Global Warming w/o Tiggy

[phank]

Phank - not only fails at irony, but also in context and history (like say... thing said earlier in the thread).

Delicious.

So you're sticking with government conspiracy?

[Challenger Grim]

So you're sticking with government conspiracy?

Where have I said anything about a government conspiracy? Sloppy phank. Very sloppy.

All I'm going to point out is that if anybody wants to discount or debunk some research because such and such companies (like oil ones) supported it (thus giving the researchers an incentive to "cook books"), then they should entertain that researchers for the government might have incentives themselves.

[Augustine2004]

I am afraid Phrank is the sort of person who would shrug off the Jackie Kennedy tapes.

[phank]

Where have I said anything about a government conspiracy? Sloppy phank. Very sloppy.

All I'm going to point out is that if anybody wants to discount or debunk some research because such and such companies (like oil ones) supported it (thus giving the researchers an incentive to "cook books"), then they should entertain that researchers for the government might have incentives themselves.

So you're sticking with government conspiracy, as I said. Thanks.

[phank]

I am afraid Phrank is the sort of person who would shrug off the Jackie Kennedy tapes.

No, it's a matter of which people we think are more likely correct. I'm going with those who have dedicated their lives to understanding this stuff, and you're going with whoever agrees with you. OK, different strokes.

[Challenger Grim]

No, it's a matter of which people we think are more likely correct. I'm going with those who have dedicated their lives to understanding this stuff, and you're going with whoever agrees with you. OK, different strokes.

Considering that some of the people agreeing with "us" are also those who have dedicated their lives to understanding this stuff - your hypocrisy is hilarious.

[Augustine2004]

Who the heck understands in any sort of depth atmospheric physics!?

[Augustine2004]

Phrank may agree with what Al Gore said yesterday in an Aspen Institute speech. Of course we now know it matters not at all to Phranky how much money Gore scored pushing the AGW idea.

[phank]

Considering that some of the people agreeing with "us" are also those who have dedicated their lives to understanding this stuff - your hypocrisy is hilarious.

As you may recall, some of the scientists hired by Big Tobacco also dedicated their lives to understanding that material. So I actually agree with you that the political leanings of the "experts" is worth looking at. We can scratch government scientists, they're out to gain power. We can scratch scientists employed by Big Oil, they're saying what they are paid to say. So who, exactly, does that leave? Anyone? Or is expertise in climatology pretty much worthless (or nonexistent?), and we decide based on pure preference, or by flipping a coin?

[phank]

Who the heck understands in any sort of depth atmospheric physics!?

This is actually an excellent question. Certainly it's neither of us. We don't even know enough about this stuff to know how much we don't know. From where we sit, we see a pure swearing contest, where most of the professionals are largely in agreement, but with a good vocal minority of apparently equal qualifications. How should we judge? Based on who is paid the most to take a political position, because the science is so far beyond us we can't even tell if it exists at all?

In that case, is Al Gore making more money off AGW than ExxonMobil's tame experts? If so, Big Oil must be telling the truth. But if their scientists are paid more than Gore, why, Gore must be telling the truth. Now all we have to do is find out exactly how much the experts on both sides are being paid, and pick whoever is paid less as more likely correct!

Hey, given how much we know about climatology, this is as good as coin flipping.

[Challenger Grim]

As you may recall, some of the scientists hired by Big Tobacco also dedicated their lives to understanding that material. So I actually agree with you that the political leanings of the "experts" is worth looking at. We can scratch government scientists, they're out to gain power. We can scratch scientists employed by Big Oil, they're saying what they are paid to say. So who, exactly, does that leave? Anyone? Or is expertise in climatology pretty much worthless (or nonexistent?), and we decide based on pure preference, or by flipping a coin?

Or you just avoid the economic fallacy (like Briggs recommended).

A bit of common sense and observation also goes a long way.

But then we're just starting to repeat what was said several pages ago. Go reread if you're really seeking an answer.

[shunyadragon]

The following is from a site that is decidedly pro-global warming with detailed data and graphs covering the past 130 years, and data references over the past 1150 years. I do not know if anyone has referenced it before, but it is definitely worth a read. Right or wrong the the data is comprehensive.

The key of the argument in this reference is the relationship between temperature and solar activity. The argument is that the effects of solar activity is diminishing and being smoothed in gradual upward trend over time of average temperatures.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-intermediate.htm

As supplier of almost all the energy in Earth's climate, the sun has a strong influence on climate. A comparison of sun and climate over the past 1150 years found temperatures closely match solar activity (Usoskin 2005). However, after 1975, temperatures rose while solar activity showed little to no long-term trend. This led the study to conclude, "...during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source."

In fact, a number of independent measurements of solar activity indicate the sun has shown a slight cooling trend since 1960, over the same period that global temperatures have been warming. Over the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been moving in opposite directions. An analysis of solar trends concluded that the sun has actually contributed a slight cooling influence in recent decades (Lockwood 2008).

© source where applicable

The site is well presented with three levels of academic presentation; beginning, intermediate and advanced. I tried to show the graphs, but URL image did not work. If any one knows how to show the graphs please do.

[phank]

Here's one way

[Augustine2004]

I tried to show the graphs, but URL image did not work. If any one knows how to show the graphs please do.

Didn't you try this: [img]url of graphic file[/img]?

[Augustine2004]

I think I mentioned vertical gardening in this thread several posts ago?

Anyway, Phrank may not care to look at Google's lists of vertical horticultural sites; and if he does at least glance at it, his opinion may not change in the least. *Sigh!*

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&cp=17&g...w=1066&bih=565