Global Cooling

rigormortis

I am confused.:( One day the earth is warming up and the next it is cooling. The science was settled according to the EPA lecture I attended in the Mansion house on the 5th Feb, now this.

http://en.rian.ru/science/20080122/97519953.html

oscarBravo

Perhaps you should educate yourself as to the difference between an individual's opinion and a global scientific consensus.

Lennoxschips

Ah yes, 2007 was a similar year to 2006, ergo, global warming must be false.

Hmmm.... a crappy argument.

AngryHippie

only smarties have the answer.....





Or so they would like you to think !!!!

mike65

Global Cooling is so 1977

Mike.

rigormortis

Professor John Brignell;

"There is no scientific theory linking carbon dioxide to the “runaway” global warming that is the basis of the calamitous predictions. The contribution of the gas to the making of a comfortable planet by the greenhouse effect is well understood, modest and self-limiting. It is only turned into a terror by computer models. These are worthless; depending as they do on extensive guesswork about the ill-understood mechanisms and interactions involved in climate, and involving so many tunable parameters and feedback factors that they could produce any desired result by appropriate tweaking. A quarter of a century ago, before science came under firm bureaucratic control, such models would have been laughed out of court."

fits

Ah yes, the old 'I believe Scientists... as long as they agree with my intuition'.

Broken record.

mike65

mike65 wrote: »

Global Cooling is so 1977

Mike.

Yes, I remember it well!

All those images of polar bears roaming the Yorkshire moors, glaciers in the Thames etc

Claims that the populations of northern Europe would start migrating south and fighting for land in the Mediterranean region.....

It was rekoned that it would happen within 50 years!

rigormortis

fits wrote: »

Ah yes, the old 'I believe Scientists... as long as they agree with my intuition'.

Broken record.

Broken record? I have not seen a newspaper, magazine or tv report in the last two years without being hit over the head with this "global warming" rubbish. Maybe you want to pay for my "carbon offset" when the laws are shortly introduced.

djpbarry

rigormortis wrote: »

Professor John Brignell

If my memory serves me correctly, John Brignell is not a climate scientist. I think he is also retired?

rigormortis wrote: »

Maybe you want to pay for my "carbon offset" when the laws are shortly introduced.

Listen Casey/Zippy/MrTaxMan/Rigormortis (have I got them all?),

You can bang on about this all you like, but it doesn't matter how many times you say the same thing, you're not going to be taken seriously unless you produce some hard evidence to back up your claims.

rigormortis

djpbarry wrote: »

You can bang on about this all you like, but it doesn't matter how many times you say the same thing, you're not going to be taken seriously unless you produce some hard evidence to back up your claims.

I have done plenty of research. You dont have to look very far to come to the correct conclusions. I tend to look at the overall picture, who benefits from these global warming claims?

How about this for evidence;

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill ...
All these dangers are caused by human intervention
and it is only through changed attitudes and
behaviour that they can be overcome.
The real enemy, then, is humanity itself."
- Club of Rome,
The First Global Revolution,
consultants to the UN.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif][/FONT]

djpbarry

rigormortis wrote: »

How about this for evidence;

...Club of Rome...

:rolleyes:

Been done to death already:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=54900907&postcount=266

rigormortis

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]"...we need to get some broad based support,
to capture the public's imagination....
So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements
and make little mention of any doubts....
Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest."
- Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology
lead Author of many IPCC reports[/FONT]

djpbarry

rigormortis wrote: »

...we need to get some broad based support,
to capture the public's imagination....
So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements
and make little mention of any doubts....
Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest."

That's some nice selective quoting. How about we look at the full thing:

On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.

http://rpuchalsky.home.att.net/sci_env/sch_quote.html

And by the way, that quote is nearly 20 years old.

rigormortis

djpbarry wrote: »

And by the way, that quote is nearly 20 years old.

What has that got to do with anything? The whole thing is double speak. What our friend considers good for humanity would be a lot different from my personal views. Once again can people not trust their own judgments anymore?

oscarBravo

...and rigormortis earns himself another ban.

Capt'n Midnight

cab looking it up but New Scientist article said that the extra CO2 in the air means the next ice age is probably not going to happen for another 250,000 years or so.

66o66o

oscarBravo wrote: »

Perhaps you should educate yourself as to the difference between an individual's opinion and a global scientific consensus.

I find it very amusing to call it a global consensus. Thats like saying if 10 people in a room are talking and 5 have one opinion and 5 have another, well the ones with the most power will just ask the others to leave.
there problem solved. Everybody now agrees and has only one opinion.

I find it amazing that there are so many climatologists in the world these days. It seems its the hot career path to take, (no pun intended).
but yet everybody has the correct opinion on Climate change....

I hate when i hear people consistently going on about carbon, even when people are talking about methane they call it carbon. soon oxygen will be called carbon and we'll be charged for breathing.. and we seem to getting away from the fact that carbon is not even the most influential green house gas.
that honour goes to.................................. Water Vapour. amazing isn't it.
second is ................................................ water particles in the air (clouds)
third ... carbon.

ok back to the global warming consensus thing..
have you heard of MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
well there's a professor there called Richard lindzen he has some conflicting ideas to the consensus and shock horror, it;s not recently
educated in Global weather patterns and climate change.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen
many more scholars similar to this but they seem to loose funding as soon as they oppose the special interests. but i'm sure a simple google search should be able to direct you in the right direction.

Also The Mann Graph has been disproved but is still touted in general news etc... as being fact , it is also being used by the IPCC to convince the general population, that are unable to develop an opinion for themselves that this is fact when to be honest it is not fact at all.
I know people say its the best we have and we have to go for it, well i say in the middle ages we believed the earth was flat and that was the best knowledge we had then, but we were wrong. But i hear you say technology is much more advance now of course we know how all of this will turn out... that's a seriously naive approach to this.

quick google search finds me this....
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/

look this is still up for a lot of debate but yet so much money and careers are to be made from it that legislation is being but through that will screw us for a lot longer than this will last.. I'm all for a more renewable sources of energy in fact i'm pissed at the fact that we don't already have them but i think its wrong to tax the people when there is no alternative in place. it seems like the most illegal unethical tax to enforce.
instead the government should have greater incentives for businesses and organisations to produce more energy efficient machines/cars/etc.. instead of taxing us on the only thing we can do...
Or at least sort the public transport system.

Also another thing i read someplace was something like...
"" its very egotistical of humans to think that the climate as it is , is actually the best for the planet,in previous times it has been a lot warmer and had a larger diversity of life, was that a better climate than now , or because we live in this time it automatically means we are in the best climate period of the earths history""

although if your a creationist the earth is only a few thousand years old so i suppose it probably is the greatest time in our earths climate history!

mike65

Some truth in that of course, we are only concerned (if we are) cos it'll muck up the basicly comfy status quo. We might'nt like higher averge temps or more exciting weather but some other species will thrive in it. *Gekkos For Global Warming*

Mike.

djpbarry

66o66o wrote: »

...even when people are talking about methane they call it carbon.

Possibly because methane is a carbon compound?

66o66o wrote: »

...we seem to getting away from the fact that carbon is not even the most influential green house gas.
that honour goes to.................................. Water Vapour. amazing isn't it.
second is ................................................ water particles in the air (clouds)
third ... carbon.

:rolleyes:

Wow. Thanks for that.

66o66o wrote: »

well there's a professor there called Richard lindzen he has some conflicting ideas to the consensus and shock horror, it;s not recently
educated in Global weather patterns and climate change.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen

No, he has criticised the likes of the IPCC for the manner in which they communicate their findings; he does not disagree with the general consensus, i.e. that man is very likely responsible for the recent rise the average global temperature.

66o66o wrote: »

many more scholars similar to this but they seem to loose funding as soon as they oppose the special interests.

Such as?

66o66o wrote: »

The Mann Graph has been disproved...

No it has not. From the 2006 report of the US National Academy of Science:

The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world.

http://books.nap.edu/execsumm_pdf/11676.pdf

66o66o wrote: »

...but i think its wrong to tax the people when there is no alternative in place.

You're not being taxed and there ARE alternatives.

66o66o wrote: »

...instead the government should have greater incentives for businesses and organisations to produce more energy efficient machines/cars/etc.

They do:
http://www.sei.ie/index.asp?locID=6&docID=-1

Húrin

rigormortis wrote: »

I have done plenty of research. You dont have to look very far to come to the correct conclusions. I tend to look at the overall picture, who benefits from these global warming claims?

Nobody. Global warming is generally a sh!t deal for us. But that does not mean it isn't real.

cp251

Posted this on another thread after Hurin accused me of being a 'Marxist' and 'sinister' for daring to defy the 'consensus' on climate change.

Here is some light reading for Hurin and other enthusiasts for global warming. (Shamelessly lifted from another forum)

http://web.mac.com/sinfonia1/iWeb/Global%20Warming%20Politics/A%20Hot%20Topic%20Blog/438A03B9-976A-41EB-8849-B54B15413494.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/01/science/01tier.html

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/01/06/br_r_r_where_did_global_warming_go/

There are plenty more where that came from. Some opinion, some by scientists, some by mere observation.

A couple of more cold winters worldwide should see an end to the climate change hysteria. The 'inconvenient truth' may not be what Mr Gore believes after all.

djpbarry

cp251 wrote: »

There are plenty more where that came from. Some opinion, some by scientists, some by mere observation.

Can we have some science, rather than opinion columns?

cavedave

I am a global warming skeptic. But I am skeptical of nearly everything so do not take that personally.

rigormortis
A quarter of a century ago, before science came under firm bureaucratic control, such models would have been laughed out of court

I do not overly trust computer simulations. I do trust speleotherm analysis, atmospheric co2 measurement and temperature measurement (you do need to check these for mistakes like any evidence).

The most convincing argument I have seen that man made global warming is occurring is in these few pages here.
http://www.quaker.org/tqe/2007/TQE158-EN-GlobalWarming.html

Originally Posted by rigormortis
Maybe you want to pay for my "carbon offset" when the laws are shortly introduced.

I am skeptical of carbon offsets too. But I acknowledge the mechanism did work for Sulphur in California.

cp251

As you wish. Here one for now. More to follow when I can find them.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/g28u12g2617j5021/fulltext.pdf

Meanwhile here are more lies from the Washington Times. When are these people going to joing the consensus?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20071219/COMMENTARY/10575140

bonkey

cp251 wrote: »

A couple of more cold winters worldwide should see an end to the climate change hysteria.

I doubt it.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

According to NASA, the global average for the year put 2007 as the second-warmest on record.

Its notable that the articles questioning the figures have relied on the argument that a portion of the year, in some places was colder than usual....ignoring the reality that in many of those places, the annual average was still up, as was the global average.

Its also notable these critics seem to be the only people who seem to fail to understand that global warming refers to an overall annual trend. It does not claim that for any given day, week, month, or even season, in some select part(s) of the world, that the temperature will be above the previous averages for that shorter period, in that/those select part(s).

cp251

Despite my sophistry in using the cold winter of 2007 in my argument. It's actually irrelevant as to whether 2007 was the warmest on record or the coldest or just like any other year. It's the long term trend that counts. There is plenty of evidence of a lack of a global trend towards warming if you seek to find it. But the issue is not whether we are going through a period of warming, temporary or otherwise. The argument is as to whether we caused it and whether we can do anything about it. I personally don't believe the current 'warm' period was caused by humans. In this I am not alone but for a long time I thought I was. But there is a growing band of skeptics.

Even if there is a cooling tendency for the next ten years, the enthusiasts will point to the supposed longer term warming trend and warn us that the temporary cooling period is merely a reprieve.

Not everyone buys into this as seen below:

http://www.nationalpost.com/most_popular/story.html?id=164002

Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations

Dec. 13, 2007

His Excellency Ban Ki-Moon

Secretary-General, United Nations

New York, N.Y.


Dear Mr. Secretary-General,

Re: UN climate conference taking the World in entirely the wrong direction

It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.

The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by *government *representatives. The great *majority of IPCC contributors and *reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts.

Contrary to the impression left by the IPCC Summary reports:

z Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability.

z The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years.

z Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today's computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling.

In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is "settled," significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming. But because IPCC working groups were generally instructed (see http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/wg1_timetable_2006-08-14.pdf) to consider work published only through May, 2005, these important findings are not included in their reports; i.e., the IPCC assessment reports are already materially outdated.

The UN climate conference in Bali has been planned to take the world along a path of severe CO2 restrictions, ignoring the lessons apparent from the failure of the Kyoto Protocol, the chaotic nature of the European CO2 trading market, and the ineffectiveness of other costly initiatives to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Balanced cost/benefit analyses provide no support for the introduction of global measures to cap and reduce energy consumption for the purpose of restricting CO2 emissions. Furthermore, it is irrational to apply the "precautionary principle" because many scientists recognize that both climatic coolings and warmings are realistic possibilities over the medium-term future.

The current UN focus on "fighting climate change," as illustrated in the Nov. 27 UN Development Programme's Human Development Report, is distracting governments from adapting to the threat of inevitable natural climate changes, whatever forms they may take. National and international planning for such changes is needed, with a focus on helping our most vulnerable citizens adapt to conditions that lie ahead. Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems.

Yours faithfully,

Of course all of these people could be dupes of the oil companies and big business, or they could be serious scientists who failed to fall in line with the famous 'consensus' and refused to be silenced by the assertion that the debate is settled. The problem though is that many want human caused climate to be real. They need it to be real, their careers depend on it now. The last thing the need are the skeptics buzzing in the ears. Many ordinary people I speak to now are absolutely convinced that we humans are causing climate change. They have been brainwashed. When I tell them of my doubts. They look at me as the way the Pope would look if one of his Cardinals told him he didn't believe in God.

bonkey

cp251 wrote: »

Despite my sophistry in using the cold winter of 2007 in my argument. It's actually irrelevant as to whether 2007 was the warmest on record or the coldest or just like any other year.

So basically, you're saying that you knowingly used an irrelevant argument to try and convince people that you're right?

Seems like a strange strategy. One would think that using relevant arguments would seem a far safer strategy.

It's the long term trend that counts. There is plenty of evidence of a lack of a global trend towards warming if you seek to find it.

I disagree. There is no question whatsoever but that we have experienced a warming trend. What the various critics have argued is that the trend is nothing exceptional, or that there is no reason to believe it will continue, or that it is peaking or that it has already peaked.

But the issue is not whether we are going through a period of warming, temporary or otherwise. The argument is as to whether we caused it and whether we can do anything about it.

That should be the issue, but we can only get to discussing that once all parties agree that there is a trend.

A good example of this is the changing stance of the Bush administration over the last 7 years. They started by saying they did not accept the evidence for the existence of global warming. Then they finally accepted that that stance was untenable, and changed to saying they accepted that there is global warming, but did not accept that man was a significant contributor. Now, they've mostly abandoned that stance, instead focussing on disagreeing with any steps proposed, on the grounds that they do not accept that these are the right steps.

Even if there is a cooling tendency for the next ten years, the enthusiasts will point to the supposed longer term warming trend and warn us that the temporary cooling period is merely a reprieve.

I love that you classify those who disagree with established scientific consensus as "skeptics", but those who agree with it (including those who did the science as "enthusiasts".

Not everyone buys into this

No-one with any modicum of information on the subject has ever suggested that everyone buys into it. This is a classic straw-man which many of those who disagree with the global warming theories trot out time and time again.

Regarding the letter that you copied...its just more of the same - taking swipes at every possible angle which can sow doubt or confusion.

Of course all of these people could be dupes of the oil companies and big business, or they could be serious scientists who failed to fall in line with the famous 'consensus' and refused to be silenced by the assertion that the debate is settled.

Hey - you're presenting the letter as something credible. Why don't you go find out how credible the signatories are, rather than just appeal that they might know what they're on about?

I also find it endlessly amusing that virtually every time a debate like this arises, we get link after link, with articles appearing from sources ranging from the United Nations to the mainstream media accompanied by a suggestion that these very voices are being silenced.

The problem though is that many want human caused climate to be real. They need it to be real, their careers depend on it now. The last thing the need are the skeptics buzzing in the ears.

Logical non-sequitor.

While what you call skeptics are "buzzing in their ears", their jobs are guaranteed, as they need to continue to defend their position and supply more and more evidence.

And once that step is passed, and we start asking "what can we do", guess what? Then many of them are out of a job, because they've nothing more to offer. They'll have already developed the models which can be used to evaluate strategies - models which are accepted as being capable. At that point, a whole new set of fields come into play...fields which the climatologists simply aren't qualified for.

Sure...we'll continue to improve our climatological models, so not all of htem will be out of a job. But y'know what....before the whole Global Warming thing arrived, that was the case too.

The notion that this is some sort of scientific con to grab funding is simply laughable. It shows a serious lack of understanding (or willful misportrayal) of how scientists work.

bonkey

cp251 wrote: »

Many ordinary people I speak to now are absolutely convinced that we humans are causing climate change. They have been brainwashed. When I tell them of my doubts. They look at me as the way the Pope would look if one of his Cardinals told him he didn't believe in God.

If this was the seventies or eighties, you could rewrite the above as follows:

Many ordinary people I speak to now are absolutely convinced that smoking cigarettes causes cancer. They have been brainwashed. When I tell them of my doubts. They look at me as the way the Pope would look if one of his Cardinals told him he didn't believe in God

You can believe what you want. Suggesting that those who disagree with you are "brainwashed" just because they disagree with you doesn't help your cause.

djpbarry

cp251 wrote: »

As you wish. Here one for now. More to follow when I can find them.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/g28u12g2617j5021/fulltext.pdf

So what is the significance of this study?

bonkey

More importantly, if climate scientists are just con-artists out to protect their jobs, why are these guys credible?

lostinsuperfunk

The study decomposes observed fluctuations in global and local Chinese air temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations over the past 120 years and argues that the fluctuations are made up of different patterns: an overall rising trend in air temperature (correlated to CO2 concentrations), a 60 year oscillation, a 20 year oscillation and some shorter period oscillations.

The quality of the English is quite poor so it is hard to read and confusing (to me) in places but it seems to predict a decrease in global average air temperature over the next 20 years, because we are coming down from the top of a 60-year oscillation. I'm not knowledgable enough to offer a full critique but I would feel that extracting a 60 year period oscillation from only 120 years of data is difficult, as it is at the limit determined by the Shannon sampling theory. Maybe this 60 year oscillation is visible further back, I don't know.

The overall conclusion is that temperature changes on a number of different timescales, and it will decrease over the next 20 years, but the long term (100 year) trend is upwards, correlated to CO2 concentration increase.

It has been cited 3 times according to google, none of which are in other scientific journals.

djpbarry

Well, I was going to say that I don't agree with the conclusions that have been presented. The EMD method looks flaky, at best. For example, they have provided no scientific basis for presenting the temperature "signals" as a series consisting of a 3–4-year period wave, a 6–8-year period wave, a 20-year period wave and a 60-year cycle. With the exception of the 60-year oscillation (which was used in another study), they seem relatively arbitrary.

However, overlooking that for a second; looking at figure 1 in the paper, the function with the greatest amplitude is the "res" function, which represents the overall trend, which is quite clearly increasing. I imagine something similar to this function would be produced if the original signal was low-pass filtered. Now, if the overall trend is quite clearly increasing, how can it be deduced that the global average temperature is NOT increasing? Granted, if we look at figure 3, we appear to be approaching a LOCAL maximum, but the overall trend is most definitely increasing.

lostinsuperfunk wrote: »

I'm not knowledgable enough to offer a full critique but I would feel that extracting a 60 year period oscillation from only 120 years of data is difficult, as it is at the limit determined by the Shannon sampling theory.

Yes, absolutely. Attempting to extract a 100-year period oscillation from 120 years of data is even less rigorous.

bonkey

lostinsuperfunk wrote: »

The study decomposes observed fluctuations in global and local Chinese air temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations over the past 120 years and argues that the fluctuations are made up of different patterns: an overall rising trend in air temperature (correlated to CO2 concentrations), a 60 year oscillation, a 20 year oscillation and some shorter period oscillations.

The quality of the English is quite poor so it is hard to read and confusing (to me) in places but it seems to predict a decrease in global average air temperature over the next 20 years, because we are coming down from the top of a 60-year oscillation.

What struck me when I read that was the following...

Lets assume they're correct. They agree that there's CO2-driven warming, but claim that this 60-year oscillation has been a greater influence in the historical data. So, they argue, as we pass over the peak of this 60-year oscillation, we will enter a 30-year period where there is "destructive interference" - where there's a 30-year cooling trend from this 60-year pattern, which will offset more than the global warming to date.

What happens then, in 30 years? Well, obviously the oscillation reverts to its uptrend and adds to global warming once more.

The thing to remember is that throughout their paper, the authors acknowledge that there is a general warming trend. Their main argument is that it has been overestimated - they do not claim that its not happening.

So, in a very real sense, these guys are confirming the existence of a CO2-driven warming trend, but then questioning whether or not we have accurately identified the scale of it. Also, if my reading of the document is correct, their predictions for the coming 20 years rely on CO2 concentrations remaing at current levels...which is not consistent with the existing trend, forecasts, or anything else. They may mean that if the increase in CO2 levels remains in line with the current trend....but even then, they're still only arguing that we've got a bit longer than the current IPCC forecasts say we have before disaster strikes.

Ironically, if global temperatures were to fall in the coming years, this paper could become key in explaining why global warming was still a very real threat, despite the drop in temperatures. It would tell us that we had 20-30 years, before there'd be another steep, sharp climb.

The overall conclusion is that temperature changes on a number of different timescales, and it will decrease over the next 20 years, but the long term (100 year) trend is upwards, correlated to CO2 concentration increase..

Yup.

Ironically, at least one of the articles that cp251 posted tried to mock climatologists for exaplaining why drops in temperature wouldn't disprove global wearming....and yet here we have the same poster providing a paper that says just that!!!

piraka

djpbarry wrote: »

Well, I was going to say that I don't agree with the conclusions that have been presented. The EMD method looks flaky, at best. For example, they have provided no scientific basis for presenting the temperature "signals" as a series consisting of a 3–4-year period wave, a 6–8-year period wave, a 20-year period wave and a 60-year cycle. With the exception of the 60-year oscillation (which was used in another study), they seem relatively arbitrary.

However, overlooking that for a second; looking at figure 1 in the paper, the function with the greatest amplitude is the "res" function, which represents the overall trend, which is quite clearly increasing. I imagine something similar to this function would be produced if the original signal was low-pass filtered. Now, if the overall trend is quite clearly increasing, how can it be deduced that the global average temperature is NOT increasing? Granted, if we look at figure 3, we appear to be approaching a LOCAL maximum, but the overall trend is most definitely increasing.
Yes, absolutely. Attempting to extract a 100-year period oscillation from 120 years of data is even less rigorous.

Interesting. You should write up and submit a commentary to Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics. I’m sure the authors would like to read your critical observations.

piraka

bonkey wrote: »

I doubt it.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

According to NASA, the global average for the year put 2007 as the second-warmest on record.

Its notable that the articles questioning the figures have relied on the argument that a portion of the year, in some places was colder than usual....ignoring the reality that in many of those places, the annual average was still up, as was the global average.

Its also notable these critics seem to be the only people who seem to fail to understand that global warming refers to an overall annual trend. It does not claim that for any given day, week, month, or even season, in some select part(s) of the world, that the temperature will be above the previous averages for that shorter period, in that/those select part(s).

What constitutes average "global" temperature, if the majority of the measurements are land based and predominately in the US.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2711#more-2711

Húrin

cp251 wrote: »

The problem though is that many want human caused climate to be real. They need it to be real, their careers depend on it now. The last thing the need are the skeptics buzzing in the ears.

Many ordinary people I speak to now are absolutely convinced that we humans are causing climate change. They have been brainwashed. When I tell them of my doubts. They look at me as the way the Pope would look if one of his Cardinals told him he didn't believe in God.

Say what you want, it moves.

That's because your view opposes the mainstream view. I don't think that the debate should be declared over (this is science after all) but it's time to stop being cautious about policy change. You deniers have been holding back action on what is very likely to be a global emergency for too long.

bonkey

piraka wrote: »

What constitutes average "global" temperature, if the majority of the measurements are land based and predominately in the US.

From the link I provided, and that was included in the portion of the post you quoted:

Annual surface temperature anomaly relative to 1951-1980 mean, based on surface air measurements at meteorological stations and ship and satellite measurements of sea surface temperature

(emphasis mine)

djpbarry

piraka wrote: »

You should write up and submit a commentary to Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics. I’m sure the authors would like to read your critical observations.

Your sarcasm aside, it's usually easier to contact the authors directly if one has questions on their work.

piraka

bonkey wrote: »

From the link I provided, and that was included in the portion of the post you quoted:

Annual surface temperature anomaly relative to 1951-1980 mean, based on surface air measurements at meteorological stations and ship and satellite measurements of sea surface temperature

(emphasis mine)

Txs for pointing out sst records.

Considering the mistakes found last year in the calculation of temperature adjustments to the US temperature record. How can one be confident that the calculated global average temperature is correct?

piraka

djpbarry wrote: »

Your sarcasm aside, it's usually easier to contact the authors directly if one has questions on their work.

If they are using flaky methods and are presenting no scientific basis for their work, one would have thought that a commentary would more appropiate than an email.

bonkey

piraka wrote: »

Txs for pointing out sst records.

Considering the mistakes found last year in the calculation of temperature adjustments to the US temperature record. How can one be confident that the calculated global average temperature is correct?

Again...from the link I provided :

Finally, we note that a minor data processing error found in the GISS temperature analysis in early 2007 does not affect the present analysis. The data processing flaw was failure to apply NOAA adjustments to United States Historical Climatology Network stations in 2000-2006, as the records for those years were taken from a different data base (Global Historical Climatology Network). This flaw affected only 1.6% of the Earth's surface (contiguous 48 states) and only the several years in the 21st century. As shown in Figure 4 and discussed elsewhere, the effect of this flaw was immeasurable globally (~0.003°C) and small even in its limited area. Contrary to reports in certain portions of the media, the data processing flaw did not alter the ordering of the warmest years on record. Obviously the global ranks were unaffected. In the contiguous 48 states the statistical tie among 1934, 1998 and 2005 as the warmest year(s) was unchanged. In the current analysis, in the flawed analysis, and in the published GISS analysis (Hansen et al. 2001), 1934 is the warmest year in the contiguous states (not globally) but by an amount (magnitude of the order of 0.01°C) that is an order of magnitude smaller than the uncertainty.

bonkey

If I can ask a question in return, in the same vein....

Given that you've now asked two questions about an article which contained the answers to those questions, what basis do you have for believing that your perusal of any article pro- or contra- the question of AGM has been sufficiently comprehensive to give you faith in your understanding of said article, or in own overall knowledge on the subject?

djpbarry

piraka wrote: »

If they are using flaky methods and are presenting no scientific basis for their work...

That's not what I said. I said there were aspects that did not SEEM to have a basis - that does not mean that there IS no basis. It is possible that the authors either (a) did not see fit to include certain rationale (perhaps it is common knowledge in the field, I don't know), or (b) the reviewers advised them to review certain details. It's impossible to include EVERYTHING in a paper.

piraka wrote: »

...one would have thought that a commentary would more appropiate than an email.

No, I would clarify the issues with the authors first - it's common courtesy.

piraka

bonkey wrote: »

If I can ask a question in return, in the same vein....

Given that you've now asked two questions about an article which contained the answers to those questions, what basis do you have for believing that your perusal of any article pro- or contra- the question of AGM has been sufficiently comprehensive to give you faith in your understanding of said article, or in own overall knowledge on the subject?

I am not a scientist and I bow to your superior scientific knowledge.

There was huge reluctance by scientists to release the US temperature data, which led to the discovery of the error. The data and algorithms for the global record have not been released despite numerous requests, hence should one not be concerned on the accuracy of the global average temperature.

bonkey

piraka wrote: »

I am not a scientist and I bow to your superior scientific knowledge.

Glib, but it doesn't answer my question, nor address the point I was making which is that you seem to apply differing standards of what's good enough to put your faith in, depending on the message.

For example, earlier when someone questioned the lack of detail in a report questioning aspects of global warming, you suggested that rather than post on an internet forum, they should contact the peer-reviewed publishers with their concerns. Then you almost-immediately follow up with a comment that's basically saying "there's a lack of detail here, so should we really trust it" with regards to something supporting aspects of global warming.

Now...lest I be accused of hypocracy, I won't do the same. I've discussed the issues I see with anti-GW stuff posted here, so it would be remiss of me to brush off your question...

There was huge reluctance by scientists to release the US temperature data, which led to the discovery of the error. The data and algorithms for the global record have not been released despite numerous requests, hence should one not be concerned on the accuracy of the global average temperature.

I think you may be getting some of your stories mixed up.

Under the first "further information" link on the page I've linked to above, you'll see that NASA not only make available the data which they base their calculations on, but also the programs that they use for the calculations...supplied in source-code so you can see what they're doing and how they do it. They also supply documentation on the methodology.

In fact, their global temp calculations are a model of transparency. Its hard to find any information that they're not providing on the issue.

If you think about it, the fact that someone spotted the error in the raw data that you referred to previously should have been a hint that the information wasn't as hard to come by as you are suggesting. That someone found the error is actually a reason why we should have the trust that you seem to be trying to suggest we shouldn't. People don't just take the NASA data and say "well, they're NASA. Their calculations must be good. Rather, they take the raw data and verify it. We can also reasonably assume that people have similarly checked over the source code of the calculation, either to re-implement the methodology elsewhere, to learn it, or simply to verify that its right.

Science doesn't always get everything right...there's no question about that. However, the case in question - the error in the data - is a prime example of how the global scientific community acts in a self-correcting manner. It should also give us pause when considering the (ridiculous) allegations we hear from time to time about there being some global conspiracy amongst scientists to hide the truth. I've seen it said more than once that the only thing a scientist prefers to discovering something new, is showing something already-accepted to be wrong. That the best they've managed so far is to find a .00-whatever-it-was degree difference in global average temps should be a good indication that we can have faith in the NASA data.

Getting back to the point you raised about lack of transparency...

Where I think the confusion came from is that in some cases, scientists have been reluctant to provide details of the data and/or exact statistical models that they have used. If memory serves, the most notable case of this was the early days of the so-called Hockey-Stick debate. In such cases, I would guess that you and I would be in complete agreement that such a lack of transparency should and does lead to a lack of faith in the results.

However, in the case of the Hockey Stick, its worth noting that its methods have been revealed, have been found to be flawed but not significantly so and that its conclusions have been supported and agreed with by numerous independantly run studies, based on a variety of different techniques.

In this case however - the global temp data - there is neither obfuscation nor confusion. The raw data is there. The methodology is there. Documentation is provided. All it takes is a few seconds with google or the willingness to follow the sources/links from a provided starting point.

cp251

There is no conspiracy among scientists. What we do have is a consensus. Any consensus feeds itself. We also have the very human tendency to reach a conclusion and then make the data fit the conclusion. That goes for any discipline and scientists are not immune to it either. The conclusion is that excessive CO2 causes a warming of the general climate. Since then a lot of people have spent a lot of time and money attempting to prove it.

I'm not going to try and argue the science any more. I'm not a scientist or a climatologist. But neither is the puplic at large. Right now we are all subjected to alarmist predictions from all directions but not usually from the scientists. Indeed many scientists dispute the 'consensus'. But are often classified as 'deniers' despite the fact that they to use the same methods of research. There is also the problem of getting money for research. If you want to investigate the bearded snail of the south Pacific you'd better damm well tack on a reference to it's future with regard to climate change. This is not dishonesty on the part of scientists but mere pragmatism.

As it happens I used to believe in man made climate change caused by excessive CO2 in the athmosphere. The greenhouse effect. The type that I am I read up on the subject. But I soon ran into problems and inconsistencies. One of my favourites is the Gulf Stream theory. The Earth warms up, melts the arctic ice, dilutes the Gulf Stream and we in this part of the world loses it's warming effect. Thus we become as cold as Canada on the same latitude. Plausible yes? But wait if the Earth is warming and the arctic ice melts surely Canada become warmer too. Anyone care to explain this contradiction? There are plenty of others like that.

Very gradually I changed my mind. This is reinforced when I see scientists pilloried and scorned not because their research is poor or invalid but because their conclusions don't fit the 'consensus' or because of who funded their research.

There is also this huge tendency among the mass media and environmental groups to dramatise the whole issue. To predict disaster, floods, storms etc. Science goes out the window at this point and it all become about emotions. When you hear children say they lie in bed at night and worry about the future. You have think that is wrong. Climate change is nothing new. What is new is the hubris of man's belief that we caused it this time and only we can stop it. Once the Gods controlled the weather. Now apparently it's us. Humans are a mere blip in the history of this planet. I cannot really understand how we can come to such momentous conclusions based on the observations of a few years.

But at the end of the day, the issue for me is no longer whether or not there is actual climate change but how our lives will be changed not by the climate but by often well meaning people in positions of power. I believe we are in more danger of losing basic freedoms than of being flooded or burnt to a crisp. What is happening is nothing less than an attempt to roll back our civilisation to a more romantic fuzzy time that never existed by an unholy alliance of greens, environmentalists, career driven scientists, ambitious politicians and as ever the sheep like docility of the public at large. No conspiracy, just a dumb consensus.

That's what I fear most. Climate change we can cope with. But the scariest thing of all is when the mob have an idea.

bonkey

cp251 wrote: »

There is no conspiracy among scientists. What we do have is a consensus. Any consensus feeds itself.

This still begs the question : how was a consensus reached??? Its convenient that you don't want to aruge the science because thats what was used to reach consensus.

We also have the very human tendency to reach a conclusion and then make the data fit the conclusion. That goes for any discipline and scientists are not immune to it either. The conclusion is that excessive CO2 causes a warming of the general climate. Since then a lot of people have spent a lot of time and money attempting to prove it.

So basically, after saying there isn't a conspiracy, you more-or-less say that what has happened is that subconsciously, enough scientists decided to go and "prove" this by cooking the books.

Right now we are all subjected to alarmist predictions from all directions but not usually from the scientists. Indeed many scientists dispute the 'consensus'.

Many scientists dispute the alarmist predictions. Comparatively few scientsts dispute the consensus, because that - by definition - is what a consensus is.

But are often classified as 'deniers' despite the fact that they to use the same methods of research.

Who is classifying them as deniers? I doubt its the other scientists.

There is also the problem of getting money for research. If you want to investigate the bearded snail of the south Pacific you'd better damm well tack on a reference to it's future with regard to climate change.

From what I can tell, the origins of this myth were one student who said that he believed he would not have gotten funding had he not included a reference to climate. He didn't omit it, get rejected, then add it in and get accepted. There isn't any widespread study. There is (to my knowledge) one anecdote, and a hell of a lot of people making the claim as though it were fact.

One of my favourites is the Gulf Stream theory. The Earth warms up, melts the arctic ice, dilutes the Gulf Stream and we in this part of the world loses it's warming effect. Thus we become as cold as Canada on the same latitude. Plausible yes? But wait if the Earth is warming and the arctic ice melts surely Canada become warmer too. Anyone care to explain this contradiction?

Today, we are warmer than Canada currently is. If the Fulf shifts north, we will become as cold as Canada currently is. Canada will become warmer. Canada could end up warmer than Europe. There is no contradiction there....only the mistaken belief that the comparison with Canada was based on a potential future climate rather than the current, known one.

Maybe wherever you read didn't make their point properly, or maybe they made the error, but either which way, there's no contradiction. I'd also be pretty certain that whereever you read this is at best a lay-man's science source (like SciAm, or one of those) rather than a peer-reviewed publication of real science.

Very gradually I changed my mind. This is reinforced when I see scientists pilloried and scorned not because their research is poor or invalid but because their conclusions don't fit the 'consensus' or because of who funded their research.

I find it amazing that you can distinguish who is making the cries of doom (i.e. predominantly not the scientists), but when it comes to the pillorying, you fail to make that distinction.

If you look at the scientific handling of those who dispute the consensus, you'll find that it only descends into scorn when you have the same scientist repeatedly trying to "prove" the same point, repeatedly with flawed methodology to the point where it is clear the person is either iredeemably incompetent or simply dishonest.

Whenever anyone here links to an actual scientific paper (as opposed to some opinion piece) questioning the established consesnsus, the first thing I do is search to see what the response has been from the scientific community. I see little - if any - pillorying or scornful rejection, other than for the grounds I've already mentioned. Where I do see it (from both sides) is where laypeople start discussing the science, but still put their faith in their abilities to "win the argument" rather than simply letting the science speak for itself.

Climate change is nothing new. What is new is the hubris of man's belief that we caused it this time and only we can stop it.

For someone who alleges to have read up on the issue, this shows a massive failing in what you've been reading. What is new is the rate of change, absent any clearly-identifiable trigger.

Once the Gods controlled the weather. Now apparently it's us.

Once the Gods kept us from falling into the sky. Now apparently its gravity.

Are you saying we should be equally skeptical of that finding (and all others) of modern science, or is it ok as long as we don't hold ourselves to be the cause?

Humans are a mere blip in the history of this planet.

So are asteroid impacts, such as the one believed to have impacted Chicxulub.

I cannot really understand how we can come to such momentous conclusions based on the observations of a few years.

Then your conclusion should be that you cannot decide whether or not humans are responsible, because you cannot understand how we could possibly come to such conclusions. This, however, isn't your conclusion...you are arguing that the process you cannot understand is wrong.

I believe we are in more danger of losing basic freedoms than of being flooded or burnt to a crisp.

This belief is based - at best on the scientific research that you admit to not understanding.

You're entitled to your beliefs. At least you admit that yours is based on a lack of understanding.

What is happening is nothing less than an attempt to roll back our civilisation to a more romantic fuzzy time that never existed by an unholy alliance of greens, environmentalists, career driven scientists, ambitious politicians and as ever the sheep like docility of the public at large. No conspiracy, just a dumb consensus.

The only people making the "roll back" claim are those who are trying to resist change. Those who embrace it see it as moving forward, to a cleaner, more sustainable form of living, with a better quality of life than we've ever had before.

That's what I fear most. Climate change we can cope with. But the scariest thing of all is when the mob have an idea.

Surely you mean the scariest thing is when the mob have an idea that you don't share.

After all, here you are on a public bulletin board, trying to convince people that your idea is what they should listen to and believe in.

djpbarry

cp251 wrote: »

We also have the very human tendency to reach a conclusion and then make the data fit the conclusion.

Who’s “we”? I thought you weren’t a scientist?

cp251 wrote: »

The conclusion is that excessive CO2 causes a warming of the general climate.

No, the CONCENSUS is that anthropogenic greenhouse gases very likely CONTRIBUTE to climate change.

cp251 wrote: »

Indeed many scientists dispute the 'consensus'. But are often classified as 'deniers' despite the fact that they to use the same methods of research. There is also the problem of getting money for research.

Give me one example of such a scientist.

cp251 wrote: »

But I soon ran into problems and inconsistencies. One of my favourites is the Gulf Stream theory. The Earth warms up, melts the arctic ice, dilutes the Gulf Stream and we in this part of the world loses it's warming effect. Thus we become as cold as Canada on the same latitude. Plausible yes? But wait if the Earth is warming and the arctic ice melts surely Canada become warmer too. Anyone care to explain this contradiction?

Just because the AVERAGE GLOBAL temperature is increasing, it doesn't mean that EVERY locality is experiencing an increase in average temperature.

cp251 wrote: »

This is reinforced when I see scientists pilloried and scorned not because their research is poor or invalid but because their conclusions don't fit the 'consensus' or because of who funded their research.

Again, give me one example of such a scientist.

cp251 wrote: »

There is also this huge tendency among the mass media and environmental groups to dramatise the whole issue. To predict disaster, floods, storms etc.

Well, yes, this can happen, but it's up to people to educate themselves on the issue. Besides, anyone who believes everything they see on Sky News (for example) is an idiot.

cp251 wrote: »

Humans are a mere blip in the history of this planet. I cannot really understand how we can come to such momentous conclusions based on the observations of a few years.

You don't think that humans (all 6 billion of us) are having an impact on our environment?

cp251 wrote: »

But at the end of the day, the issue for me is no longer whether or not there is actual climate change but how our lives will be changed not by the climate but by often well meaning people in positions of power.

How do expect to influence policy/contingency with respect to climate change if you dismiss the fundamental arguments being made?

cp251

Well of course you can easily defeat me in any scientific argument both of you. Not least with subtle put downs and an element of sophistry. It's a pity that was resorted to. So go ahead and slap me down. My opinion if of course worthless due to my lack of expertise in the subject. :rolleyes: A mere layman. My expertise lies elsewhere, if you want to take me on in my specialisation I will defeat you easily. I could answer point by point with references. But I have neither the time or the enthusiasm for it.

In any case my main issue is not with climatologists per se but with how the information gleaned from these studies is used. Right now that is what I find most disturbing. Because not for the first time, science is being used, no misused as a vehicle of social change. Even for you that should be disturbing. The people who want to introduce these changes and those who have the power to do so, will have a similar level of knowledge of the subject as me. Armed with this they will attempt to modify our lives based largely on climate models which may or may not be accurate or complete. My big fear is that any misguided attempt at solving the 'problem' may in fact have worse economic and social consequences than any caused by climate change.

What perhaps you gentlemen? need to consider is why someone like me is skeptical of the whole business. I flatter myself that I'm educated, intelligent and capable of rational thought. Yet, I have seemingly failed to grasp the subject, indeed I tend to reject it. Despite all the information out there. If true this is the single most important issue affecting our lives this century. Yet I'm not convinced, nor are many other people and increasingly so.

That issue needs to be addressed.

I came across this and found it interesting. You may be aware of the site but this is a quote in Dr Joanne's Simpson's weblog on Roger Pielke SR's website.

http://climatesci.org/

However, the main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system. We only need to watch the weather forecasts. However, a vocal minority of scientists so mistrusts the models and the complex fragmentary data, that some claim that global warming is a hoax. They have made public statements accusing other scientists of deliberate fraud in aid of their research funding. Both sides are now hurling personal epithets at each other, a very bad development in Earth sciences. The claim that hurricanes are being modified by the impacts of rising greenhouse gases is the most inflammatory frontline of this battle and the aspect that journalists enjoy the most. The situation is so bad that the front page of the Wall Street Journal printed an article in which one distinguished scientist said another distinguished scientist has a fossilized brain. He, in turn, refers to his critics as “the Gang of Five”.

Distinguished scientists having at each other.:o The rest of what she says is equally interesting particularly in relation to the TRMM project and her suggeston that:

These patterns can be compared over the past ten years with the patterns predicted ten years ago by the climate models.

That would be most interesting.

I've only just come across the site, Roger Pielke is not a skeptic but has been described as having a 'nuanced' view of the subject. I won't attempt to summarise anything because as mere layman I will of course misrepresent the subject.

But so far, I have found it most informative so far and will continue to study it. I suspect truth of this business is, somewhat lost in the middle.

bonkey

cp251 wrote: »

Well of course you can easily defeat me in any scientific argument both of you. Not least with subtle put downs and an element of sophistry. It's a pity that was resorted to.

More emotive appeals? I thought you didn't approve of that stuff.

You have complained that people are being led astray by emotive arguments, hyperbole, and the like. If you don't want people to be led astray, then encourage them to look at the science. Encourage them to discuss the science. Encourage them to base their standpoint on their understanding of the science, and be willing to defend it in terms of the science.

But we don't see that encouragement from you. We see a refusal to engage in the science, accompanied by one appeal to emotion after the next.

My opinion if of course worthless due to my lack of expertise in the subject.

Your opinion was challenged, based on the material you presented. Rather than defend it, you've chosen this approach of making yourself to be some picked-on victim. More emotive appeals.

My big fear is that any misguided attempt at solving the 'problem' may in fact have worse economic and social consequences than any caused by climate change.

What do you base this fear on? Science? Gut feeling?

What perhaps you gentlemen? need to consider is why someone like me is skeptical of the whole business.

You've told us why you're skeptical - you don't accept the science because you see inconsistencies.

At the same time, you admitted to not understanding the science and also made claims about the untrustworthiness of science or scientists (with your claims about fitting data to conclusions).

I know why you're skeptical, and I know why the grounds you gave for your skepticism are largely misplaced. You have additionally stated that you've neither time nor inclination to discuss those topics.

I flatter myself that I'm educated, intelligent and capable of rational thought. Yet, I have seemingly failed to grasp the subject, indeed I tend to reject it. Despite all the information out there. If true this is the single most important issue affecting our lives this century. Yet I'm not convinced, nor are many other people and increasingly so.

More emotive appeals.

That issue needs to be addressed.

It does indeed....

Here's my take on it.

People are being swayed by the emotive arguments. But I ask you...who is making the emotive appeal here? You're refusing to discuss the science. You're refusing to discuss the responses to the points you've already made. Meanwhile, you're basically trying to make yourself out to be some sort of unfairly picked-on victim because you happen to disagree on topics you refuse to discuss.

When this stuff is pointed out for what it is...the very type of emotive side-issues that you complain are being used to sway people...you launch into what I can only describe as a cry for pity about about how you're a smart guy, well qualified in other fields, and so forth.

If you have a problem with emotive appeals, then stop using them and encourage people to limit themselves to discussing the science. Better yet, stop using them yourself, and discuss either the science, or at least the responses to the points you've already made about why you distrust the science.

That's all I'm doing here...pointing out that you are engaging in the very tactics that you are trying to decry and refusing point-blank to engage in the type of discussion which should be what is used instead.