Umm, is this correct/fair/acceptable?

[j2k4]

If he is not going to be PC with regard to global warming then he will need to be removed completely. What if he is correct. It would make us all look stupid. I suppose the same applies to anything that, at the moment, is PC.

Hi Kev.

Hi, Bob.

J2k4: Both schools of thought in the political/media hold bias, and both sides exclude the other viewpoint. All of which are irrelevant to actual scientific theory.

Bias both ways?

If you insist, but my conclusion is those who believe (to reiterate my objection) man to be substantially if not wholly responsible for such global warming as actually exists, and that man can (via idiotic financial penance like carbon credits and Kyoto) turn a tide the main proponent of which is Mother Nature, are charlatans.

It makes sense to practice conservation of any and all resources as well as moderation of personal consumption, but that, quite literally, is all man can do.

I view the bias as largely unidirectional thus.

I have yet to hear a global warming "doubter" utter such inanities as "the issue has been decided; there is no longer any dissent among legitimate scientists", but if I ever do, I promise never to post about this subject again.

Reputable climate or any other kind of scientists do not include or exclude research because of political agendas. They seek understanding and answers. This doesn't mean that there aren't a few Trojan horses in there.

The global warming enthusiasts presume to gather all such terms as "reputable" and "legitimate" unto themselves exclusively.

The media is complicit in this, never questioning their claims, and allowing them to bully any naysayers.

There are many more than a few "Trojan horses", and they are of a uniformly leftward stripe.

This said it appears you jumped the gun with your conspiracy theory anyway.

I went back to the link you posted because I was unclear if it was just his forecast funding or if all ties had been cut and the story has been updated.

A pioneering expert on hurricane forecasting is disputing media reports that Colorado State University is pulling its support of his work because of his controversial views on global warming. William Gray, a professor emeritus at Colorado State, is a skeptic of man-made global warming and once said that pro-global warming scientists are "brainwashing our children." An article Monday by the Houston Chronicle that was cited by FOX News claimed that Gray's views had prompted the university to stop promoting his renowned annual North Atlantic hurricane forecasts. The Chronicle quoted a memo Gray sent the university last year accusing it of trying to stifle his views on global warming, but Gray issued a statement Tuesday saying that his status at the university hadn't changed. "We're still putting the forecast out," he said. "CSU continues to support me. I'm in the same office I've been for 41 years now and I hope to stay here some more years and keep working as I always have."

I don't jump guns owing to the inherent risk, however I would here posit that perhaps CSU has seen some sort of light.

A turning tide?

Time will tell.

[ilw]

On the main subject of this thread, i think that we have to judge it at face value and accept what we have evidence of i.e. the reports aren't Dr Gray's they're Klotzbach's and so CSU may not be able to produce them with just Gray. In some ways its a similar situation to that other thread about the policemen firing 40ish bullets into an unarmed guys car, it kind of stinks, but without evidence you've got nothing.


On the whole global warming thing:
j2 correct me if i'm wrong but IIRC your opinions over the last 6ish years have approximately been:

a) global warming probably isn't happening (i.e. no real warming)
b) then that there was some warming but that it was typical variation
c) at the time you held opinion b you stated that even if there was some unusual warming trend then it must be non-anthropogenic
d) you now appear to be saying that even if it is anthropogenic there is nothing we can do about it and we shouldn't really bother trying.


The cynic in me says you made up your mind a hell of a long time ago that you don't want any of your dollars being spent on this and you'll accept any theory/argument that supports that decision. i.e. you're not evaluating this on any evidence basis but rather an ideological basis (the ideology being whatever works out being cheapest)

[devilsadvocate]

J2K4:
Your viewing the bias as largely unidirectional is simply because you probably don't see bias that you agree with. You yourself seem unable, even speculatively to say it's possible that the school wasn't acting without agenda even when the story turned out to be bogus.

It's almost like the chain Emails saying Barack Obama is a Muslim and was sworn in using a koran, or that Al Gore mocked Ollie North about Bin Laden during the Iran Contra thing when he wasn't even on that panel, it's not true but it fits an agenda and it's out there, so run with it as fact.

I came to this thread to answer a question about some professor's project funding coming to an end. It turns out it never did, the story was false and based on speculation, the funding for the forecasts was never in danger and any disagreement he had with the school had nothing to do with the school stopping media support. The professor in question was the one to clear that up.

From the mess of a report the best I can make out is that his forecasts are still going out. The school is simply not running a call center for journalists wanting comment or updated information anymore because of the pressure it placed on the schools media center.

Fox printed the update, but one has to wonder why they ran with a story from another outlet, based on speculation, claiming discrimination, without checking on the facts. <conspiracy theory> did it fit an agenda? </conspiracy theory>

[j2k4]

On the whole global warming thing:
j2 correct me if i'm wrong but IIRC your opinions over the last 6ish years have approximately been:

Well, then.

I'll lay it out - you can decide for yourself whether you are wrong.

a) global warming probably isn't happening (i.e. no real warming)

Not at all, however, I remember global cooling, which was presented with a similar fervor, back in the day - nuclear winter was paraded as the most real possibility (remember, this was during the Cold War), and, oddly, when it was cynically pointed out the risk of global cooling was inextricably a function of diplomacy, volcanic eruptions were touted as an alternative bugaboo.

Back to global warming, though-

I have very definitely discerned a warming trend manifesting mainly in milder winters and streaky summer temperature/precipitation trends since the El Nino/La Nina cycle of (I believe) '96-'97.

I find the salient fact, however, that these changes date to normally-anticipated atmospheric events rather than increased CO2 emissions, unless you remember a coincidental, signal and drastic increase in crude manufacturing methodologies, world bovine population, or what-have-you...

Put the shoe on the other foot for a moment:

There have been countless warming/cooling trends demonstrably evidenced as far back as our best investigative scientific efforts can render, trends at much greater variance from any determinable norm than the one we are now undergoing.

This is inarguable.

The difference is touted as having everything to do with CO2 emissions, though any reasonable focus on chronology will seriously damage efforts to tie this "cause" to man's activities (i.e., the Industrial Revolution), and, into the bargain, evidence mounts daily that there is no correlation at all between CO2 emissions and warming.

I really don't want to drag this out any further, but it seems to me there is abundant reason to give any reasonable person pause, especially when considering the drastic measures suggested by such as the Kyoto monstrosity.

b) then that there was some warming but that it was typical variation

More-or-less correct.

c) at the time you held opinion b you stated that even if there was some unusual warming trend then it must be non-anthropogenic

Examination of such evidence I can understand (not to be minimized, insofar as I am not a stupid person, and also owing to the strenuous efforts of others rendered in aid of making this whole question accessible to laypersons) has had the effect of creating an utter disconnect of the attempt to tie temperature trends to human activity.

As an aside, how would you feel ten years hence, having divested yourself of, say, half your income in order to feed a personal imperative to undo global warming (and feeling really good about your contribution), it turned out the latest volcanic eruption (how about Vesuvius?) has pushed your effort far beyond the anticipated/hoped-for effect, and Al Gore's next movie, rather than featuring faux-glacial recession, announced that a new glacier would soon be at your door-step?

d) you now appear to be saying that even if it is anthropogenic there is nothing we can do about it and we shouldn't really bother trying.

Now, really, Ian, what-the-fuck is this about?

To see if we can really do it?

As I've said before, we can't do anything as effectively as Mother Nature, and if we can somehow foment a more moderate attitude about practical conservation, usage vs. waste, etc,. etc., etc., etc., then there is little more we can do.

The cynic in me says you made up your mind a hell of a long time ago that you don't want any of your dollars being spent on this and you'll accept any theory/argument that supports that decision. i.e. you're not evaluating this on any evidence basis but rather an ideological basis (the ideology being whatever works out being cheapest)

I am no more or less inclined to waste my hard-earned money than I am to waste natural resources or create pollution.

Ideology has very little to do with it; my views on matters of conservation have much more to do with my religious faith, and I'd appreciate your not going down that path with me.

J2K4:
Your viewing the bias as largely unidirectional is simply because you probably don't see bias that you agree with. You yourself seem unable, even speculatively to say it's possible that the school wasn't acting without agenda even when the story turned out to be bogus.

It's almost like the chain Emails saying Barack Obama is a Muslim and was sworn in using a koran, or that Al Gore mocked Ollie North about Bin Laden during the Iran Contra thing when he wasn't even on that panel, it's not true but it fits an agenda and it's out there, so run with it as fact.

I came to this thread to answer a question about some professor's project funding coming to an end. It turns out it never did, the story was false and based on speculation, the funding for the forecasts was never in danger and any disagreement he had with the school had nothing to do with the school stopping media support. The professor in question was the one to clear that up.

From the mess of a report the best I can make out is that his forecasts are still going out. The school is simply not running a call center for journalists wanting comment or updated information anymore because of the pressure it placed on the schools media center.

Fox printed the update, but one has to wonder why they ran with a story from another outlet, based on speculation, claiming discrimination, without checking on the facts. <conspiracy theory> did it fit an agenda? </conspiracy theory>

I had a ration for your post, too, but ftw; I'm all fagged-out from answering Ian.

Some other time, perhaps.

[bigboab]

You appear to have been the last poster before the Forum went down. You are overloading it Kev. This is the last warning to keep your posts succinct.

Back on track. I first noticed climate change in the late 60's. The frost and snow usually associated with Xmas/Hogmanay disappeared and was replaced with a milder weather pattern. It was as if the weather in the UK had moved about 300 miles south(had to think about that). We now have the almost continuous rain that was associated with the Manchester area.

[j2k4]

You appear to have been the last poster before the Forum went down. You are overloading it Kev. This is the last warning to keep your posts succinct.

Is that what that was.

Don't know if I can abide foreshortening my postage given my spotty attendance - I do have something I want to get out in the Lounge later, with any luck.

Back on track. I first noticed climate change in the late 60's.

A guy has to be pretty old to remember climate change in the 60's, ffs.