to go with it.
Speak for yourself. I for one am utterly bored with the political direction Slashdot has taken in the past couple of years. And it's not even good politics! When the issues of the day are domestic and international terrorism, the war in Afghanistan, the prospect of war in Iraq and elsewhere, the economy, or even the space shuttle, the prevailing topics of discussion on Slashdot still center around that same list of drivel: the RIAA, Microsoft, and stories about "chilling effects" that are just barely more than "we hate the government but we don't know why" flamefests.
What? Geeks talk about things that effect and interest them! Who ever would have thought...
By "cherry-picking", I mean that Daly looks for data that supports his case, while ignoring data that fails to support his case.
He does his science like a lawyer presents a case (tries to downplay or ignore any evidence which is damaging to his case), not as a scientist presents a theory (tries to explain all of the available evidence).
An example of this, is his graph of sea levels at Tuvalu (sp?). He presents some raw data, which is extremely difficult to interpret, and from this concludes that the sea levels are not rising. What he omits is that real analysis of the data (as opposed to just eyeballing it) some that the sea levels are rising.
Asking somebody to go through peer review isn't too much. There is no reason why he couldn't submit some of his criticism to a scientific journal, while publishing a more basic version on website.
As for you submitting his site for consideration, that's fine. But like any pseudoscientific source, expect it to be judged harshly.
John Daly, is a joke.
He cherry picks his data to support his conclusions. If he was so certain of his results, he should submit them for peer review, but like virtually all psudoscientists, scientific peer review is a hurdle too high.
For example, his dismissal of the modelling is simply a head in sand approach. Pretty sad in my opinion. If he has specific criticisms with their analysis he should make them (I suspect that Daly has very little expert knowledge, and therefore doesn't know where to start).
He also ignores the major source of old data; Thomas Lempriere collection of tidal data for the years 1841 and 1842. These mesurements used the mark as a base point. That Daly relies on a single data point taken in 1888 (here's a hint, a single tidal data point is pretty much useless), while ignoring 2 years worth of data collection, is a pretty good indication that Daly is cherry picking the results that he wants.
Daly also uses his own single data point (which he obtained by rowing out there one day), vs. 2 years of data collected from modern tidal gauges.
A similar situation occurs when Daly and the scientists team try to estimate the rate at which the land has been rising or sinking. One group looks at some pictures of the Island, and says that because these look like modern photographs, the land can't have changed that much, the other launchs a major study of Tasmania's geology, using ancient shell beds. I'll leave it upto you to guess whether it was Daly or the scientists who did a real study on the rise and fall of Tasmania.
New Zealand's anti-nuclear stance was hardly "minor dissent". It lead to the breakdown of military treaties.
I have to disagree with you there. Anti-nuclearism is pretty much imbedded in a significant proportion of the population, that both Labour and National won't get rid of it. Right now it costs very little to maintain, but would cost a lot to change.
If the extra line doesn't change the meaning why did you miss it out?
It can't be because of the extra length of the quote, because its long enough as it is, and you threw it into two posts, after you couldn't find any dirt on the authors of the links I provided.
My theory is that your just flailing around, and that both of us know damm well that it totally changes the meaning.
So that would be a no, Lomborg doesn't mention criticisms of models of which his analysis of global warming depend on. Thank you, it took a while but we got there.
It's this sort of beheviour by Lomborg which got accusations of scientific dishonesty made in the first place. Selective use of evidence.
Once again, your flailing around. Your dishonest is to misrepresent Schneider. Removing sentences which would give the quote it's true meaning, is dishonest.
Your list is wholly unimpressive. The last two links don't even come close to what I wanted (a single well respected scientist who is willing to say that Lomborgs work is representative of his or her field). Instead they attack Scientific American or Steven Schneider.
The last two are both well known activists. Stott has no scientific papers related to the Skeptical Environmentalist's litany.
Lindzen, is the only one who would fit what I asked for, and if your serious about putting him forward, then your case is far weaker than I thought. Whereas you can try and slander Schneider for giving up honesty for effectiveness, Lindzen was happy to give up honesty a long time ago (he misrepresented a Gallup poll in his famous essay "Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus".
In the meantime, you bring us critiques from`scientists' such as Steven Schneider,
Rubbish, I didn't link to any critique from Schneider. I guess this means that you couldn't find any dirt to slur the people who I did link to, and so are just taking shots at random.
who famously told an interviewer from Discover magazine:
[quote snipped]
Now that's dishonesty and unscientific behavior. And to think that a man like that is accusing Lomborg...
No, it's only dishonest when you don't include the full quote, and thus ruin the context.
Unfortunally you have made some assertions, without a shred of evidence to back them up. Perhaps you didn't pay much attention to the references I have provided, because you have ignored the claims made in them.
For example, John Quiggin claims that Lomborg ignored his critisisms of the William Nordhaus model, of which Lomborg relies heavily on. Rather than state "You haven't even come close to backing up either of these claims -- indeed, you haven't even started to", perhaps you could point me to where Lomborg discusses the Quiggin criticisms.
In order to help you out, here's a formal citation of the Quiggin article; The Impact of Global Warming on Agriculture: A Ricardian Analysis: CommentJohn Quiggin and John K. Horowitz The American Economic Review, Vol. 89, No. 4. (Sep., 1999), pp. 1044-1045.
The second reference which I provided is literally chock full of examples, you should pick and chose your own one.
Wow, this is incredible. By missing out the last sentence in the Schneider quote, you have totally misrepresented him. For those who are interested, the last line runs like this
"I hope that means being both."
Look, I know that you've got an ideology to defend, but come on, this is either ignorance (not knowing the full context of the quote) or just dishonest.