'O'ministration conceals environmental report

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>I don't have to be a climatologist to read the temperature history and
>conclude that the raw data does not show increasing temperatures.

See below.

>Shifty Response: "He provided some ideas we found useful."

?? That's a shifty response? He's an economist. He provided economic data and scientific opinion. They used his economic data.

If you gave someone legal advice they paid you for, and also gave them your opinion on who would win the Superbowl, and they heeded your legal advice but ignored your Superbowl advice - would that be a shifty thing to do?

I like the little green tree in the corner. No bias here I suppose

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

No. I have challenged my accountant and pointed out simple errors.

I have had attorneys I go against frequently tell me that I can't win because I have problems here and there. This is useful to me to either find new evidence or explain the evidence that I thought was pretty good.

I suspect (cannot prove) that pointing out that the data does not support the conclusion provided some good ideas on: (1) amend the conclusion; (2) remove the unsupportive data; (3) change the raw data; (4) running the data through a new interpretive mechanism to achieve the desired result.

In the army we called enemy action "intelligence." "They attacked us here. Better shore it up."

It's shifty because they neither stated what was mentioned nor what specifically was the resolution. Probably because we wouldn't understand it. Real scientists don't need this misleading data.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rhaig 0]

You like that attachment Bill. It sure is a pretty graph showing correlation between CO2 levels and global average temperature. (and I don't see how it pertains to your post, but it sure is pretty)

Correlation does not equal causality.

Nobody has shown me proof that global warming (oops... they're calling it climate change now that the temp has leveled off) is definitely caused by human activities.

The science behind the climate change debate was centered around bad computer models for a while. Then it shifted to CO2 causing the temp to rise. Then it shifted to the temp rise causing CO2 to be released from the oceans, thus causing a vicious cycle. (the tipping point discussions ensued) but when it was shown that historically temps lead CO2 concentrations, the song became "but we weren't here then, now WE're causing this." To me, that's not science.

--
Rob

[riddler 0]

Quote

His boss told him that study would be kept concealed because it would only shake things up,

I kinda have a problem with an article that claims a high-level conspiracy, based on one person's reiteration of a verbal implication from their boss that they didn't agree with.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

but when it was shown that historically temps lead CO2 concentrations, the song became "but we weren't here then, now WE're causing this." To me, that's not science.

Historically no species has ever dumped 30 Billion tons of CO2 a year into the atmosphere until we did it.

CO2 levels in the atmosphere are rising at the rate we are dumping CO2 into the air - that is readily measurable.

The absorbtion spectrum of CO2 is well known; CO2 IS a green house gas.

And that IS science.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

but when it was shown that historically temps lead CO2 concentrations, the song became "but we weren't here then, now WE're causing this." To me, that's not science.

Historically no species has ever dumped 30 Billion tons of CO2 a year into the atmosphere until we did it.

CO2 levels in the atmosphere are rising at the rate we are dumping CO2 into the air - that is readily measurable.

The absorbtion spectrum of CO2 is well known; CO2 IS a green house gas.

And that IS science.

Yes, it is... so when are you going to actually rebut what he actually said? You know, the part where he talks about CO2 lagging temperature...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,116]

>Correlation does not equal causality.

Of course. Someone asked about whether CO2 was leading or lagging temps. That graph is an answer to that question. It is coincident to the increase, and neither leads nor lags.

>Nobody has shown me proof that global warming is definitely caused
>by human activities.

We have proof that we are increasing CO2 levels through our emissions.

We have proof that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and an increase in its concentration will increase the greenhouse effect.

No one may have shown you that proof - but it is readily available if you choose to look for it. You could even do your own experiments if you like and prove it to yourself.

>Then it shifted to the temp rise causing CO2 to be released from
>the oceans, thus causing a vicious cycle.

Warming the oceans decreases the amount of CO2 they can hold. Again, that's science. You may not like it - but your dislike of it does not change the physics of what's happening.

[wmw999 2,588]

Quote

definitely caused by human activities

Note that human activities are not THE cause of climate change, global warming, etc. They contribute to it, and seem to be making it happen faster than it otherwise would.

Kind of like if your house is flooding due to lots of rain. Is the fact that you left the bathtub overflowing the cause of the flooding, or does it just make it worse?

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>Correlation does not equal causality.

Of course. Someone asked about whether CO2 was leading or lagging temps. That graph is an answer to that question. It is coincident to the increase, and neither leads nor lags.

Unfortunately, the graph itself disproves that, with the last few years showing rising CO2 and falling temp...unless we're now discussing global cooling?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[downwardspiral 0]

We are due for an ice age according to Mr. Gore. I say pump up the CO2! I live in CA for a reason!

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[billvon 3,116]

>Unfortunately, the graph itself disproves that . . .

Uh, no, it doesn't.

>with the last few years showing rising CO2 and falling temp.

So did the 1970's. Remember when your types were claiming that it was going to bring an ice age? Unfortunately it was just a momentary blip downwards on a constantly rising baseline, just as the late 1990's were a blip upwards.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>Unfortunately, the graph itself disproves that . . .

Uh, no, it doesn't.

>with the last few years showing rising CO2 and falling temp.

So did the 1970's. Remember when your types were claiming that it was going to bring an ice age? Unfortunately it was just a momentary blip downwards on a constantly rising baseline, just as the late 1990's were a blip upwards.

Then it's obviously NOT co-incident, as you claim.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,116]

>Then it's obviously NOT co-incident, as you claim.

So do you think it's leading or lagging?

[lawrocket 3]

>>> constantly changing baseline

Why is the baseline changing? Should not the baseline stay the same?

If so, what is the vaseline temperature? That is, what temperature is the earth supposed to be?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[penniless 0]

Quote

Quote

>Correlation does not equal causality.

Of course. Someone asked about whether CO2 was leading or lagging temps. That graph is an answer to that question. It is coincident to the increase, and neither leads nor lags.

Unfortunately, the graph itself disproves that, with the last few years showing rising CO2 and falling temp...unless we're now discussing global cooling?

That must explain why the Arctic sea ice is now 2 standard deviations below its historic average, and 2009 looks set to equal the record low (set in 2007) since record keeping began.

It must also explain why the top 10 warmest years since 1880 are (in order) 2005, 2007, 1998, 2002, 2006, 2003, 2004, 2001, 2008, 1997. (data accordng to NASA/GIST 2009)

My my, all of them within the last 12 years out of 128.

[penniless 0]

Quote

>>

If so, what is the vaseline temperature?

It's a trademark, Vaseline needs a capital "V".

Enquiring minds want to know why the Vaseline temperature is important to you

[billvon 3,116]

>Why is the baseline changing?

I said "rising" not "changing." But in any case, it's rising due to an increase in retained heat, leading to warmer temperatures. There will still be fluctuations around that baseline, of course.

>If so, what is the vaseline temperature?

I don't know - but be sure you warm it up _first._

[Tf15 0]

Quote

>>> constantly changing baseline

Why is the baseline changing? Should not the baseline stay the same?

If you follow the stock market at all you will be familiar with the concept of the moving average. A standard concept in statistical analysis, to see a long term trend in the presence of short term fluctuations.

Three times is enemy action

[billvon 3,116]

>I have had attorneys I go against frequently tell me that I can't win
>because I have problems here and there. This is useful to me to either
>find new evidence or explain the evidence that I thought was pretty good.

That's great. But I assume that you do not take all advice as gospel. You reject some of it because it's simply not very good, or you disagree with it, or the advisor doesn't know what they're talking about. That does not make you shifty - it makes you smart.

[lawrocket 3]

No. I don't accept my own fool self as the burning bush, which is why I actively seek the opinion of the opposition advocate.

Many times they are correct - I can't win.

Many other times they have effectively given me their gameplan. If I'm a coach whose opponent tells me exactly how they intend to beat me, I will certainly utilize that input. They've given good ideas and I will use those in my planning.

If an opposing attorney tells me what she plans to do, I can find a way to defend it.

Here, they used some of this guy's guidance. That means he had some good points. What did they use?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,116]

>Many times they are correct - I can't win.

And I assume that many times they are incorrect, and you CAN win. In those cases, I assume you wisely disregard them and do your job.

Most people are no different. The smartest people out there know who to listen to and when to listen to them.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>Correlation does not equal causality.

Of course. Someone asked about whether CO2 was leading or lagging temps. That graph is an answer to that question. It is coincident to the increase, and neither leads nor lags.

Unfortunately, the graph itself disproves that, with the last few years showing rising CO2 and falling temp...unless we're now discussing global cooling?

That must explain why the Arctic sea ice is now 2 standard deviations below its historic average, and 2009 looks set to equal the record low (set in 2007) since record keeping began.

It must also explain why the top 10 warmest years since 1880 are (in order) 2005, 2007, 1998, 2002, 2006, 2003, 2004, 2001, 2008, 1997. (data accordng to NASA/GIST 2009)

My my, all of them within the last 12 years out of 128.

Ah, ice levels are increasing

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

>Many times they are correct - I can't win.

And I assume that many times they are incorrect, and you CAN win. In those cases, I assume you wisely disregard them and do your job.

I wisely regard everything. If winning a case means that I have to make a frivolous argument, I won't do it. Others do. I don't.

I believe it is unfortunate that my way of doing things is unsatisfactory to others. To many, the end justifies the means. And opposition will be dealt with on the merits unless the merits win. At that point, attacks on qualifications and education will occur.

If anything stands in the way of the objective, shock and awe will result.

[Reply]Most people are no different. The smartest people out there know who to listen to and when to listen to them.

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

>Correlation does not equal causality.

Of course. Someone asked about whether CO2 was leading or lagging temps. That graph is an answer to that question. It is coincident to the increase, and neither leads nor lags.

Unfortunately, the graph itself disproves that, with the last few years showing rising CO2 and falling temp...unless we're now discussing global cooling?

That must explain why the Arctic sea ice is now 2 standard deviations below its historic average, and 2009 looks set to equal the record low (set in 2007) since record keeping began.

It must also explain why the top 10 warmest years since 1880 are (in order) 2005, 2007, 1998, 2002, 2006, 2003, 2004, 2001, 2008, 1997. (data accordng to NASA/GIST 2009)

My my, all of them within the last 12 years out of 128.

Ah, ice levels are increasing

Are you on Mars with mnealtx?

ARCTIC (northern hemisphere, as mentioned above) sea ice is DECREASING, as it does every summer at this time.

See nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

and for the long term DECREASING trend

nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20090603_Figure3.png

See attached pic for satellite measurement of sea level rise.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>Correlation does not equal causality.

Of course. Someone asked about whether CO2 was leading or lagging temps. That graph is an answer to that question. It is coincident to the increase, and neither leads nor lags.

Unfortunately, the graph itself disproves that, with the last few years showing rising CO2 and falling temp...unless we're now discussing global cooling?

That must explain why the Arctic sea ice is now 2 standard deviations below its historic average, and 2009 looks set to equal the record low (set in 2007) since record keeping began.

It must also explain why the top 10 warmest years since 1880 are (in order) 2005, 2007, 1998, 2002, 2006, 2003, 2004, 2001, 2008, 1997. (data accordng to NASA/GIST 2009)

My my, all of them within the last 12 years out of 128.

Go back and re-read the first line of the post you quoted - to wit, "Correlation does not equal causation".

Oh, and those GISS temps you're using? Those were revised a couple years ago - DOWNWARD, and due to research by on Anthony Watts - a "denier".

But, since you're such the expert - why don't YOU explain how Mars is showing the same approximate increase in temperature (approx .5C) and over the same duration (about the last 30 years) as the Earth has.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706