CRED downplays global warming hand wringing

[guardian]

Link: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/23/gore-pulls-slide-of-disaster-trends/


Al Gore criticized misleading people with incorrect interpretations of data. In response to the removal of a slide from the Inconvenient Truth presentation, an official for Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED) stated in part

"... Before interpreting the upward trend in the occurrence of weather-related disasters as “completely unprecedented” and “due to global warming”, one has to take into account the complexities of disaster occurrence, human vulnerabilities and statistical reporting and registering."

"... We believe that the increase seen in until about 1995 is explained partly by better reporting of disasters in general..."

"... Whether this is due to climate change or not, we are unable to say."


Bottom line according to the CRED--every little natural disaster is not a sign of global warming. No need to get your panties in a global warming twist over a drought in California or a heatwave in Australia or snow in Upstate NY. These things HAPPEN NATURALLY.

[OKIsItJustMe]

1. The increasing intensity of the strongest tropical cyclones

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=187977&mesg_id=187977

http://myweb.fsu.edu/jelsner/PDF/Research/ElsnerKossinJagger2008.pdf

Nature Vol 455 | 4 September 2008 | doi:10.1038/nature07234

The increasing intensity of the strongest tropical cyclones

James B. Elsner¹, James P. Kossin² & Thomas H. Jagger¹

Atlantic tropical cyclones are getting stronger on average, with a 30-year trend that has been related to an increase in ocean temperatures over the Atlantic Ocean and elsewhere^1–4. Over the rest of the tropics, however, possible trends in tropical cyclone intensity are less obvious, owing to the unreliability and incompleteness of the observational record and to a restricted focus, in previous trend analyses, on changes in average intensity. Here we overcome these two limitations by examining trends in the upper quantiles of per-cyclone maximum wind speeds (that is, the maximum intensities that cyclones achieve during their lifetimes), estimated from homogeneous data derived from an archive of satellite records. We find significant upward trends for wind speed quantiles above the 70th percentile, with trends as high as 0.3 ± 0.09 m s^-1 yr^-1 (s.e.) for the strongest cyclones. We note separate upward trends in the estimated lifetime-maximum wind speeds of the very strongest tropical cyclones (99th percentile) over each ocean basin, with the largest increase at this quantile occurring over the North Atlantic, although not all basins show statistically significant increases. Our results are qualitatively consistent with the hypothesis that as the seas warm, the ocean has more energy to convert to tropical cyclone wind.

An important concern about the consequences of climate change is the potential increase in tropical cyclone activity. Theoretical arguments^5,6 and modelling studies^7,8 indicate that tropical cyclone winds should increase with increasing ocean temperature. Direct observational verification of this relationship over the global tropics is lacking, but Atlantic sea surface temperature (SST), which is correlated with global mean near-surface air temperature, helps explain¹ the recent upswing in frequency and intensity of Atlantic tropical cyclones. However, it has been argued that the data are not reliable enough to make assertions about the relationship between climate change and hurricanes^9–13 and that the correlation may involve both regional and remote SSTs^14,15. Here we shed new light on this topic by using globally consistent satellite-derived tropical cyclone wind speeds¹⁶ and by focusing on the lifetime-maximum wind speeds of the strongest tropical cyclones each year.

Figure 1a shows the satellite-derived lifetime-maximum wind speeds grouped by year over the period 1981–2006, displayed as box plots (see Supplementary Information). The number of cyclones per year over the globe is shown above the time axis; there is no trend in these counts. Also, there is no trend in the median lifetime-maximum wind speed, as shown by the nearly horizontal red line, which is the best-fit line through the annual 50th-percentile values (black dashes inside the boxes). However at cyclone wind speeds above the median, upward trends are noted. Thus, the upper-quartile value (top of the box) is increasing (green line) and so are higher quantile values (for example the top of the vertical dashed line), where the upward trends are more pronounced.

…

[guardian]

2. Abnormal Decrease in Hurricane during last 40 years

Link: http://hurricane.atmos.colostate.edu/forecasts/2001/april2001/

"...Abnormal Decrease in U.S. Major Hurricane Landfall During the Last Four Decades

Official records indicate that over the last century (1900-2000) 218 major hurricanes developed in the Atlantic basin and that of these category 3-4-5 storms, about one-third (73) have come ashore along the U.S. coastline. In the last six years (1995-2000) 23 major hurricanes developed in the Atlantic basin but only three (Opal, 1995; Fran, 1996; and Bret, 1999) came ashore. If the typical longterm one-of-three ratio of major hurricane landfalling-to total events observed during the last six years had occurred, then we should have experienced 7-8 major hurricane landfall events versus just the three that came ashore."

"... the first six decades of the 20th century had 3.4 times the annual average incidence of major hurricane landfall events that occurred during the last four decades. "

[OKIsItJustMe]

3. Quick! Which is more current?

The "forecast" written in 2001? Or the scientific study written in 2008?

[tom_paine]

6. Now, now, don't disturb Goebbels Jr. here. He has his marching orders from the Ministry of

Bushiganda and he's going to damned well FOLLOW ORDERS.

Incident-Based Thinking, which is what Goebbels Jr. is selling, much like the cigarette barons used his vile kind before (and paid them for it, too), is a Propaganists' wet dream. get people focused on individual incidents, and scientific thinking usually falls away, giving distinct advanatge to Professional Liars like guardian.

You can't argue with that. Want to try to argue an original Goebbelsian Ministry of Porpaganda worker about the facts that Jews are people,too? Might as well, it sure beats trying to argue with this pale, weak copy of one of Goebbels' Operatives.

CRED, is of course, an Exxon Front-Group, receiving handsome monies from Exxon and the rest of the Astroturfers. Naturally, THEY'RE telling the truth with their millions of millions of propaganda/PR bucks, and those scientists, evil little worms trying to keep their $40K/year desk jobs will tell ANY LIE and ALWAYS LIE.

Just like the Jews, that's what Goebbels said. Jews are always lying, Nazis are always truthful. Incident-Based thinking and a lack of scientific understanding can lead anyone to come to the opposite conclusion of reality. Witness Bushler and Goebels Jr. here, doing his little part for Totalitarian Lies, Misinofrmation and Disinformation.

Anyway, I have already wasted too much time on Goebbels' Jr. You might wish to try to continue debating, but his pupose is to waste our time and confuse anyone easily confusable who cannot critically think nor tell the difference between Incident-Based propaganda and the scientific method.

What is amazing to me that it works as well now as hen Goebbels did it 70 years ago or the cig manufacturers 20 years ago. People can always be fooled, and ol' guardian-Goebbels Jr. will always have work in fooling people.

Plus, the deliberate destruction of public schools and the restoration of higher education as a province of the rich only, make it certain that with each passing generation, fewer and fewer Americans will be able to debunk lies, continued Bushiganda victories on redefining language as Irwell instructed them and warned us they would eventually try) ensures that one day people won't even have the language necessary to express dissent.

guardian is a monster, but one of the little monsters who made Nazi Germany such a grand place for Professional Liars like him.

America is nearly as welcoming a place these days for such Professional Liars, Obama's election notwithstanding. Nazis and Bushies and the millions who do their dirty work for them, some for free and some paid, like guardian, don't CARE about elections, they are playing on a very different field than us naive liberal fools.

guardian is going to repeat his lies (and be paid for it) on his two or three dozen assigned websites in which he makes his circuit. NOTHING is going to stop him.

And you know what? In all likelihood, the vast majority of people, no matter what namby-pamby scientific "facts" and "data" and "trends" get in the way, are going to throw their hands up eventually and give in.

Are you excited, guardian, at the wonderful future that awaits you and the rest of your career cousins of paid Professonal Liars and Propangandists?

Or are you so mired in the Bushiganda making everyone like you crazy about "marxist" Obama that you cnnot see the greater end, even as you bull your way forward telling lies and repeating loud and proud over the whiny complaints of intellectuals, just as Goebbels originally instructed you so many decades ago.

Take some time off to enjoy. Smell the roses. Dream your dreams of total Bushie Control, when all Bushie lies like those you tell are the "truth", no one dares complain, and facts are determined by who is the most indefatigable zealot or paid the best to repeatt he same lies over and over and over, cut-and-paste, sneer and smear, cut-and-paste...

You are just a little montser, guardian, but without millions like you, so mny tyrants throughout the ages would have failed before achieving their aims.

Be proud. Your role in history has always been in the service of tyrants, and it is instrumental.

Keep it up. I guess your assignment is to DU for the next few days. Have fun and remember us fondly when you are doing the other parts of your assignment, OK?

:hi:

Bye, little monster. Such a little monster. If you had any balls, you'd be out vandalizing black churches and dreaming of shooting up Unitarian Chruches, once Bushie law Enforcement gibves you the wink.

But no, you Goebbels-types are always too cowardly to endanger yourselves, aren't you?
You prefer the pen, while other, duller-witted monsters use the sword in your service.

By, the way, have I told you that your sigline has REALLY fooled me into believing you're a lefist.

:rofl:

Sorry, OKIsItJustMe, I was addressng Goebbels, Jr. towards the end, not you.

But his mission was accomplished. I just wasted my time on him, and so did you.

Notice how Bushie Paid Propagandists always cut-and-paste and NEVER waste time making up their own words? Allows them to post more messages while we waste our time thinking up stuff.

[guardian]

11. Dude--you're on tilt

It is exactly this sort of mindless frothing rage that caused me to start investigating the anti-global warming arguments some years ago. At first I accepted the premise of global warming. Then as I heard more people going over into the conspiracy mindset that anyone believing differently or asking a question is "evil" "on Exxon's payroll" blah blah I started reading the other side of things. After a while I changed my mind.

1. I don't understand your hangup on Nazi's. Maybe you like the uniforms?

2. What evidence do you have that "CRED, is of course, an Exxon Front-Group, receiving handsome monies from Exxon"? I looked through their website and found no references to Exxon. To me it was just the organization references in the New York Times article that I linked to. Oh I forget--your type doesn't need evidence.

3. So I'm a "monster", "Nazi", "Lier", "Bushie", "Professional Lier", "Goebbels, Jr", "evil little worm" --all because I don't agree with you on a particular issue. Very free-thinking and tolerant of you. What do you say to people who like a different flavor ice cream?

4. Still waiting for my paycheck. If anyone wants to pay me "$40K/year" to occasionally post on DU I'll be happy to take the money. I prefer direct deposit thank you.

[tom_paine]

15. Yep. I am very much on tilt on the matter of cut-and-paste, hit-and run bullshit

You finally FINALLY answered in your own words. After doing nothing but cut-and-pasting, which I despise and THAT is why I ripped you over and over again.

Incident-based thinking, which is ironically the very thing the GW Denial Propaganda Machine is supposedly decrying here, is evident in virtually every one of your cut-and-paste hit-and-runs.

THAT is what merited scorn and the massive "on tilt" flaming I have been giving you.

Maybe it wasn't so ON TILT if it caused you to finaly stick around and say something IN YOUR OWN WORDS. If you decide to reply IN YOUR OWN WORDS, and discuss civillly, I promise to respond in kind. I don't mind citing articles, but for God's sake, open your mouth and make your case. Why do YOU think the incidents described in your various cut-and-pastes mean something? What is the pattern? Why is it scientifically relevant?

Are you scientifically literate? One can't tell since you never use your own words. What is your hypothesis, other than contrarianism? IS AGW absolutely false, in your opinion? A complete and total scam? Why? Or are you saying that the remaining shreds of uncertainty still warrant absolute inaction on the ever shrinking chance it MIGHT be false?

You finally opened your mouth and spoke for yourself. That's good. Now please explain yourself.

Let me answer your questions, then I have some more for you, and I would appreciate answers.

1. The Rushpublican Party, or the Bushies, or whatever you want to call the authoritarian malevolence that has taken over the RW in this country, is very much utilizing strategies and propaganda tactics right out of Goebbels' Playbook. Personally, I had two relatives murdered by/in
Stalin's Gulags (great-uncles I never met). I strongly dislike authoritarian totalitarianism, either Soviet-Commie on the Left and Nazi-Pinochetista-Bushie on the Right, and I have
studied extensively on why and how it happened...and keeps happening. We have narrowly averted something very bad with Obama's election, and the threat is far from over.

Goebbelsian Propaganda v2.0 is very prevalent, new and calibrated using years and years of progress in statistical and behavioral psychology, plausible deniability, Astroturfing using vast wealth and media saturation, marketing, and 'public relations'. And THAT, whether you know it or not, is much of what you have been cut-and-pasting, IMHO.

2. Cited by Greenpeace, among others...

weblog.greenpeace.org/makingwaves/archives/climate/

Now I know, I know, it's always the impoverished eco-hippies with nothing to gain who are always the filthy liars, and the suits with billions to lose are ALWAYS pure as the driven snow, right?

Oh, and by the way, speaking of upside-down naivete on your part, would you REALLY expect CREDs Website to ANNOUNCE it is getting funding from the Industrial Denier Community? That's not smart marketing.

In terms of citing evidence and doing your research for you: I only do that with people I am sure aren't playing me on the other side. Freepers, Bushies and Hannidiots have this annoying habit of demnading proof, then after you take the time to get it, say "Liberal Propaganda" and dismiss it with a wave. It's part of their creepy little thing, so I no longer answer demands for evidence and waste my time UNTIL someone has at least established they are conversing in good faith.

Until then, do your own research, especially about what I am to tell you next. If you track the records of many of your favorite Denier sites, you'll find many (but not all, just most of the dozen or so "denier prof" CVs I looked into until I satisfied myself as to the trend) don't publish much in peer-reviewed journals but mostly in places like "Capitalism Magazine".

Ahem! I guess the evil $40K/year scientist community just won't let them be heard, eh?

I am not saying scientists are not as capable of being as venal as anyone else, but science, with it's doctrine of ever-questioning of orthodoxy, peer-review, and scientific methods continually pyramiding new knowledge on old knowledge, makes it much more difficult, than, saaay, the Corporate Culture, where most everything is basically unquestioning obedience pretty much.

I've worked in science and I have worked in corporate (on science-related issues) so I know of what I speak. Corproate culture and structure lends itself to cover-ups, scientific culture tears the lid off 'em. Are they both 100% one way or 100% another? Hell, no, but again the trend is clear. Read a monthly global corporate crime report sometime.

3. Guilty as charged. As I said, your style was distinctly reminiscent of the professional paid poster or corporate paid posters/monitors (yes, such things exist - do your own research, plenty of easily Googled evidence out there). If you are not a Paid Poster or a Freeper asshole, then I am truly sorry for ripping you, other than it finally made you quit cut-and-paste hit-and-running for a moment.

If you ARE, well then I stand by what I said and then some. Only you can know which is correct.

4. The $40K/year was in reference to scientist salaries. Paid posters make MUCH LESS, $7-$12/hr., unless they are Corporate PR, in which case they are getting paid PR professional salary and doing other shit, to earn that money. That's a lot more than $40K/year, I'll bet.

OK, I responded civilly, admitted where I was wrong, if indeed I was. No more flames, either way.

If you engage me in civil conversation in your own words, I'll listen. If you start rapid-firing cut-and-paste at me, I'll just put you on ignore.

Now, that I have answered your questions, kindly answer mine:

1) Could you clarify what you are getting at with all your cut-and-pastes? What is your hypothesis, other than contrarianism? IS AGW absolutely false, in your opinion? A complete and total scam by evil Lib'rul Liar Scientists protecting their big $40K/year salaries?? Or 100% false for other reasons? Elaborate your hypothesis, please.

2) If AGW is still possible or even probable, what % chance would you put it at? 10% 50-50? 90% 99%? I am just trying to get a sense of what you are trying to say, since other than your cut and pastes you never say anything.

3) IF AGW is NOT 100% false (and if you have any scientific background or literacy it would seem impossible for you to make a 100% certain statement in either direction) are you saying that the remaining shreds of uncertainty still warrant absolute inaction on the ever shrinking chance it MIGHT be false? How much proof is required?

4) Do you understand incident-based thinking vs scientific thinking? You post these "snapshots" and make like they mean something, but anyone with scientific literacy knows you need to look at trends and long-term data to make accurate assessments of almost anything. Why do your cut-and-pastes NEVER discuss long-term data and trends? Why do they always seem to at least this scientifically-literate person to try and instead misdirect with tiny contrary examples, ignoring the massive overall trends?

Maybe that's something YOU should ask yourself. Are you even aware you are doing it?

Early on, I DID do your research for you and paste a couple graphs explaining how one of your incident-based cut-and-pastes was basically debunked by long-term (relative to your "incident" in the cut-and-paste) data. You did not reply.

OK, now let's see what you've got. Can you defend your ideas in your own words? Can you answer my 4 numbered questions as I did yours?

We'll see.

[guardian]

16. Hypocrite is as hypocrite does

>>After doing nothing but cut-and-pasting, which I despise and THAT is why I ripped you over and over again.

Funny how you never ripped any of the other dozens of posters that cut and past articles here. This whole forum is rife with clips from articles, newspapers, and blogs. But when you agree with them you appear to be okay with cutting-and-pasting. Hypocrite.

>>>Incident-based thinking, which is ironically the very thing the GW Denial Propaganda Machine is >>>supposedly decrying here, is evident in virtually every one of your cut-and-paste hit-and-runs.
>>>I don't mind citing articles, but for God's sake, open your mouth and make your case.

Again this whole forum is rife with incident-based thinking and cut-and-paste of discrete events that everyone jumps on to cite as more proof of global warming. Half the posts in this forum are some snip of a news article without the poster "making their case" or adding a single word. Again I never seen you rip them for that. Hypocrite.

>>>Are you scientifically literate?

Are you?


>>>IS AGW absolutely false, in your opinion? A complete and total scam?

Yes.

>>>ever shrinking chance it MIGHT be false?

I'm seeing more and more evidence to the contrary. At least I read both sides of the spectrum. I doubt most GW proponents can say the same.

>>> Goebbelsian Propaganda v2.0 is very prevalent, new and calibrated using years and years of progress in >>>statistical and behavioral psychology, plausible deniability, Astroturfing using vast wealth and media >>>saturation, marketing, and 'public relations'. And THAT, whether you know it or not, is much of what you >>>have been cut-and-pasting, IMHO.

I see we're back to conspiracy theory. And you are correct that is YOUR opinion. Not mine.

>>>Now I know, I know, it's always the impoverished eco-hippies with nothing to gain who are always the >>>filthy liars, and the suits with billions to lose are ALWAYS pure as the driven snow, right?

Of course not. But the inverse is not ALWAYs true either. You and the other GW proponents tend to have a knee jerk response to any contrarian view as in the pay of Exxon or the like. You've accused me of that yourself numerous times.

>>>In terms of citing evidence and doing your research for you....have this annoying habit of demnading
>>>proof

I'm not demanding anything. Just presenting my viewpoint. What makes you think I value your opinion enough to ask you to do "research" for me.


>>>I am not saying scientists are not as capable of being as venal as anyone else, but science, with it's >>>doctrine of ever-questioning of orthodoxy, peer-review, and scientific methods continually pyramiding new >>>knowledge on old knowledge, makes it much more difficult, than, saaay, the Corporate Culture, where most >>>everything is basically unquestioning obedience pretty much.

People are people. If you think people in academia are somehow above self interest, ambition, pride, greed, and occasionally stepping on others to get ahead -- you're living in a fantasy world.

>>>I've worked in science and I have worked in corporate (on science-related issues)
>>>so I know of what I speak.

Big deal. So have I.

>>>1) Could you clarify what you are getting at with all your cut-and-pastes? What is your hypothesis >>>Elaborate your hypothesis, please.

When you ask the same of other DUers I'll consider answering.

>>>2) If AGW is still possible or even probable, what % chance would you put it at? 10% 50-50? 90% 99%?

Less than 1%

>>>3) IF AGW is NOT 100% false are you saying that the remaining shreds of uncertainty still warrant >>>absolute inaction on the ever shrinking chance it MIGHT be false? How much proof is required?

It certainly doesn't warrant the doomsday predictions and coverage it currently gets. I put Global Warming in the same realm as the Year-2000 hysteria (which was a big nothing) or the Mayan Calendar 2012 destruction of the Earth.

>>>4) Do you understand incident-based thinking vs scientific thinking?

Absolutely. I'm just countering the pro-GW "snapshots" that everyone else posts here.


>>>ignoring the massive overall trends?

You mean like ignoring how a relatively minuscule rise in temperature since 1850 wouldn't be expected coming out of the Little Ice Age? It's like crying wolf because summer temperatures are warming coming out of a winter season. Or how hurricanes in the early part of the last century we more prevalent than now. Or how sea level or global climate has changed numerous times throughout history--sometime very abruptly. O how the snows of Kilimanjaro were already receding in the 19th century. To me the "massive overall trend" is climate is always changing. That fact weather patterns are different than from what you remember as a kid mean nothing in the overall scheme of things. But yet people on this forum are always screaming about how something changed in the last 30 years.

[tom_paine]

19. OK, now we're talking. Some responses your comments, which I italicized:

Funny how you never ripped any of the other dozens of posters that cut and past articles here. This whole forum is rife with clips from articles, newspapers, and blogs. But when you agree with them you appear to be okay with cutting-and-pasting. Hypocrite.

More incident-based thinking from you. You sweep in here, what, six months ago, and assume everything you see here is my relationship to other posters. What you DON'T know and haven't seen is that most of the other posters who "cut-and-paste" here have had long discussions with me, in elaboration of their various points. But you, Mr. Hypocrite who labels others so, assume that you know everything about my interactions with other posters from your six months here.

Amusingly enough, this is once-again, another clear case of incident-based thinking on your part. I long ago had my discussions with some of the other posters here. You assume because you didn't see it, it hasn't happened.

Again this whole forum is rife with incident-based thinking and cut-and-paste of discrete events that everyone jumps on to cite as more proof of global warming.

I can't fully disagree with you here. As you mentioned elsewhere, there are human tendencies which scientists or anyone is not immune from. I will say this: if you are going to try to disprove Einstein's Relativity (like climate and many biological processes, it is not 100% verifiable like water boiling at 100 C at 1 atm pressure, physicists are only able to keep reducing uncertainty that it is not so), YOU have to make your case against the scientific consensus. This is not to say the scientific consensus doesn't have to defend itself, put the onus of proving/defending is primarily on the challenger.

AGW has already gone through this process, from the 80s, when AGW was indeed still much more up in the air as a question, to currently where the uncertainty is quite diminished, as all the climate modelling's harshest predictions are being shatered by the data.

From the NW Passage opening to the loss of Wilkins, both happening some 20-30 years faster than the worst-case scenarios, and dozens of others "faster than expected" incidents.

Time for the deniers to make their case. It is not that AGW proponents just sit silent and don't have to defend their positions, but the onus is on the "challenger" to prove their case that scientific consensus is wrong and that new scientific consensus be adopted.

I asked, >>>Are you scientifically literate?

You replied, "Are you?"

First off, you failed to answer my question, which always raises a red flag. But I am happy to answer yours, since I have nothing to hide. Yes, I am scientifically literate. I am a Molecular Biologist with 7 years in research, and 4 on the corporate end of Life Sciences.

I am also a veteran of the Armed Forces, so my career-work history is a little shorter for someone my age.

I am well-versed in scientific method, of formulating and challenging hypotheses, etc. One of the most intellectually enjoyable, and purely scientific, endeavors we used to do in research was round-tables in which we presented our experimental set of data and everyone tried to attack them and poke holes in them, even though we all usually hoped that our conclusions were correct...for the business.

You should try it sometime. First, you have to present a SET of data, not just a snapshot, and your conclusions, so far as I can tell, are sloppy. If I was you supervisor, I'd say that your conclusions were sloppy and unfocused. Further, your concluion that AGW is a 100% scam, is wholly unscientific, relying instead on the idea that pretty much the entire scientific esatblishment is "in on it".

And then you have the nerve to say that my assertions regrding the highly verifiable and documented decades of marketing, advertising, and psychological research are CONSPIRACY THOERIES?

Good God, how hypocritical is THAT? I have been pointing out that traditionally, verifiable criminal history shows that it's much more often the rich guys in suits, and those working for them, committing the conspiracies, not the people making $40 or $60K a year, who by definition have MUCH less to lose than the suits feeding you your propaganda.

No, I can't prove that like I can prove water always boils at 100C at 1 atm. But, if you'd crack a history book, your uncertainty about that observable trend would be vastly reduced.

Speaking of conspiracy theories, other than my calling it Goebbels v2.0, there's nothing unverifiable about any of the assertions I have made about the increasing power and understanding of pyschology, advertising, marketing, and PR. Astroturfing has also been exposed many times, as has direct connections between the mostly denier community and he corporatioons who fund them.

I have done my research on this. You need to do some before you accuse people of conspiracy theories when they bring up verifiale facts. Where do you think the "focus group" came from? Or Newt Gingrich's 1994 piece, which has since defined Bushiganda, on psycholinguistics that it's not the substance of what you say, but the psychological power of redefined words used to "label" an opponent.

You think he just sat down and dreamed that up himself? No, it stands on the back of thousands, of hours of psychological experimentation conducted at universities and corporations, not alwsys for that purpose, but then scientific research is often used for purposes other than which it was intended. And some of that research WAS intended to increase the power of maniuplation over the populace.

Start with Vance Packard's "The Hidden Persuaders", which is an excellent hisory of the history of "deep penetration" pyschologically desgined advertising. There are several other books to follow up with, but Packard's is the seminal work.

Get a year's subscription to Advertising Age. Listen to what they say to each other when they think no one is listening, so to speak. And remember, psychological research shows conclusively that people who are aware that they might be psychologically manipulated, are MUCH more difficult to psychologically manipulate.

This is not "conspiracy theory", but scientific fact. NO it can't be 100% proved like water boiling at 100 C at 1 atm, but let's just say the uncertainty has been reduced by vast amounts of research far more than AGW, which has been reduced very much indeed.

Which brings me up to the most staggering display of your scientific illiteracy, your belief that AGW is a 100% scam and 100% false.

There is simply no ability to draw such certainty, considering the ultra-complex biological and geological nature of climate, even FOR AGW. You didn't mention whether or not you were scientifically literate. This comment alone is HIGHLY suggestive that you are not. In most or all of my posts, particularly to deniers, I always try to make it clear that there still remains uncertainty and I and the GW scientific consensus could yet be wrong, in spite of the mounting evidence reducing uncertainty.

You are 100% certain. That's not the way of the scientist, that is the way of the propagandist and the scientifically illiterate who trail in their incident-based wake.

By the way, I told you why I am scientifically literate and what I do for a living. How 'bout you? What do you do for a living? Show me that you are scientifically illiterate, because most of your statements seem to indicate the opposite.

You say you worked in both science and corporate culture. What do you do for a living?

I said, >>>Now I know, I know, it's always the impoverished eco-hippies with nothing to gain who are always the filthy liars, and the suits with billions to lose are ALWAYS pure as the driven snow, right?

You replied, Of course not. But the inverse is not ALWAYs true either. You and the other GW proponents tend to have a knee jerk response to any contrarian view as in the pay of Exxon or the like. You've accused me of that yourself numerous times.

All absolutely true. I already explained why I jumped on you in that fashion, because your style mimics the paid propagandists' fully, including the scientific illiteracy and massive doses of incident-based thinking.

Sigh. As with the rest of the "unprovable and repeatable to the degree that water boils at 100C and 1 atm" stuff, the suits lying vs. the hippies lying is most definitely NOT a 100% in either direction, but I have eyes, and can observe historic trends. I feel reasonable safe in saying that, given the data of the last 100 years of history, it is MUCH more likely that the Corporations will be lying than the ragtag bunch opposing them, like Love Canal or of the hundreds or even thousands of
Love Canal-like incidents, just to name a single category of corporate crime. Or like the cigarrete manufactures successfully suppressing the link between smoking and cancer, keeping public uncrtainty high while the scientific uncertainty was diminishing to zero.

Use your eyes, man. Read a history book. If I observe a trend in which 9 out of 10 times, one thing is true, and 1 out of 10 times, th other is true, am I making a crazy conspiracy theory in assuming that there is a 90% chance in the future that the former will be true again, while always keeping in mind that the 10% chance might also be true THIS TIME, and thus my initial assumption false?

That's scientific thinking, and I have seen precious little of it in ANY of your posts.

Which brings me to your quite correct assertion that, "People are people. If you think people in academia are somehow above self interest, ambition, pride, greed, and occasionally stepping on others to get ahead -- you're living in a fantasy world.

You missed my point. Yes people are people, scientists, too, but you missed my point entirely. My point was that the structure of the scientific method and community makes such behavior much more difficult, the same way the corporate culture makes such behavior easy, and therefore much more prevalent.

Let me explain once again. I told you how we used to try to rip apart the data and conclusions of others, including the CSO (Chief Scientific Officer) for hours at a time, sometimes we would debate. Have you EVER seen, heard, or read of such behavior in Corporate? Of course not.

Ever tried to rip apart your boss' boss' boss' decisions and conclusions in open meeting, steadily for hours? I'm guessing not. Anyone who tried such in Corporate Culture would be blackballed by consensus, denied raises for "insubordination" and/or fired.

You are correct, scientists are just as capable of venality and base self-interest, it's just that the nature of scientific method and the scientific community makes it HARDER, MUCH HARDER for them to do so, the same way the unquestioning obedience of Corporate Culture makes it easier and MUCH more prevalent.

Could I be any more clear?

Finally, you said, I put Global Warming in the same realm as the Year-2000 hysteria (which was a big nothing) or the Mayan Calendar 2012 destruction of the Earth.

Wow, that's the MOST staggering display of scientific illiteracy I have ever seen from you, and that is saying a lot! In science, when making comparisions, it is understood that the closer things are in nature, the better the comparison. Things that are completely different, should NOT be compared and the conclusions drawn against them are not valid because of the differences.

You compare the massive amounts of hard data collected, ice cores, air samples, ocean samples, and probably hundreds of other types of measurements carried out over 30 years, detailing sometime hundreds of thousands of years and compare it to Y2K or Maya 2012???

That's not just scientifically iliterate, that borders on nuts. But it IS something a paid propagandist would say, or one unwittingly mimicking them, to distract and confuse the disinteretsed or the scientifically illiterate.

Show me the massive amount of experimental data and thought that went into the Y2K hysteria, which all the scientists I know recognized as unscientific media hysteria claptrap...because they understand scientific thinking and can TELL THE DIFFERENCE, between conclusions supported by data and those that are not supported by anything.

Once again, you display scientific illiteracy. Here's a tip from a scintist: before making comparisons of one thing to another, deeply assess and analyze how truly similar the things you are comparing are, otherwise you make yourself sound ridiculous.

How many scientists labored and how many experiments were performed to conclude that
Y2K was going to be an electronic apocalpyse? How 'bout for the Mayan 2012 calendar and the End
of the World because of it?

Come on! Of all the scientifically illiterate things you have said, that has to be the worst. You insult my intelligence. What do you do for a living? What is your field of specialty? If you actually do have a degree or degrees in science, you should go back and berate your professors for failing to make you fully understand the scientific method.

Or berate yourself, for having failed to learn their lessons and being suckered by Propgandists into a very good simulation of scientific illiteracy, which you continue to present.

Finally, I have read both sides of the AGW argument. How do you think I found out that a vast majority of denier scientists have typically VERY SHORT "professional CVs" and very long "Corporate Denier Astroturf CVs", like "Capitalism Magazine"?

OK, I have just taken the time to explain why you have strayed badly from scientific thinking and even literacy. I have provided concrete examples, such as your 100% certainty of AGW's falseness and the "conspiracy theory" that it's all a massive scam, while accusing ME of conpiracy theorizing for bringing up the verifiable fact of advertising, marketing, and psychological research in manipulation of people.

In almost every way, you continue to mimick the patterns of the scientifically illiterate, gullible sucker for propaganda or the propagandists themselves. I have shown why, and as conclusively as something like this can be shown. NOT as conclusively as water boiling at 100 C at 1 atm, and I could be wrong.

But let us just say the uncertainty is diminishing.

In your final summation, you mentioned rising heat in the 1850s, but what you DIDN'T mention is that ice core data shows CO2 has been rising the whole time, probably, but not 100% conclusively, linked to the rise of human population and industry. There's so much more you omitted, it's all a part of incident-based thinking, but this post is quite long and elaborate enough.

If you wish to continue this discussion, and remain civil, I continue to promise to respond in kind.

However, if you persist in not thinking things through, and continually violating scientific thinking, then we have nothing more to discuss. Because every time you do, I'll point out how it invalidates your conclusions.

[OKIsItJustMe]

4. Actually, you even misrepresent the forecast

http://hurricane.atmos.colostate.edu/forecasts/2001/april2001/

UPDATED FORECAST OF ATLANTIC SEASONAL HURRICANE ACTIVITY AND US LANDFALL STRIKE PROBABILITIES FOR 2001

A downturn is expected from the recent five (1995-96-98-99-00) very busy seasons.
Above average probability of US landfall is forecast.

This forecast is based on ongoing research by the authors along with meteorological
information through March 2001

…

Information obtained through March 2001 indicates that the 2001 Atlantic hurricane season will be less active than the recent, very busy 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999 and 2000 seasons but more active than the average for seasons during the recent multi-decadal period of low activity which extended from 1970 through 1994. Collectively, Atlantic basin Net Tropical Cyclone (NTC) activity during 2001 is expected to be about the average for the last 50 years. Predictive signals in the Atlantic basin including Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies (SSTAs) and surface pressure are quite positive (meaning favorable for more activity). The primary suppressing influences of this year's activity are the anticipated development of a weak to moderate El Niño this summer and an easterly QBO. We estimate that 2001 should see about 6 hurricanes (average is 5.7), 10 named storms (average is 9.3), 50 named storm days (average is 47), 25 hurricane days (average is 24), 2 intense (category 3-4-5) hurricanes (average is 2.2), 4 intense hurricane days (average is 4.7) and a Hurricane Destruction Potential (HDP) of 65 (average is 71) and overall average NTC activity of 100, or equal to the average year for the period between 1950-1990. U.S. landfall probability is forecast to be 5-10 percent above the long term average owing to the effects of the anticipated continuation of a strong Atlantic Ocean thermohaline circulation.

…

[tom_paine]

7. That is his job as Paid Professional Liar. n/t

[OKIsItJustMe]

5. (December 19, 2008) NASA Study Links Severe Storm Increases, Global Warming

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2008-242

NASA Study Links Severe Storm Increases, Global Warming

December 19, 2008

PASADENA, Calif. -- The frequency of extremely high clouds in Earth's tropics -- the type associated with severe storms and rainfall -- is increasing as a result of global warming, according to a study by scientists at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.

In a presentation today to the fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco, JPL Senior Research Scientist Hartmut Aumann outlined the results of a study based on five years of data from the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) instrument on NASA's Aqua spacecraft. The AIRS data were used to observe certain types of tropical clouds linked with severe storms, torrential rain and hail. The instrument typically detects about 6,000 of these clouds each day. Aumann and his team found a strong correlation between the frequency of these clouds and seasonal variations in the average sea surface temperature of the tropical oceans.

For every degree Centigrade (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) increase in average ocean surface temperature, the team observed a 45-percent increase in the frequency of the very high clouds. At the present rate of global warming of 0.13 degrees Celsius (0.23 degrees Fahrenheit) per decade, the team inferred the frequency of these storms can be expected to increase by six percent per decade.

Climate modelers have long speculated that the frequency and intensity of severe storms may or may not increase with global warming. Aumann said results of the study will help improve their models.

"Clouds and rain have been the weakest link in climate prediction," said Aumann. "The interaction between the daytime warming of the sea surface under clear-sky conditions and increases in the formation of low clouds, high clouds and, ultimately, rain is very complicated. The high clouds in our observations—typically at altitudes of 20 kilometers (12 miles) and higher—present the greatest difficulties for current climate models, which aren't able to resolve cloud structures smaller than about 250 kilometers (155 miles) in size."

Aumann said the results of his study, published recently in Geophysical Research Letters, are consistent with another NASA-funded study by Frank Wentz and colleagues in 2005. That study found an increase in the global rain rate of 1.5 percent per decade over 18 years, a value that is about five times higher than the value estimated by climate models that were used in the 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

JPL manages the AIRS project for NASA's Science Mission Directorate, Washington. For more information on AIRS, visit http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/ .

JPL is managed for NASA by the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena.

…

[jpak]

8. Deniers can STFU

again

[Barrett808]

9. Guardian, what do you hope to accomplish on this board?

Nobody here is buying it. Why don't you go hang out at ClimateAudit? You'll find an enthusiastic audience there.

[wtmusic]

10. It's time for a Denier Dungeon akin to September 11

We've got to file this sh*t somewhere.

[guardian]

12. Since you asked...

"Guardian, what do you hope to accomplish on this board?"

This is one of few areas that I believe the Democratic party is wrong. Put yourself in my shoes for a moment. If you truly don't believe in anthropogenic global warming, then why would you want to squander precious resources on a non-issue. There is only so much money, time, and effort available to help make the world a better place. We need to spend those resources addressing real issues. Let's further reduce carbon MOnoxide emissions, or sulfur, or cyanide, or other real pollutants. Let's clean up toxic industrial waste, or reclaim the land from strip mine operations, picking up litter, stop dumping of garbage in the oceans, cleaning up lakes/rivers. Or use the money to for AIDS research, eliminating world hunger, ending oppression in Darfur, etc etc etc etc

But I guess that makes me an EVIL NAZI WORM as the more tolerant of you claim.

[hatrack]

17. No, guardian - the more tolerant of us simply ignore you and your posts

Toodles.

[tom_paine]

20. Well said, hatrack. I confess to being among the least-tolerant.

I'm no NNadir, but I have been known...

But, now that guardian has finally engaged in conversation, which gave me the chance to fully explain his unscientific thinking and the whys and hows of how he has been misled by his own lack of scientific literacy and understanding, there's no need for flames from me, which were more about forecing him to say something HIMSELF, and probably making me feel better by letting off steam.

So, soon, unless he shows that he can discuss thing with even the tiniest drop of respect for scientific method and thinking, I, too, will join the ranks of those who simply ignore him.

What you said NEEDED to be said, hatrack. Thanks.

:hi:

[Barrett808]

18. Thermodynamics is not Derrida

It's not a matter of belief. But let me see if I can pinpoint your doubt. Which of the following do you dispute?

1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas (Tyndall 1859).
2. CO2 is rising (Keeling et al. 1958).
3. The new CO2 is mainly from burning fossil fuels (Suess 1955).
4. Temperature is rising (NASA GISS, Hadley CRU, UAH, RSS, etc.).
5. The increase in temperature correlates with the increase in CO2 (76% for
temp. anomaly and ln CO2 for 1880-2007).

Global warming in 5 bullet points, from Barton Paul Levenson (http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960/Climatology.html)

[guardian]

13. Thanks for the link

I'd never been to http://www.climateaudit.org/ before. I bookmarked it to investigate later.

[Barrett808]

14. You'll love it there.

But you'd benefit a lot more from reading actual climate science: http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/ClimateBook/ClimateBook.html .