It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

can someone debunk this mans research?

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 10:41 PM
link   
just recently I was on a forum and the debate came around about climate change.
of course everytime you look for information saying that climate change is a scam, you can only find information on conspiracy sites or anti climate change sites and it is very hard to win an arguement when the page you are linking to has articles about reptile shape shifters ect......

now the other problem is that the facts you can give with evidence is not peer reviewed and once again it gets the argument shut down.

now I came across this one site with information given from Dr. Craig Loehle

He received his Ph.D. in mathematical ecology in 1982 from Colorado State University. He has published over one hundred papers in applied mathematics and ecology on topics that include statistical models, optimization, simulation, artificial intelligence, fractals, and wavelets. Among other accomplishments, he is the developer of “Global Optimization” which is a Mathematica application package that has been on the market since 1998. Dr. Loehle’s affiliation listed in the two articles is the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. In the second paper, Loehle is joined by J. Huston McCulloch of the economics department at Ohio State University. There is no evidence that their work is funded by anyone with any stake in the greenhouse – global warming debate.
www.worldclimatereport.com...



now what I want to know, has this man got any credability and is he respected by his peers, is his research peer reviewed or does he have skeletons in the closet?




posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 11:06 PM
link   
Myself personaly i would kinda go with the yin yang aspect of this..

we affect the world beacuse we are infact here..

mathamatical logical reason

humans affect our planet just beacause we are here... same with aliens and god and every other aspect of our life.

i know that was simplistic, but would we debate it if humans were not here?

there is the logical answer to your question i think,



[edit on 10-3-2009 by theresult]



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 12:11 AM
link   
This guy oozes credibility. It seems obvious that on average the temperature is raising. I just hate how people like Al Gore say it is purely due to humans, then flys away on his jet.

-E-



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 12:14 AM
link   
reply to post by MysterE
 


Well, according to the latest research by climate scientists, it is a 90% probability that Global Warming IS all down to human pollution. In scientific terms, that's pretty well a dead certainty...

J.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 12:19 AM
link   
I have come across a lot of people that have certificates and degrees and all kinds of book smarts but lack true knowledge. Everyone has skeletons if they are "peer reviewed" Its called judging. Looking at what has been written, I know the guy knows more than I know about those subjects. Debate is good though.

Japan is saying the western led global warming movement is bunk and a scam

Climate science is 'ancient astrology'



[edit on 3/11/2009 by staple]



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by jimbo9999
reply to post by MysterE
 


Well, according to the latest research by climate scientists, it is a 90% probability that Global Warming IS all down to human pollution. In scientific terms, that's pretty well a dead certainty...

J.


Did you read the article?



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by jimbo9999
reply to post by MysterE
 


Well, according to the latest research by climate scientists, it is a 90% probability that Global Warming IS all down to human pollution. In scientific terms, that's pretty well a dead certainty...

J.


Yes, by Climate Pseudo-Scientists who are more concerned with Grant Money, as opposed to Reputation.

If you want to look at the logical aspect of everything, then ask yourself this: Why was the term suddenly and inexplicably altered from "Global Warming", to "Climate Change"? If there was such a certainty, there would be no need to alter towards vague terms. The Climate ALWAYS Changes, and thus by using the term "Climate Change", these buffoons can claim to be correct no matter what truly occurs.

I have studied the subject heavily for nearly 12 Years.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 03:32 AM
link   
So we have no one who can debunk this mans numbers?

That is good to know, there may be a few voices left that havn't been bought out by the climate change lobby



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 07:12 AM
link   
believe it or not, this person said that only using 18 points of reference was a poor data set which should set off red flags.

I really think his head is so far in the sand that he is coming out the other side of the planet.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by munkey66
now I came across this one site with information given from Dr. Craig Loehle

He received his Ph.D. in mathematical ecology in 1982 from Colorado State University. He has published over one hundred papers in applied mathematics and ecology on topics that include statistical models, optimization, simulation, artificial intelligence, fractals, and wavelets. Among other accomplishments, he is the developer of “Global Optimization” which is a Mathematica application package that has been on the market since 1998.


now what I want to know, has this man got any credability and is he respected by his peers, is his research peer reviewed or does he have skeletons in the closet?


Depends in what field. It sounds like he has lots of published research in maths/ecology. You would think someone with such a background would find it easy to publish good research in a respectable journal (i.e., he knows the game).

Yet he publishes in Energy & Environment, lol. A deniers comic.

Realclimate have been through his original study. They must have done a good job as he corrected a lot of their criticisms, but many remain outstanding. Bad research can easily result from people expanding their reach beyond their capabilities and knowledge. Doesn't need to be motivated by nefarious means.

But he has become a cause celebre for a certain quarter.

Oh, and a link to a piece by someone he asked to collaborate with him:

linky

[edit on 11-3-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by munkey66
of course everytime you look for information saying that climate change is a scam, you can only find information on conspiracy sites or anti climate change sites

This is absolutely false.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 07:16 PM
link   
While I agree that global warming is occuring, I am one of those that believes it to be cyclical especially when people start talking about temperatures and sea ice and things like that. The problem I see looking at the data is that over the last 1M years we're actually at a peak in temperature cycle where we are about to experience a big drop in temperature and a big increase in the amount of global ice mass. The site I've linked has really detailed information on the Earth's climate history. Take a look at the 1M year graphs for ice mass and temperature. At the moment we're at a peak on Temperature and a valley for amt of ice mass.

Earth's Climate History



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheAgentNineteen

If you want to look at the logical aspect of everything, then ask yourself this: Why was the term suddenly and inexplicably altered from "Global Warming", to "Climate Change"?


Simple. It wasn't. It has always been climate change. A clue is in the name IPCC


However, as the issues caught media attention 'global warming' became a catchphrase that emphasised the aspect of most concern.

Personally I wish it never had caught on. There are still people who think that because it's called global warming it means everywhere gets warmer and than anywhere a bit colder for a few days proves GW isn't happening

Anyway, obviously climate change is not a scam and it's perhaps significant that the last IPCC report was a consensus - toned down to fit political whim.

As for Dr. Craig Loehle, he is not a climate scientist and I think his reconstruction of temp proxies was done with the intent of proving Mann etal wrong (ie starting from the premise that the infamous hockeystick was flawed due to use of certain tree ring proxies). Notably it was published in Energy & Environment which is an Anti-AGW journal which specialises in publishing such papers which would not get published in mainstream geological journals let alone the likes of Nature or Science. I don't think the journal operates a peer review process for papers it publishes but I can alway check with the Editor if necessary.

You can download a pdf here:

www.ncasi.org...

I think he's unlikely to be considered credible by those actually engaged in climate research, but I can't comment myself on the reliability of his proxy reconstruction.

[edit on 12-3-2009 by Essan]



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
Anyway, obviously climate change is not a scam and it's perhaps significant that the last IPCC report was a consensus - toned down to fit political whim.


That's actually a very interesting point that many don't really comprehend. The IPCC report is actually a very conservative perspective of the science. They should be thankful Lovelock doesn't write it, lol.

......

The one real example I've seen relating to the terms 'global warming' and 'climate change' which does suggest a rebranding or framing motivation, rather than just an issue of correct terminology, is here:


“Climate change’’ is less frightening than “global waming'; ” As one focus group participant noted, climate change “sounds like you’re going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale.” While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge.
p. 12
www.sourcewatch.org...

The Republican funded Luntz memo.

"sounds like you're going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale", heh.

[edit on 12-3-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by TheAgentNineteen
 


Hey Agent. you say you've studied this indepth for 12 years.
What are your qualifications compared to theirs?



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join