Well I was going to respond with a one liner...but where is the fun in
that.
--- John Foster <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> It has a lot to do with ethics. I think that the issue is being
> completely
> clouded by debate with 'hacks' and the 'contrarians' employed by the oil
> and
> coal industry, obviously. The facts are simple enough, there is a
Damn, good thing I don't work for either.
[snip]
> The issue is extremely important to ethics because of the allegations
> and
> charges by person's on this list like Steve, and Jim Tantillo, who are
> insisting that the real problem in this world is 'environmentalists' who
> are
> yelling at the top of their lungs: "the sky is falling, the sky is
> falling,
> etc."
Actually this is incorrect. I don't think Jim has ever said that. Also,
I think that part of the problem is junkscience, i.e. people who have a
preconceived notion and look for data to support it. There is a
considerable amount we still don't know about the climate and its
dynamics.
> The forum that Steve enjoys the most is 'trash talk' where guys with
> very
> little scientific training can listen to some 'credible' person mollify
> them
> about some thing that is a real hazard and risk.
Actually we have several scientists who post there. One is Mike Syvanen,
check out his publications on PubMed
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10664601&dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10471904&dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9432128&dopt=Abstract
> You notice how Steve jumps from the topic of climate science to the
> economics of alternative energy. He behaves like he is an expert on
> climate
> science, yet has no science degree, but rather an economics degree
And you have yammered on about economics, but you have no degree in that
field. Also, you don't have a degree in climatology either, hey maybe we
are both full of BS.
> [social
> science] so is it any wonder he fails to understand basic climatology?
> But
> he protrays himself as an expert on the topic of 'global warming' on the
> 'trash talk' forum. He talks about 'coefficients' of determination,
> etc., to
> other people that don't even know what is meant by regression analysis.
> Then
Actaully, while you are correct that I don't have a degree in atmospheric
physics, I have spent many years studying statistics both formally and
informally.
> he makes the error of wondering what total solar irradience is measured
> in.
Actually no, I made an oversight in reading another posters comment on
that topic. Try not to distort the facts too much John.
> He presents data on the total solar irradience outside the atmosphere
> that
> begins in 1900 and does not understand that the data are proxy, that the
> data could not actually come from a satellite in 1900. The next funny
Actually this is funny considering that first you said I was using made up
data on solar irradience and then I corrected you and pointed out it was
derived from proxy sources. Sheesh.
> thing
> is that he applies regression analysis without considering the curve of
> the
> graph of irradience over time. As anyone can see over the last 20 years
> there has been a decline in solar irradience, but during the same time
> there
> has been a very significant increase in global surface temperatures. Not
> only that but fitting a curve without considering the shape of the curve
> is
> bad science. The curve is not linear, therefore why is he applying
> linear
> estimation techniques to a phenomenon that does not protray a linear
> trend,
> but rather one that is curvilinear {looks like a negative exponential}
And here we see a stellar example of John's ignorance of statistics (and
know you know why it is important to discuss this stuff otherwise people
could be bamboozled by John). The linear part of linear regression means
that the regression is linear in the coefficients. That is we can fit
non-linear data by taking simple transformations such as logarithms,
exponents, square roots, etc.
For those of you that are really intersted in this check out this link
http://www.cfis.org/ubb/Forum2/HTML/000234-3.html
Note my post on 10/25/00 at 1:11 PM. Clearly the data in the graphs is
non-linear yet I estimated the regression line using simple linear
regression.
You can also see the graph by clicking this link
http://www.geocities.com/recursive_1/pics/TrashTalkPics/Seasonal_Model.gif
> He even makes the absurd statement that the temperatures in the polar
> regions are not warming up on average more than other parts of the
> earth.
> What an absurd statement to make. The Canadian Arctic is experiencing
> temperatures that are drastically warmer than experienced on average for
> the
> entire planet. Yes the northwest passage has been open for sea going
> vessels
Wow, we just spent alot of time discussing Hudson Bay at Trash Talk. Two
of the posters there, Canadians, disputed the notion of Global Warming as
the reason for the Hudson Bay being more open to traffic.
Here is the link
http://www.cfis.org/ubb/Forum2/HTML/000241.html
> The term absurd is a mathematical term. It refers to a proposition that
> does
> not function. That is what the kind of statements that Steve is making,
> absurd statements about the science of climate change, and to top it off
> he
> is ignoring the evidence.
What branch of mathematics defines and uses the word absurd. Hmmm, not in
my books on functional analysis, not in my books on probability theory,
not in my books on set theory...lets see nope, not in my book on numerical
analysis, nor in my book on linear and non-linear programming. Can you
give me a clue John?
Steve
=====
"In a nutshell, he [Steve] is 100% unadulterated evil. I do not believe in a 'Satan', but this man is as close to 'the real McCoy' as they come."
--Jamey Lee West
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/
|