A Few Things Ill Considered

A layman's take on the science of Global Warming featuring a guide on How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic.

Friday, July 21, 2006

send this to... Digg it! | Technorati | Del.icio.us | Reddit | Furl | Spurl

Laugh or Cry

Via ThinkProgress, you can see with your own eyes that James "Global Warming is a Hoax" Inhofe is not a satiric cartoon character after all, as one might have reasonably thought. He is actually a real live United States Senator, honorable and all that, who thinks that the IPCC report "used one scientist"(try hundreds).

Some other gems: he thinks "Gore is full of crap" (he's not) and he thinks "all of the recent science ... confirms that [he] was right" that Global Warming is a hoax (another freedom is slavery moment)

The show is Glenn Beck's, btw. Another quality episode brought to us by the "Liberal Media".

Go watch the video or read the tanscript:

BECK: Senator James Inhofe has been very vocal in saying that a lot of the statistics used by proponents of the man-made global warming theory are either misleading or just plain wrong. In fact, I think he said on my radio show earlier today that Al Gore was full of crap.
Now, from Washington, D.C., Senator James Inhofe.
As I pointed out to the radio listeners, you`re a pretty brave guy, because, you know, if you come out against global warming you`re either a nut job or you`re just clearly in bed with big oil, and thus you should have no credibility.

SEN. JAMES INHOFE (R), OKLAHOMA: Yes, well, you know, I have to say this, and I`d say that probably 75 percent of the viewers that are watching this right now have bought into this thing, this global warming thing, in saying that it was manmade gases. And I was the same way 3 1/2 years ago when I became of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. And so I thought — right then, you might remember the Horton econometrics survey…

BECK: Oh, who doesn`t?

INHOFE: … that came out. And they said how much it would cost America if we signed onto the Kyoto treaty, about $2,750 per family per year in the price of energy and all that. Anyway, I saw that, and I thought, “Well, it`s my responsibility as a chairman to make sure that the science justifies this kind of loss.” And the more I checked into it, the things started with the United Nations, the International Panel on Climate Control, and they used one scientist. And his name was Michael Mann, the famous hockey stick — remember that — where he plotted the temperatures that went all the way across on a horizontal line, then you got to the 20th century and it started going up. Well, one thing they forgot to do is put in the medieval warming period, which was from about 900 to 1400 A.D., when it was warmer then than it is now.

BECK: Well, and here`s the thing. When you see…

INHOFE: So in all of the recent science, as I`ve mentioned on your radio show, it confirms that I was right on this thing. This thing is a hoax.

Labels:

7 Comments:

  • At July 21, 2006 4:19 PM, Blogger Glen said…

    I'd be interest to hear your independent take on the Wegman Report.

    I assume by "all the recent science", Inhofe is referring to the NAS study and the Wegman report, both of which chopped off most of the shaft of hockey stick as statistically inconclusive, turning it into really more of a boomerang than a stick.

    Do you have evidence that the IPCC used "hundreds" of scientists specifically as a source on the hockey stick chart? If they did, it reflects poorly on all those other scientists that they overlooked the errors M&M spotted, doesn't it?

     
  • At July 21, 2006 4:48 PM, Blogger coby said…

    Hi Glen,

    I said pretty much all I have to say about the hockey stick here.

    I strongly disagree that the recent NAS report refutes MBH98, in fact it specifically said the findings are "plausible".

    But seriously, the whole debate is a huge red herring. Knowledge of the past is informative, but it is not explanatory of the present nor predictive of the future. The non-existence of a globally pronounced MWP is not the foundation of AGW theory, and MBH98 is one of hundreds of papers referenced by the IPCC WG1 report.

    As for how many scientists it takes to play ice hockey, even ignoring the plain as day fact that Inhofe was not limiting his remarks to MBH98, M comes with a B and an H. That's three already, plus references.

     
  • At July 21, 2006 8:27 PM, Blogger Glen said…

    To call it "plausible" was already damning with faint praise, but the Wegman report went even further to say the same conclusions are "essentially unverifiable" and more specifically cannot be verified using MBH's data and techniques.

    the Wegman fact sheet

    the Wegman report

    In your hockey stick assessment you correctly note that many climatologists insisted that M&M were completely in error. Now that we know M&M weren't wrong in their criticism of MBH, it should make us wonder how many similar errors are hiding in the other papers, the ones NAS referred to in judging that the conclusion might still be "plausible".

    This last week has been an exciting time to be a skeptic. :-)

     
  • At July 21, 2006 9:03 PM, Blogger coby said…

    I stick to my points that it is now an obsolete irrelevance, there are many other reconstructions with similar findings and the past is just that.

    This last week has been an exciting time to be a skeptic

    Meanwhile, GHG's build up in the atmosphere and the temperature rises and the largest mass extinction event in 65 million years is underway.
    Earth faces 'catastrophic loss of species' from the Independent.

     
  • At July 26, 2006 11:06 AM, Blogger Wag the Dog said…

    many climatologists insisted that M&M were completely in error.

    Actually many climate scientists acknowledged the comments of M&M but then went on to show that they made little difference to the hockey stick and had even less impact on the anthropogenic global warming consensus. Even the NAS study concluded this.

    Now that we know M&M weren't wrong in their criticism of MBH,

    And what happens when you take onboard their criticism? You still get the hockey stick and you still arrive at a conclusion that is just as alarming -- the recent warming is unprecedented over at least the last 400 years.

    it should make us wonder how many similar errors are hiding in the other papers

    Ah. That's just a cop out to disbelieve all science. Given that physicists still haven't proven any of their theories concerning quantum gravity, can we prove gravity won't switch off tomorrow? -- perhaps you should invest in some chains to prevent yourself floating off.

    This last week has been an exciting time to be a skeptic.

    The word you're searching for is "denier" where you pick and choose reports based on which evidence you'd prefer to ignore. A true sceptic looks at all of the evidence and derives a conclusion that best explains it. If one were to consider everything in the Wegman report at face value and also consider all the independent bodies of evidence in climate science, we reach the undeniable conclusion that global warming is real.

    Anyway, it seems the Deltoid denier trap let one get away. You really should go waste your resources on this blog entry along with the rest of your fellow "skeptics", where Tim Lambert has set up the perfect honey pot, while we non-deniers move on to more important climate related issues.

     
  • At July 29, 2006 8:31 AM, Blogger Peter K. Anderson said…

    Notice the quotation below from a previous comment in this 'thread':-

    ["And what happens when you take onboard their criticism? You still get the hockey stick and you still arrive at a conclusion that is just as alarming -- the recent warming is unprecedented over at least the last 400 years."]

    Notice that it is in the past 400 years that the Human population has grown from 500 Million to over 5 Billion and that the trend of temperature mentioned is of the SURFACE, predominately the LAND surface. The current placement of this trend can be seen in slides at http://hartlod.blogspot.com/ (*) that indicate the placement of the temperature trend relative to the Human Population, linked by the rematerialing produced of the surface by Human Habitat construction to accommodate the noticed population growth.

    Realise also that the additions to Kinetic Energy induction are cumulative and so over this 400 year period the initial 'slow' rise in Median Surface Temperature can be noted now as having only a 15 year lag from Surface to Ocean and is trailing Human Population Expectations only by a few decades with the most noticeable alteration to Median Surface Temperature, beginning in the early 20th Century, matching the Human Population growth curve for early the ~19th Century. The 'reaction lag' to 'Human Population growth' is decreasing, as is the lag differential for the processes of Conduction/Convection in propagating the Surface Kinetic Energy induction alterations to the Ocean's (liquid) surface (again seen as presently ~15 years in the slides at the link (*) above).

    There is little that can be validly noticed from the 'hickey stick' plot, the methodology to produce it was flawed, showing clear indications of predetermination in it's consideration of 'data' dropping 'outrider points' when those very points are strongly indicative of short term fluctuations of temperature in n experiment looking for 'the casual process' only shows that the 'casual process' had already been decided on.

    There cannot be considered a 'greenhouse effect' in any serious consideration of ["important climate related issues"] as there is NOT such a process present within the biosphere with notice to the materials actually present and the situation these materials are placed within. Numerous 'interpretation errors' have included within them the 'greenhouse theory' making 'use' of Energy in actuality existent as secondary photons, but (incorrectly) being given 'treatment' as 'representative of heat'.

    This Energy, as presented in these (reemitted) photons is the Energy within the Cascade of Photons existing within the boundary of the Atmosphere. This Energy doesn't however represent a 'temperature' of the surrounding and SEPARATE molecules. The Energy of secondary photons wasn't related in its production to the Temperature of the original molecule to begin with and isn't 'blackbody' sourced or derived in ANY (valid and real) manner. See again the outlines at link (*) and notice that the Quantum Wave-Kinetic ('heat inducing') and Photonic (involving remittance of secondary Photons) interaction sets and are all part of the 'Interactions with Photons' Science.

    The 'demonstrative greenhouse model' presents not the reality we observe but only a (very expensive) 'computational processing' of disassociated OPINION.

    Your's,
    Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
    From the PC of Peter K Anderson
    E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com

     
  • At August 21, 2006 11:05 AM, Blogger mt said…

    On a related note, this incident probably did not get as much attention as it deserved.

     

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home