Image of the day

From the
ATWB Customer Gallery

Mars 8-22-2020

My Account

New to Astromart?

Register an account...

Need Help?

Polar warming caused by humans

Started by Patagonia, 10/30/2008 12:20PM
Posted 10/30/2008 12:20PM Opening Post
As expected... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7700387.stm
Posted 10/31/2008 06:28PM #1
From the bbc article

"According to one of the researchers involved with the study, Peter Stott, head of climate monitoring and attribution at the Met Office, formally showing that the Antarctic was being influenced by human activities was the key development"

I guess they really researched their piece really well. Especially considering the Antarctic has been gaining in ice surface since they have been measuring it. First time I see cooling attributed to human activity.

Woohoo!!

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/s_plot.html

They're clueless...As expected.



Posted 11/07/2008 09:32AM #2
Jason Cosford said:

As expected... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7700387.stm

Here is the REAL problem, for me anyway. There is a different between being {a factor, a contributor, part of, a fingerprint, etc.} and being the cause

This article is titled "Humans... causing polar warning" but then every follow-on in the article says things like:

"Their study indicates that humans have indeed contributed to warming in both regions" - contributed not CAUSED!
"Today's study, according to the researchers, suggests for the first time that there's a discernable human influence on both the Arctic and Antarctica" - suggests for the first time... a DISCERNABLE influence... not CAUSE!
"But nevertheless when you do that you see a clear human fingerprint in the observed data." - fingerprint, not CAUSE!

and

"But I still think that a number of people, including some politicians, are reluctant to accept the evidence or to do anything about it until we specifically come down to saying that one particular event was caused by humans"

Yup - exactly... They are saying it is caused (lower case, implied, insinuated) by humans, but they're NOT ACTUALLY EXPLICITLY SAYING IT IS CAUSED (quotes, upper case, explicitly)!... They've been raising the ruckus all along, letting the media and politicians jump all over it to promote their agendas and FALSELY claiming it is CAUSED by Humans, when they won't actually pinned down that far! This is disingenuous and anti-scientific. (and on the part of some in the pro-AGW fold, it is hypocritical, cynical, and downright evil).

I, and others who think the way I do about this topic, are in fact reluctant to accept their so-called "evidence" because of the intrinsic bias of the methods, participants, and over-reaching claims that have continued to be made on this issue. This news release is yet another in that fold. Nothing in that article "PROVED" anything.

If, for the sake of argument, this new study just released WERE in fact PROOF OF CAUSE (which it is demonstrably not), then, by definition, every previous "claim" of "proof" was, in fact FALSE... the hype, hysteria, and overall bandwagon effects are quite simply deafening.

Pro AGW can't have it both ways in the argument. Either claim it is caused, and PROVE IT (which has NOT been done)... or accept that it CAN be proved that there are OTHER factors as well. Can it be proven there is Human influence? Possibly. Maybe even probably. But it hasn't been proven as the cause, nor are any in the pro-AGW camp willing to be pinned down to that level of specificity.

What are they afraid of?

The most distrubing quote from the article to me was:

"The research team took the temperature changes over the polar regions of the Earth and compared them with two sets of climate models. One set assumed that there had been no human influence the other set assumed there had. The best fit was with models that assumed that human activities including the burning of fossil fuels and depletion of ozone had played a part."

Now there is a surprise! They assumed there was a human influence in their model, and then were surprised when the evaluation of the model fit their a-priori assumption when fed the data! Shazzaam! Must be PROOF! ROFLMAO

I wonder if these are the same folks that buy/sell stocks using "advanced modeling software" - yep, that works real well also... "But, I don't understand why we just lost everything in the market crash!? Our models fit all our data and assumptions, and had never been wrong BEFORE??? It's not fair! We've been cheated! There needs to be a LAW!"

The limits of human hubris know no bounds