Global warming poll

[Pirates Armada]

anyone else see the state of the union address? or are you to cool to watch it?

[Pirates Armada]

first issue for 2030...

http://www.architecture2030.org/news...ews_2_2006.pdf

http://www.architecture2030.org/news/news_2_2006.html

[Trevor]

We came accross an unregulated lingliner in Antartica, we confiscated the line and the ship came over to us and asked us what we were doing and we found that the ship was infact an unlicensed fishing boat. The sad thing again is that there is no one out there inforcing these rules. Although N.Z. and Aus has a reward for information leading to the capture of these vessels there is still no way of arresting them and making them pay!! Global Warming "EAT THE EARTH" and just wait and see how long it takes us to reach 100% entropy!

[Pirates Armada]

i got money on antarctica doing more then the aussies and NZ!!

[Daniel Santos]

Naw, all of this global warming crap is just that, crap. Anybody with half a brain knows that the global warming scare is just another junk science-based hoax that the libs are using to try to win more elections and push through reforms that will drag the economy while lining their pockets. We've heard all of these types of scares before.

That sounded pretty good huh? I've been practicing my "I'm a 'conservative' and you are an idiot" speaches. But really, I'm considering publishing an article that analyzes and profiles an effective FUD propoganda campagne. I was thinking about using this Steven Milloy article http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=894 as an example and then analyze the techniques used piece by piece. All in all, I think it's an incredible example of FUD propoganda by somebody who, despite a long and highly successful career, is at the top of his game.

This article takes the average mean temperature readings from the Antartica and creates an image that makes it look like the tempurature is actually going down. Scores of people without a scientific background buy this type of thing (lots of money goes into this type of "research").

If you look at the graph, you will see two trend lines which are unlabled. Although he has some emotionally appealing, if inaccurate, messages in some boxes with a formula describing the trend lines, the trend lines themselves are improperly used. If statistical chart, for a single set of data, includes a trend line, it includes A (as in singular) trend line. You cannot have MORE THAN ONE trend with a single set of data!! Thus, this chart is first a demonstration of the poor use of statistics tools. What these trend lines actually represent is the data between the years 1949 to 1974 (the red line) and then from 1975 to 2004 (the blue line), but the lines extend past their respective data sets!

The red trend line (49 to 74) was a very sharp rise and so that line is relatively short, suggestive of a hot tempered person who is unreasonable, bug short-lived. The blue trend line (75 to 2003) is very long and stable looking, suggesting a calm head and stability over a period of a centry.

But the blue line only represents data for the last 30 years of the chart. Futhermore, he can encapsulate the warming period from 49 to 74 and say that warming occured then when there was a "global cooling scare." When I read that, my first thought was, WTF!? I've never heard of a global cooling scare. But this is a nice tool to sugest that there are panicing idiots out there and they tend to panic about the opposite of what is happening. So now that the region has experienced a very slight cooling over the last 30 years, these idiots are panicing about global warming -- very clever.

So if you take the same data set and you calculate a REAL trend, it's y=0.0186x - 1.364, or a rise of 0.0186 degrees Celscius every year, but starting -1.364 degrees below the baseline (which is the average tempurature between 1951 and 1980 for the region being examined). Obviously, global warming started before the baseline period, but that is what scientists are using for this measure.

Also note that these aren't global values. The average change looks more like this (this trend line since 1903 is only y=0.0071x - 0.3215, less steep than the change in the Antarctic, the poles are known to be more sensitive)



Daniel

[Pirates Armada]

that's just a bunch of random goose honking mr. santos. i will ask you one question and i am at the same time under the impression you are not an employee for exxon mobile. even if it is not real like you say and all the ice is melting because ice just likes to melt for no reason now days, what the heck can it hurt being proactive verse not. it would seem to me it is the best way to combat this little problem we have going on right now called blood for oil. smoke screen it all you want but the reality is big oil biz is at the center of all this "crap" as you say. any better way to stop this monster then mother nature? i think not.

[Paul Ward]

What are you trying to say Daniel? First of all you quote a site with a strong anti-globalwarming stance;

"This web site is a project of the Cooler Heads Coalition, a sub-group of the National Consumer Coalition.
The Cooler Heads Coalition formed May 6, 1997 to dispel the myths of global warming by exposing flawed economic, scientific, and risk analysis. Coalition members will also follow the progress of the international Global Climate Change Treaty negotiations."

Then you proceed to correctly point out why the "evidence" there is garbage. You seem to misunderstand what the source you are quoting is all about - they are ANTI global warming - it suits them to pretend it isn't happening. You seem to have assumed the opposite about them.

Then you present incomplete data and try to rubbish it?

I hear the sound of random goose honking too.

The statement I copied above in blue states that in 1997 the decided to "dispel the myths of global warming", in other words, that's when they decided what they want to be true and put the blinkers on.

In the last 9 years much evidence has come to light to show that not only is global warming happening, the indication (and I say this in the very cautious scientific useage of the word) is that increasing CO2 levels due to fossil fuel burning is the cause. However the anti-globalwarming crowd already made their minds up as an act of faith and need no evidence.

I think it's a plot to flood the 2nd hand auto market with gas guzzling SUV's so you can buy them cheaply.

[Daniel Santos]

My apologies for the lack of clarity here, I was off my meds (sadly, not a joke). My first paragraph was sarcasm, not obvious I suppose. There doesn't seem to be an option to edit posts in this forum.

You seem to misunderstand what the source you are quoting is all about - they are ANTI global warming - it suits them to pretend it isn't happening. You seem to have assumed the opposite about them.

Actually, I do not misunderstand, although I may not have made this very clear. Note also the domain name they have, globalwarming.org. There is obviously reason to all of this rhyme. The strategy is to label a negative agenda with a positive-sounding name. Other examples:

• USA PATRIOT Act -- stripped civil liberties in the name of patriotism
• 2003 Clear Skies Act -- increased or completely repealed pollution caps set by the 30 year old Clean Air Act

Then you present incomplete data and try to rubbish it?

Actually, the data on the Antarctic temperature is not incomplete except for the past 2 or 3 years. Again, this data is on the average temperature of the Antarctic region. I believe I read that the temperature at the peninsula has increased by about 2.5 degrees Celsius lately.

What I was attempting to do is to demonstrate how valid data can be construed to present an invalid conclusion. Additionally, this is done in a manner that millions of Americans are willing to believe. My intent was, further, to analyze the techniques used to perform this manipulation. While around 100% of the articles published on global warming, in peer-reviewed science journals over the last several years have absolutely no controversy on rather or not the phenomena of global warming is both damaging our environment and caused by human activities, over 50% of the articles in commercial media have attempted to give equal weight to the arguments that global warming is and isn't such a problem. This clearly shows that these manipulations are effective on public opinion.

While the actual global temperature changes are not yet *that* drastic (in my opinion), I'm most alarmed by the CO2 levels. This is perhaps the fact that big oil attempts to dispel the most. Irrefutable scientific evidence exists that links global temperature to CO2 levels in a symbiotic relationship (i.e., they both effect each other). Thus (as I understand it), if all human CO2 emissions were to stop today, the temperature would continue to rise for some time. Last year, scientists were able to ascertain CO2 levels going back 650,000 years (quite amazing I think). This evidence shows that over the last 650,000 years, CO2 levels have never been over 300 parts per million. I believe we are at around 372 or so now.

But back to all of this data and charting, if you actually examine the chart in Mr. Milloy's article, you may see what I am explaining. If you study statistical analysis at all (I have to do some of this for my job, I'm an engineer), you know that a trend line is a mathematical mechanism to represent the overall trend of a data set. You cannot derive more than one trend line from a single data set. This is fallacy. If you want to divide your data set up, that's one thing, but to display your entire data set on a single chart and then insert more than one trend line is wholly incorrect, and in this case, misleading (i.e., the blue line extending accross the entire chart indicating a slow decrease in temperature when it only represents 30% of the data).

The chart I inserted inline is from NASA and reflects global temperature changes instead of changes isolated to the Antarctica. I don't know what the last year of data that was used is (I presume 2004-ish). I believe that NASA derived this data from some other organizations.

One more note: I also meant to emphasize the role of this Steven Milloy character. I would liken him to the Magic Johnson of the oil industry. He is essentially an all-star, professional liar and he is highly paid for it. (check out the above wikipedia article on him). It is public knowledge that he is on the bankrolls of Philip Morris and Exxon-Mobile, so his agenda should be clear. There is a fine science to analyzing the statements one makes to isolate logical fallacies. Every university offers courses on this. Nonetheless, if you listen to one US congressional hearing, it would seem to be a forgotten science.

that's just a bunch of random goose honking mr. santos

I actually enjoy the sound of geese honking. I'm fortunate enough to live next to a duck pond where we get Canada geese during the winter (I live in Texas)

My Conclusions:

• I may have bipolar, and may tend to be verbose, but I do know what I'm talking about, although I'm not so deluded to think that I'm infallible.
• Doubt is a powerful tool.
• If I were writing a real article about this, you wouldn't find a single statement that wasn't backed by solid references or a single logical fallacy. But I'm not. Manipulation and misrepresentation of the facts depend upon logical fallacies and data that is not scientifically based.
• I define the word ?scientific? as information and conclusions obtained or derived using the Scientific Method in an objective and un-manipulated fashion.
• Propaganda is a fine art that I have studied for many years to understand it's mechanisms. This posting was intended to expose some of the mechanisms that are being used to protect environmental perpetrators.

any better way to stop this monster then mother nature? i think not.

"And nature has a funny way of breaking what does not bend."
-- Jewel

Daniel

[Paul Ward]

Ah Ok, thanks for coming back and clarifying Daniel. There is an option to edit posts, but it's time limited - a common bulletin board device to stop people being able to change totally what they said.

If you'd like to edit it, send me the new version and I can replace - if it's important to you. We do get the odd (in every sense of the word!) "propogandist" coming by here and posting, I'm afraid I put you as a possible in that category.

A belated welcome to the board

Please can any of you give me som e sort of idea of the damage that has been done in the last 200 years?
Thankes