Anyone who has taken a course in statistics will realize that as a biologist who does not believe in evolution Analytic is a statistical outlier, which makes him irrelevant.

TromboneAndrew - 20 June 2010 08:03 AM

Analytic, perhaps you can go into some better detail on why you think that the statement:

“In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions.”

has clear bias and zealotry?  Is this statement false?  Or is it true but misleading in some way?

That statement may be correct to a limited extent, but the consequences remain unpredictable. Other alterations in the sun’s energy have existed over relatively long periods of time - at least as far back as any sort of reliable records exist - but provide no predictable consequences over the short term. Say like until the end of the century.

There IS evidence in the geologic and fossil records of prolonged hot and cold periods (eg, ice ages and sequellae) that have shaped our planet in extraordinary ways.

Still, life has existed and persisted for roughly 3.5 billion years through climate changes that actually destroyed or moved continental masses.

As a small example, the Grand Canyon was formed over millenia as the ice retreated and changed to torrential water ... such “ice ages” have been repeated again and again.

We could not survive as a species should THAT (ice age) occurr sometime in the near future as some charlatans persist in predicting after checking the tea leaves!
It smacks of sorcery and paranoia to claim that there is a period of disastrous global warming on the horizon based on the available evidence.

What little reproducible evidence exists is NOT the stuff of honest science. It is the stuff of mysticism.

I reject all such unproven prognostications. Eg, that some here actually have a clue!!

Analytic - 20 June 2010 09:19 AM

It smacks of sorcery and paranoia to claim that there is a period of disastrous global warming on the horizon based on the available evidence.

Disastrous global climate change is not on the horizon, it is here.

Analytic - 20 June 2010 09:19 AM

That statement may be correct to a limited extent, but the consequences remain unpredictable. Other alterations in the sun’s energy have existed over relatively long periods of time - at least as far back as any sort of reliable records exist - but provide no predictable consequences over the short term. Say like until the end of the century.

Your missing the point.  This received attention because it highlights that the sun is not influencing the observed trend in temps.  I don’t know of anyone, besides “skeptics,” trying to make anything more out of it.

What it does do, is point the finger back at CO2 and other greenhouse gases as the major forcing in current increases in temps.  And for you to say there is no proven major CO2 influence flies in the face of hundreds (probably thousands) of studies that say we are dealing with plain simple physics period - and yes I have not read through all of them and am taking the word of folks who have expertise in said fields, but I do some sampling at least as far as my knowledge allows me to follow along and I do listen to many different voices, and I’ve always looked into “skeptical” claims that have been presented to me, and my discoveries have painted how I view the “skeptical” community these days. 

So from that wide field of experience I consistently find that the serious scientists sound way more credible that folks who toss out the kinds of soundbites you do.  People who then refuse to look at or acknowledge information that’s being presented.

ps TromboneAndrew I really like your tone, it’s a good influence for a smoldering-head like me, thanks.

I’m a reasonabe man and remain open to new evidence that supports the “anthropogenic global warming” conjecture.

I am not holding my breath, however, and I evaluate existing evidence for what it’s worth.

Analytic - 20 June 2010 01:04 PM

I’m a reasonabe man and remain open to new evidence that supports the “anthropogenic global warming” conjecture.

I am not holding my breath, however, and I evaluate existing evidence for what it’s worth.

How’s that work if you refuse to consider any of it?

ps. May I recommend Abraham v Monckton.  Both for an example of how a genuine scientist explains his science and for a sterling review of many climate myths.

“A Scientist Replies to Lord Christopher Monckton: Abraham v. Monckton.”
http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/

Analytic - 20 June 2010 01:04 PM

I’m a reasonabe man and remain open to new evidence that supports the “anthropogenic global warming” conjecture.

I am not holding my breath, however, and I evaluate existing evidence for what it’s worth.

As a theoretical exercise, what evidence would convince you?

Analytic - 20 June 2010 09:19 AM

There IS evidence in the geologic and fossil records of prolonged hot and cold periods (eg, ice ages and sequellae) that have shaped our planet in extraordinary ways.

Still, life has existed and persisted for roughly 3.5 billion years through climate changes that actually destroyed or moved continental masses.

As a small example, the Grand Canyon was formed over millenia as the ice retreated and changed to torrential water ... such “ice ages” have been repeated again and again.

We could not survive as a species should THAT (ice age) occurr sometime in the near future as some charlatans persist in predicting after checking the tea leaves!
It smacks of sorcery and paranoia to claim that there is a period of disastrous global warming on the horizon based on the available evidence.

What little reproducible evidence exists is NOT the stuff of honest science. It is the stuff of mysticism.

I reject all such unproven prognostications. Eg, that some here actually have a clue!!

This sounds to me like you’re changing the subject.  The topic on hand is how changes in the last 20 years of solar output do not match Earth global temperature averages.  Yes, those other things have to do with climate, but not this particular driver of climate.

Analytic - 20 June 2010 09:19 AM

That statement may be correct to a limited extent, but the consequences remain unpredictable. Other alterations in the sun’s energy have existed over relatively long periods of time - at least as far back as any sort of reliable records exist - but provide no predictable consequences over the short term. Say like until the end of the century.

What consequences are you talking about here?  The statement about the last 20 years/etc. doesn’t depend on what will happen in the future.

TromboneAndrew - 20 June 2010 01:49 PM

Analytic - 20 June 2010 01:04 PM

I’m a reasonabe man and remain open to new evidence that supports the “anthropogenic global warming” conjecture.
I am not holding my breath, however, and I evaluate existing evidence for what it’s worth.

As a theoretical exercise, what evidence would convince you?

I have evaluated the evidence so far adduced, and it hasn’t come close to convincing me.

You seem to forget that no one needs convincing of something he is willing to accept without evidence.

And that’s what you’re witnessing in the “true believers”.

Analytic - 20 June 2010 05:55 PM

TromboneAndrew - 20 June 2010 01:49 PM

Analytic - 20 June 2010 01:04 PM

I’m a reasonabe man and remain open to new evidence that supports the “anthropogenic global warming” conjecture.
I am not holding my breath, however, and I evaluate existing evidence for what it’s worth.

As a theoretical exercise, what evidence would convince you?

I have evaluated the evidence so far adduced, and it hasn’t come close to convincing me.

You seem to forget that no one needs convincing of something he is willing to accept without evidence.

And that’s what you’re witnessing in the “true believers”.

Yes, I think that you’ve made this position quite clear.  However, this is not quite what I asked.

Sorry, but your question is inane. It’s like the Supreme Court Justice who was asked how he defined ‘pornography”. He replied: “I’ll know it when I see it.”

Analytic - 20 June 2010 05:55 PM

And that’s what you’re witnessing in the “true believers”.

TromboneAndrew question is far less “inane” than your above boast.  Another thing - TA treats you with respect and you gotta spit an insult like that at him.  Once again shame on you!

Furthermore, until you can view and comment on
“A Scientist Replies to Lord Christopher Monckton: Abraham v. Monckton.”
http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/
you’re doing nothing but blowing hot stinky air and blaming it on others.

Analytic - 21 June 2010 05:57 AM

Sorry, but your question is inane. It’s like the Supreme Court Justice who was asked how he defined ‘pornography”. He replied: “I’ll know it when I see it.”

My point is that in order to have any knid of reasonable discussion, there must be some point at which someone’s mind can be changed by reasonable argument.  If you can’t give us your requirements for what you consider a good argument for global warming, this discussion is pointless.  Such a stance thrusts you into exactly what you accuse others of: of adhering to a position without regard to reason.  I don’t think that you want to put yourself in this position, and for the sake of the argument, I think that this is an important point to deal with.

For my part, I would consider greenhouse-gas induced global warming a dead issue if it is shown that any changes in global temperature can be accounted for entirely by other effects, and that the phenomenon of CO2 absorbing certain wavelengths of infrared light doesn’t apply to the atmosphere.

The “masters of the language” have accused me of insulting you - I did no such thing.

I criticized your question as being “inane”, or “empty”.

As a scientist, I would NEVER attempt to prove an hypothesis “true”. I would attempt to prove the hypothesis “false”. That’s part of the scientific method.

After many attempts to “falsify” my hypothesis without success, I will use the statistics appropriate to my experimental design to assign a tentative probability that were the same experiment conducted 100 times, by myself and others, 95-99% of those experiments would yield the same results.

It is NOT my obligation to repeatedly bang into people’s heads the accepted nature of the scientific method. It is a means to a reasonable end: assigning a tentative probability to the validity of an hypothesis.

So-called consensus “scientists” signing on to an asinine statement that “anthropogenic global warming” is ESTABLISHED FACT, are not my kind of “scientists”.

Merely “true believers” who disdain the scientific method in favor of prognostication based on a very small evidentiary base: IOW, delusional thinking.

And these pseudo-scientists can publish all sorts of observations, with accompanying polls of their “peers”, till doomsday. I won’t be coerced to accept hogwash!!

Now, I posit a challenge: cite just ONE publication in a reputable scientific journal, in which the authors conclude that their observations have been challenged and tentatively proven to be correct by OTHER scientists in the same field of scientific inquiry.

Well, technically, a hypothesis has to be able to be proven to be reasonably true, AND be able to resist attempts to show falsehood.  Otherwise, unfalsiable but illogical propositions would be accepted, whereas they are actually not.

But I’m not asking about the scientific method, specifically.  I’m asking you what your burden of proof would be to accept global warming.  Nice try again to sidestep the question, but you didn’t answer it.  At least, not directly.  Are you saying that if I were to cite one publication about global warming from a reputable scientific journal in which the authors’ conclusions were challenged and accepted by other scientists, you would accept CO2-induced global warming?

Analytic - 21 June 2010 07:57 AM

The “masters of the language” have accused me of insulting you - I did no such thing.

Agreed.