Notices
Results 1 to 51 of 51

Thread: A meaningful consensus on global warming

  1. #1 A meaningful consensus on global warming 
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Some surveys actually provide meaningful results. This one asked:

    1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures
    have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
    2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

    Of the 3,000 or so respondents "the most common areas of expertise reported were geochemistry (15.5%), geophysics (12%), and oceanography (10.5%). General geology, hydrology/hydrogeology, and paleontology each accounted for 5–7% of the total respondents. Approximately 5% of the respondents were climate scientists, and 8.5% of the respondents indicated that more than 50% of their peer-reviewed publications in the past 5 years have been on the subject of climate change."

    http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

    Results show that overall, 90% of participants
    answered “risen” to question 1
    and 82% answered yes to question 2.
    and

    It seems that the debate on the
    authenticity of global warming and the
    role played by human activity is largely
    nonexistent among those who understand
    the nuances and scientific basis
    of long-term
    climate processes.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    172
    And in other news only 7% of our polling respondents claimed that grits ain't groceries; eggs ain't poultries; and Mona Lisa was a man.

    Just curious Bunbury, why did you post such a silly poll?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    The results don't surprise me in the least, anyone who reads the literature or practices the science understands the strength of the argument--and its been pretty strong for probably ten or fifteen years now.

    What's a little disappointing is the low, "I'm not sure," among the general public which essentially doesn't have an educated opinion on the subject and should be a much higher percent. What this study doesn't address of course is the certainty of that position--and for all of us, I hope it can be nudged towards what the science is telling us. With good leadership I think we can get there--most of the public simply doesn't know what it doesn't know.

    "The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to
    policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists."

    Indeed that is correct. It's part education about how science works, so folks understand the difference between an article from a non-peer review Exxon funded organization such as "Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change," and a peer-review scientific journal paper (e.g. Journal of Climate by the American Meteorological Society) by a government scientist who can't take a bonus, has risen to the top of his/her field already and for the most part just wants to do more science.

    On communication thought there's certainly a reluctance among science to go to the public, it's sometimes professionally discouraged and considered a bother even when its part of their job. This is why I was delighted to see the new boss of National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, who believe scientist should reach out to educate the public. Here's a short write up about her:

    "NOAA Chief Believes in Science as Social Contract



    Article Tools Sponsored By
    By CORNELIA DEAN
    Published: March 23, 2009

    The marine ecologist Jane Lubchenco has long urged scientists to abandon the habitual reticence of the research community and spend more time engaging the public and public officials about scientific and technical issues.
    Skip to next paragraph
    Enlarge This Image
    Andrew Councill for The New York Times

    IN WASHINGTON Jane Lubchenco wants to form a climate information service.
    Related
    Dot Earth: Q. and A. With New NOAA Chief (March 20, 2009)
    Video Video: Dr. Jane Lubchenco's Message to NOAA Employees (noaa.gov)

    Now Dr. Lubchenco, a professor at Oregon State University, is following her own advice all the way to Washington to head the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, one of the government’s premier science agencies.

    This is only the latest step in a long career of practicing what she preached. In 1997, as president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Dr. Lubchenco called for “a new social contract” for science, aimed at helping policy makers take steps to sustain the biosphere.

    The next year, she founded the Aldo Leopold Leadership Program, which trains environmental researchers in communication, policy-making and related skills.

    She was an organizer of the Communication Partnership for Science and the Sea, which since 1999 has offered information on marine conservation science to policy makers and the public. And she was a founding director of Climate Central, a Web site that went online last year with what she calls “credible and nonadvocacy” information on global warming.

    Although some global warming dissidents expressed dismay over President Obama’s choice of an outspoken climate activist to head a leading government agency that deals with climate issues, a wide range of scientists acclaimed the appointment — and Dr. Lubchenco was approved by the Senate without objection on Thursday.

    “If you look at her record, it’s pretty stunning,” said Jeremy B. C. Jackson, an oceanographer at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. He cited a range of her work, including what he called “path-breaking” studies on the ecology of algae and seaweed, her deciphering of biological interactions along rocky shorelines and her wider assessments of environmental sustainability.

    “She has done a lot,” Dr. Jackson said in an interview. “Jane has got some blockbuster papers, cited a thousand times.”

    But as another practitioner of scientific outreach, Dr. Jackson said he particularly admired her efforts in that direction. When she was president of the Ecological Society of America, he said, “she got them to recognize that there was a big bad world out there and that ecology had not contributed to the dialogue.” The Leopold program has been “extremely useful,” he said.

    According to conventional scientific wisdom, researchers cannot spare time for public involvement, much less public service. Many believe that if they are not constantly immersed in new findings and new methods they will fall far and fast into the research backwash. As a result, the theory goes, those who significantly interrupt their work might as well abandon it, especially if they take on an assignment as daunting as heading a major federal agency.

    Dr. Lubchenco (pronounced LOOB-chen-ko) said she intends to escape this fate.

    “I remain passionately interested in the discovery part of science,” she said in an interview. She and her colleagues at Oregon State — including her husband and fellow marine ecologist, Bruce Menge — have spent 30 years building a database about the state’s coast. “You don’t walk away from that gold mine of information,” she said.

    Dr. Lubchenco, 61, said her “absolutely amazing” colleagues had agreed to pick up some of the work she will leave behind when she goes to Washington. With luck, she said, “I will be able to go back to that team once I am through here, whenever that is.”

    Meanwhile, Dr. Lubchenco said, one of her goals at NOAA is to establish a climate information service modeled on the National Weather Service, which is part of the agency. The weather service provides “just a phenomenal service” in making information available in ways ordinary people can understand it and act on it, she said. Dr. Lubchenco believes climate models are now sufficiently “robust” to help scientists start to do the same with climate, to help businesses, elected officials and regulators make good decisions on issues like where to put buildings or roads or wind farms.

    “It is no longer enough to know what the wind patterns were for the last hundred years,” she said. “You want to know what they will be for the next hundred years — and they undoubtedly won’t be the same. So there are huge opportunities to provide services to the country.”

    The idea, which she said had been broached by the National Academy of Sciences, would have to be a joint effort with other agencies involved in the issue, like the Environmental Protection Agency, NASA or the United States Geological Survey, she said.

    Another major item on the NOAA agenda is the dismal state of many of the nation’s fisheries. “Congress has mandated that overfishing be ended in 2011, 2012 — there are different dates for different fisheries,” Dr. Lubchenco said. “We are not on track to doing that now.”

    She said there are a range of regulatory tools to apply to the problem, particularly catch shares, a term applied to various efforts to allocate percentages of a particular fish catch in a particular area to particular individuals, companies or communities. The idea has been used successfully on parts of the west coast, but it has yet to catch on widely in the east. Dr. Lubchenco said it had “tremendous merit” as a tool for restoring the sustainability of the ocean ecosystem.

    But first, she said, fishing communities, scientists, regulators and other stakeholders in the debate need to overcome a legacy of bitterness and distrust. “It really is pretty dysfunctional,” Dr. Lubchenco said. But, she added, “in the end fishing jobs depend on fish, and fish depend on healthy oceans.”

    If Dr. Lubchenco does eventually return to a robust research career, it will not be the first time she has successfully challenged the way science is typically practiced.

    A Denver native who attended Colorado College, she earned master’s and doctoral degrees in marine ecology from the University of Washington and Harvard and came to Oregon State in 1977, when it was a given that female scientists who wanted to have children would have a difficult time building successful research careers.

    She and Dr. Menge negotiated an arrangement in which they shared one faculty appointment, and one faculty salary. “As far as we know that had never been done before,” she said in an interview shortly after Mr. Obama named her as his choice for NOAA. Eventually, they worked into full-time jobs. And their son, Duncan Lubchenco Menge, who earned a Ph.D. last year, is a postdoctoral fellow at the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, in Santa Barbara, Calif., Dr. Lubchenco said.

    Dr. Lubchenco, a member of the National Academy of Sciences and a MacArthur grant recipient, said she did not take the NOAA job thinking it would be another chance for her to chip away at the culture of science — not consciously, anyway. “I took the job because I had the chance to be helpful,” she said.

    And she acknowledged that not all scientists will do well in the public eye. But those who remain at the lab bench can support those who speak out, Dr. Lubchenco said, as her colleagues have pledged to support her. Will that support be enough? “We’ll have to see,” she said."
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/24/sc...of.html?ref=us
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    The Gallup result of 58% of the general public thinking that human activities are responsible to a large degree for increasing temperatures probably includes a lot of "I'm not sures" who nevertheless understand the precautionary principle of plausible risk as opposed to absolute certainty. The questions did not allow for more nuanced responses.

    It's disappointing but unsurprising that the percentage is that low. It reflects the very issue discussed in the article about Jane Lubchenko; scientists need to keep publishing to further their careers, and don't have time to explain the issues to the lay person. This partial vacuum of objective information is obligingly filled by monied interests.

    Thanks for the info on Lubchenko - it does inspire hope that NOAA may begin to fill that vacuum.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Re: A meaningful consensus on global warming 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    Some surveys actually provide meaningful results.
    Meaningful results? What are meaningful results? Results you agree with? Surveys are meaningless if they are not random, if they target a certain group--(that causes the surveys to be biased in favor of a desired result). There should also be some discussion of the margin of error. In the article you cited, I saw no such discussion. "Political spin" is a more apt description of the surveys than "meaningful."

    Here is a petition that gives a different take:

    "On May 19th 2008, OISM announced that over 31,000 scientists, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, signed a petition that states, "... There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will cause in the future, catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate..."?

    Source: http://www.salem-news.com/articles/j...ing_6-2-08.php

    That's what I love about the Internet. You can always find a poll or petition to fit your personal political preferences. LOL!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 Re: A meaningful consensus on global warming 
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    Here is a petition that gives a different take:

    "On May 19th 2008, OISM announced that over 31,000 scientists, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, signed a petition that states, "... There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will cause in the future, catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate..."?

    Source: http://www.salem-news.com/articles/j...ing_6-2-08.php

    That's what I love about the Internet. You can always find a poll or petition to fit your personal political preferences. LOL!
    Actually the Science and Medicine (OISM) Petition is consistent with the thread's study. Nearly the entire 31,000 who signed the petition are neither scientist or published in their own field--many are practicing dentist, medical doctors etc and would be categorized in the first group. The term "catastrophic" makes the question very different as well--even among climate researchers that simple word would reduce the response considerably. To set the conditions for the response, the petition was sent out with a deliberately one sided and misleading copy of a paper about Co2 printed with the appearance that it was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, when in reality it had absolutely nothing to do with the NAS. Lastly it's an accumulation of responses that date back to 1998, which make it both obsolete even if it was a serious study.

    Here's the response by the actual NAS who were inadvertently caught up in the misleading petition that pretending to have their endorsement:
    "STATEMENT BY THE COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
    REGARDING GLOBAL CHANGE PETITION

    The Council of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is concerned about the confusion caused by a petition being circulated via a letter from a former president of this Academy. This petition criticizes the science underlying the Kyoto treaty on carbon dioxide emissions (the Kyoto Protocol to the Framework Convention on Climate Change), and it asks scientists to recommend rejection of this treaty by the U.S. Senate. The petition was mailed with an op-ed article from The Wall Street Journal and a manuscript in a format that is nearly identical to that of scientific articles published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal."
    http://www8.nationalacademies.org/on...rdID=s04201998

    The very same petition is used as an examples of pseudo science manipulation in several articles that explore modern politics, the media's role, and importance of scientific education when it comes to making public policy in a representative government.

    "The “scientific summary”was another instance of deceptive manipulation of recognized symbols of science: itwas formatted such that it looked like an article that had appeared in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a renowned and peer-reviewed scientific journal issued by the prestigious U.S. National Academy of Sciences. Yet the summary was not peer reviewed and, according to recognized climate experts, contained numerous inaccuracies and one-sided presentation of the scientific evidence—what one climate expert referred to as the “cherry-picking of facts.”15 According to the National Academy, many lay persons and scientists were indeed misled, as indicated by the many calls it received from persons wanting to know whether the Academy had indeed taken a stance against the global warming theory"
    The paper makes a good read.
    http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/ad...92-2005.50.pdf

    The non-scientific OISM petition is used as an example of modern snake oil fraud by some courses now: http://www.sciencecases.org/petition/petition.asp

    Unfortunately many people are still being duped by the fraudulent survey.

    Thanks for playing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7 Re: A meaningful consensus on global warming 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    Here is a petition that gives a different take:

    "On May 19th 2008, OISM announced that over 31,000 scientists, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, signed a petition that states, "... There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will cause in the future, catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate..."?

    Source: http://www.salem-news.com/articles/j...ing_6-2-08.php

    That's what I love about the Internet. You can always find a poll or petition to fit your personal political preferences. LOL!
    Actually the Science and Medicine (OISM) Petition is consistent with the thread's study. Nearly the entire 31,000 who signed the petition are neither scientist or published in their own field--many are practicing dentist, medical doctors etc and would be categorized in the first group. The term "catastrophic" makes the question very different as well--even among climate researchers that simple word would reduce the response considerably. To set the conditions for the response, the petition was sent out with a deliberately one sided and misleading copy of a paper about Co2 printed with the appearance that it was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, when in reality it had absolutely nothing to do with the NAS. Lastly it's an accumulation of responses that date back to 1998, which make it both obsolete even if it was a serious study.

    Here's the response by the actual NAS who were inadvertently caught up in the misleading petition that pretending to have their endorsement:
    "STATEMENT BY THE COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
    REGARDING GLOBAL CHANGE PETITION

    The Council of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is concerned about the confusion caused by a petition being circulated via a letter from a former president of this Academy. This petition criticizes the science underlying the Kyoto treaty on carbon dioxide emissions (the Kyoto Protocol to the Framework Convention on Climate Change), and it asks scientists to recommend rejection of this treaty by the U.S. Senate. The petition was mailed with an op-ed article from The Wall Street Journal and a manuscript in a format that is nearly identical to that of scientific articles published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal."
    http://www8.nationalacademies.org/on...rdID=s04201998

    The very same petition is used as an examples of pseudo science manipulation in several articles that explore modern politics, the media's role, and importance of scientific education when it comes to making public policy in a representative government.

    "The “scientific summary”was another instance of deceptive manipulation of recognized symbols of science: itwas formatted such that it looked like an article that had appeared in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a renowned and peer-reviewed scientific journal issued by the prestigious U.S. National Academy of Sciences. Yet the summary was not peer reviewed and, according to recognized climate experts, contained numerous inaccuracies and one-sided presentation of the scientific evidence—what one climate expert referred to as the “cherry-picking of facts.”15 According to the National Academy, many lay persons and scientists were indeed misled, as indicated by the many calls it received from persons wanting to know whether the Academy had indeed taken a stance against the global warming theory"
    The paper makes a good read.
    http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/ad...92-2005.50.pdf

    The non-scientific OISM petition is used as an example of modern snake oil fraud by some courses now: http://www.sciencecases.org/petition/petition.asp

    Unfortunately many people are still being duped by the fraudulent survey.

    Thanks for playing.
    Here is an interesting excerpt from one link you posted:

    "In particular, the Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering (NAE), and the Institute of Medicine (IOM) conducted a major consensus study on this issue, entitled Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming (1991,1992). "

    1991? 1992? That is a very old study! Heck way back then even I was drinking the global warming Kool-Aid. If you want to play and debunk, try something a little more current. LOL!

    I do want to thank you, however, for demonstrating that when we look at studies, surveys, and petitions, we should always think critically rather than lap it up like a dog. Just because it agrees with our world view is no reason to blindly accept it. A red flag always goes up for me when someone claims they found a "meaningful" consensus.



    Here is an excerpt from an actual scientist:

    "This is a difficult question. There is general agreement among
    atmospheric scientists that a rise of 4 degrees Celsius in the average global
    temperature might result from the greenhouse effect bythe year 2050, or
    roughly one degree Celsius every 15 to 20 years. However, there are also many
    reputable scientists who dissent from this view because they do not agree with
    the theoretical assumptions underlying the forecast. In fact, some believe a
    global cooling is more likely. "

    http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/newton...ron/ENV035.HTM


    I can tell he is the real deal. He looks at both sides of the issue and acknowledges the fact that there are reputable scientists who agree and disagree. All this "consensus" crap is just political spin!

    Don't confuse journalism with science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8 Re: A meaningful consensus on global warming 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Unfortunately many people are still being duped by the fraudulent survey.
    Well I agree someone is trying to dupe the public. I have yet to see the global-warming crowd make a "meaningful" prediction. The best they can come up with are probability projections, and a so-called "consensus." When the northeastern U.S. failed to have tropical weather by the year 2000 as predicted, but instead had record cold winters, that was enough to turn my head around. When Carl Sagan predicted (using his trusty computer models) that the Kuwaiti oil fires would cause a nuclear winter, and all turned out to be well instead, again I realized that some people are being duped. Now we can split hairs all day as to whose survey is legit and whose isn't. I would rather look at the history--the empirical evidence, the batting average of the chicken littles who scream that the sky is falling. When were they ever right? Why should I trust them now?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9 Re: A meaningful consensus on global warming 
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn

    Here is an interesting excerpt from one link you posted:

    "In particular, the Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering (NAE), and the Institute of Medicine (IOM) conducted a major consensus study on this issue, entitled Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming (1991,1992). "

    1991? 1992? That is a very old study! Heck way back then even I was drinking the global warming Kool-Aid. If you want to play and debunk, try something a little more current. LOL!
    Not sure why you'd be surprised to find a 1993 reference in a response to a unscientific petition started in 1998 that you posted--or perhaps you didn't realize the 31,000 names were started back then, haven't been removed even when requested, and can't be resurveyed because the meta data was so poor several attempts to follow up with petitioners have failed (after you sort through the incomplete names, duplicates etc)--but whatever.

    Not sure why you're not following the logic here. A review of papers of the 60s and 70 by Orlanski finds a strong tilt towards man-made global warming predications, another survey from the 90's done by one of the most reputable scientific agencies starts to find consensus, and finally a survey done in the past month or two finds nearly universal consensus. It's a story of those who know the most about a subject finding stronger and stronger evidence--there's nothing disingenuous or inconsistent. If you have a scientific background (which I doubt) a few evenings of reading abstracts from Journal of Atmospheric Science, Journal of Climate, Nature, or Science would leave you absolutely no doubt about the fact that almost all climate scientist think man-made warming is happening based on considerable strength of the argument.

    You might not like consensus, but that's how all scientist advance their fields, and get onto more advanced, detailed, and tangential research. And don't confuse immutable belief and consensus--a few reputable papers could dismantle the entire idea if they were backed by a sufficiently strong hypothesis that matched observation. But of course in 100+ years since the discovery of green house gas effect, no one has been able to show how to double a primary green house gas without creating surface warming, while we continue to warm.

    When the northeastern U.S. failed to have tropical weather by the year 2000 as predicted,
    Just curious--predicted by whom when where and why? And was it really a prediction or another off comment by someone to highlight a possibility or level of uncertainty that was taken wildly out of context?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10 Re: A meaningful consensus on global warming 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

    Not sure why you'd be surprised to find a 1993 reference in a response to a unscientific petition started in 1998 that you posted--or perhaps you didn't realize the 31,000 names were started back then, haven't been removed even when requested, and can't be resurveyed because the meta data was so poor several attempts to follow up with petitioners have failed (after you sort through the incomplete names, duplicates etc)--but whatever.
    LOL! Gosh! Where does it say all that in the article you posted? The article states:

    "The Council of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is concerned about the confusion caused by a petition being circulated via a letter from a former president of this Academy. This petition criticizes the science underlying the Kyoto treaty on carbon dioxide."

    Where does it say it is the petition I referenced? Even if it is, it really does not take away from my point which zoomed over your head. The point was it is easy to find a survey that fits whatever view on the topic you have. I think I also indicated that no survey is "meaningful" unless it is random and gives the margin of error. My comments also include the survey you are apparently vexed with.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Not sure why you're not following the logic here.
    Logic is useless if you start with false assumptions or premises. I'm sure you have heard the expression: "Garbage in, garbage out."
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    A review of papers of the 60s and 70 by Orlanski finds a strong tilt towards man-made global warming predications,
    People see what they want to see. Whatever gets them the grant.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    another survey from the 90's done by one of the most reputable scientific agencies starts to find consensus,
    Which scientific agency? What was the margin of error? What was the sample size? How were the samples taken? Why should I care, if no meaningful predictions were made?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    and finally a survey done in the past month or two finds nearly universal consensus.
    Boy, a lot of surveys are taken! Why all the surveys? Can't they convince the public global warming is legit just with the evidence alone? I guess if the emperor is wearing no clothes, you need a consensus to prove that he is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    It's a story of those who know the most about a subject finding stronger and stronger evidence--there's nothing disingenuous or inconsistent.
    LOL! The IPPC Assessment report admits the inconsistencies.
    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...2-chapter2.pdf

    Under section 2.4.1:

    "...but these methods have not been defined consistently across different research communities." (In other words, methods used to make climate change projections are not consistent, so the so-called "consensus" view is a myth.)

    Under section 2.4.4 there is the admission that the likelihood of future extreme events is poorly known. These extreme events include heat waves, storms and flooding.


    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    If you have a scientific background (which I doubt) a few evenings of reading abstracts from Journal of Atmospheric Science, Journal of Climate, Nature, or Science would leave you absolutely no doubt about the fact that almost all climate scientist think man-made warming is happening based on considerable strength of the argument.
    Well I read some IPCC reports and the NGIPCC report that debunks the IPPC reports. Interestingly and not surprisingly, not a single scientist has been able to do a point-by-point debunking of the NGIPCC report. The best the morons can do is ad hominem attacks. You obviously think you're a smart guy, give us your point-by-point debunking of the NGIPCC report. If you are successful, then you will have my attention and respect. Here is the link:

    http://www.sepp.org/publications/NIPCC-Feb%2020.pdf


    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    You might not like consensus, but that's how all scientist advance their fields,
    Wrong! If that were true we would still believe the Earth is flat, since that is what the consensus believed at one time. It is those who challenge the consensus that cause science to advance. (See Galileo, Einstein, Faraday, Copernicus, etc.) That is why the whole consensus argument is BS! Aka: political spin!

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    and get onto more advanced, detailed, and tangential research. And don't confuse immutable belief and consensus--a few reputable papers could dismantle the entire idea if they were backed by a sufficiently strong hypothesis that matched observation. But of course in 100+ years since the discovery of green house gas effect, no one has been able to show how to double a primary green house gas without creating surface warming, while we continue to warm.
    LOL! Well a simple examination of specific heat coeficients for greenhouse gases show that a mole of CO2 heats more slowly than the mole of O2 that it replaces. CO2 and other greenhouse gases also cool down more slowly, but the mean temperature does not change. The absense of GHGs would cause Earth to have a climate like the moon: extreme heat in the daytime and extreme cold at night. CO2 does have the dipole thing going for it and allegedly reacts with low frequencies of IR radiation, but O2 reacts with higher frequencies of radiation which create more kinetic energy and heat. My hypothesis, based on my research, is as follows: additional GHGs will make the climates of the Earth milder, not more extreme. Thus our contributions will not create a crisis but a boon to all life on the planet. The problem with the null hypothesis is that it is based on the idiotic assumption that everything Man does is evil for planet Earth. Like I said, Garbage in, garbage out.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    When the northeastern U.S. failed to have tropical weather by the year 2000 as predicted,
    Just curious--predicted by whom when where and why? And was it really a prediction or another off comment by someone to highlight a possibility or level of uncertainty that was taken wildly out of context?
    Well obviously I'm a little older than you. When I was your age, I believed in all sorts of nonsense. Give yourself 20 more years and when it is snowing in the summer, you can look back and laugh at yourself as I have. Here is the history of predictions made in my lifetime (this was before the www, so I don't have the sources handy but talk to some old-timers and they will confirm my words);

    In the early 1970's an ice age was predicted to happen, but in the 1980s it got warmer instead. Oops! Then global warming was predicted, but it got cooler in the 1990s. Ooops again. Sagen (on the show Nightline) predicted a nuclear winter in 1990-1. Didn't happen. Sorry! Batting zero thus far. Now you guys call it climate change, not global warming or cooling. Way to cover your asses! No matter what happens you can say you predicted it. LOL! Here is one prediction I did find on the web:

    "The Great Global Warming Swindle
    In March 2007, Singer appeared in the controversial documentary film The Great Global Warming Swindle which asserted that the mainstream view on global warming was "a lie" and "the biggest scam of modern times". On the program, Singer imputed to the Chief Scientific Advisor of the United Kingdom, Sir David King the view that "by the end of the century the only habitable place on the earth will be the Antarctic. And humanity may survive thanks to some breeding couples who moved to the Antarctic". Singer then commented "It would be hilarious if it weren't so sad.""

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer

    Now if the the great Sir David King can't get it right, who in your camp can? When I lived during the last century, so much gloom and doom was predicted by the end of the century, it is a miracle we are still here. LOL! Give yourself time, kiddo. Time tells on all BS. Forget the consensus crap!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    When the northeastern U.S. failed to have tropical weather by the year 2000 as predicted,
    Just curious--predicted by whom when where and why? And was it really a prediction or another off comment by someone to highlight a possibility or level of uncertainty that was taken wildly out of context?
    Please just answer the rest of the question will you? You answer seems to imply that Sir David King said that? Did he? And if so when or where was that?


    In the early 1970's an ice age was predicted to happen
    Again who said that? And over what period. Was it an isolated opinion or an agency prediction? I'm pretty sure there wasn't a single climate agency of the several that existed at that time that put out any such forecast of a near term ice age, and we know from Orlanski's work that most scientific papers of the 70's were already leaning towards man-made warming. An ice age will eventually happen--astronomical forcing almost guarentees it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox


    In the early 1970's an ice age was predicted to happen
    Again who said that? And over what period. Was it an isolated opinion or an agency prediction? I'm pretty sure there wasn't a single climate agency of the several that existed at that time that put out any such forecast of a near term ice age, and we know from Orlanski's work that most scientific papers of the 70's were already leaning towards man-made warming. An ice age will eventually happen--astronomical forcing almost guarentees it.
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-...s-in-1970s.htm

    From the third comment on this article:

    "PaulM at 01:07 AM on 29 February, 2008
    The claim by Peterson that there were only 7 papers in the 1970s predicting cooling is just ridiculous. Anyone can check this with a quick look at Google scholar. Here are two examples they have missed, but there are many more.

    Return of the ice age and drought in peninsular Florida?
    Joseph M. Moran, Geology 3 (12): 695-696 (1975)
    Convection in the Antarctic Ice Sheet Leading to a Surge of the Ice Sheet and Possibly to a New Ice Age
    T. Hughes, Science Vol. 170. no. 3958, pp. 630 - 633 (1970)

    What is strange is why people attempt to re-write recent history in this way, when their claims can so easily be disproven.
    Where did all the stories in the papers, TV and magazines come from? Were they all just fabricated? No of course not, they came from scientists who made suggestions (like the above 'possibly to a new ice age') which were then hyped and exaggerated by the media. Much the same thing is happening now with the global warming scare. "

    The article admits there was a global cooling predicted, but blames the media. Uh huh. And why would the media make such a prediction? Did they talk to scientists? Of course. The article I cited is a good example of political spin in favor of global warming, but it does confirm my assertion that way back when they were predicting global cooling. One has to ask, if global warming was the consensus view, why would the media refuse to listen? Thus the article debunks itself.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    When the northeastern U.S. failed to have tropical weather by the year 2000 as predicted,
    Just curious--predicted by whom when where and why? And was it really a prediction or another off comment by someone to highlight a possibility or level of uncertainty that was taken wildly out of context?
    Please just answer the rest of the question will you?
    I did not find a source for that particular prediction yet, but I have found others just as good showing other absurd predictions that failed to materialize. Here is a list:

    IPCC predictions way off:

    http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...3080326AASzSQA
    http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/pr...n_of_1990.html

    From the top ten predictions that did not come true:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/1...dnt-come-true/

    "1. “Telltale signs are everywhere —from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest. Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F.” — Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University in Time Magazine’s June 24th, 1975 article Another Ice Age?

    So the next time you hear about worldwide crop failure, rising sea levels, species extinction, or “climate grief” you might want to remember that just being an expert, or even having a consensus of experts, doesn’t necessarily mean that a claim is true."

    More evidence of global cooling predictions:
    http://factoidz.com/experts-get-it-wrong/

    “…civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind,”
    biologist George Wald, Harvard University, April 19, 1970

    The world will be “…11 degrees colder in the year 2000 (this is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age),”
    Kenneth Watt, speaking at Swarthmore University, April 19, 1970"

    And now once again the chicken littles cry wolf to a whole new generation of suckers! Now the angle is global warming or climate change. The idea is to bilk billions of dollars from taxpayers for junk science projects.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox


    In the early 1970's an ice age was predicted to happen
    Again who said that? And over what period. Was it an isolated opinion or an agency prediction? I'm pretty sure there wasn't a single climate agency of the several that existed at that time that put out any such forecast of a near term ice age, and we know from Orlanski's work that most scientific papers of the 70's were already leaning towards man-made warming. An ice age will eventually happen--astronomical forcing almost guarentees it.


    From the third comment on this article:

    "PaulM at 01:07 AM on 29 February, 2008
    The claim by Peterson that there were only 7 papers in the 1970s predicting cooling is just ridiculous. Anyone can check this with a quick look at Google scholar. Here are two examples they have missed, but there are many more.

    Return of the ice age and drought in peninsular Florida?
    Joseph M. Moran, Geology 3 (12): 695-696 (1975)
    Convection in the Antarctic Ice Sheet Leading to a Surge of the Ice Sheet and Possibly to a New Ice Age
    T. Hughes, Science Vol. 170. no. 3958, pp. 630 - 633 (1970)

    What is strange is why people attempt to re-write recent history in this way, when their claims can so easily be disproven.
    Yes some papers leaned towards cooling in the 60's and 70's, there's no doubt about that, but even than they were outnumbered by papers that supported warming or didn't express an opinion one way or the other. Neither of the above papers predicted it though. I can send you the second one if you care for confirmation. And no agency predicted it in the short term--not a single one. Today dozens of agencies associated with atmospheric research have clear predictions and declarations of concern. To put it simply there's no equivalency between the weak scientific opinion of cooling in the 70's and there near unanimous assessment that we are causing warming of today.

    Where did all the stories in the papers, TV and magazines come from? Were they all just fabricated? No of course not, they came from scientists who made suggestions (like the above 'possibly to a new ice age') which were then hyped and exaggerated by the media. Much the same thing is happening now with the global warming scare. "
    I would agree the media does a terrible job of reporting science, and that is nothing new. Most of media hype of the 70's had to do with their misinterpretations when scientist pointed towards a new ice coming but failed to understand the vast majority thought it was thousands of years off or simply said they didn't know when it would come but needed to be resourced to determine the time line, to which the media assumed the worse. That's why Americans should look past the story to the agencies responsible for research in that area. Today that's much easier than in the past--the science is much more available. Of course it still takes critical thinking, initiative and a basic understanding of science--all of which are missing from too many of the American public.

    When the northeastern U.S. failed to have tropical weather by the year 2000 as predicted
    I did not find a source for that particular prediction yet, ...
    I'm shocked!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Yes some papers leaned towards cooling in the 60's and 70's, there's no doubt about that, but even than they were outnumbered by papers that supported warming or didn't express an opinion one way or the other.
    OK, now you are full of it! Let me refresh your memory. You wrote:

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Again who said that? And over what period. Was it an isolated opinion or an agency prediction?
    Feigning ignorance here? Then you wrote:

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    I'm pretty sure there wasn't a single climate agency of the several that existed at that time that put out any such forecast of a near term ice age, and we know from Orlanski's work that most scientific papers of the 70's were already leaning towards man-made warming.
    So here you kind of reveal you have some knowlege that I'm telling it like it was, but you don't want to give that to me, so you hedge with "we know most scientists leaned toward warming." But then you miraculously recover from your memory lapse and become an expert of the period in question:


    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Neither of the above papers predicted it though. I can send you the second one if you care for confirmation. And no agency predicted it in the short term--not a single one.
    Well no agency predicted that gravity bends light, but an individual named Einstein did. So much for agencies. Now you assert that papers that predicted an ice age did not predict an ice age? O....K. And no agencies or prominent scientists predicted an ice age? Where do you suppose the media got the idea that an ice age was coming? Rather than deal with that issue, you shoot forward in time:

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Today dozens of agencies associated with atmospheric research have clear predictions and declarations of concern.
    What clear predictions are those? What happened to the probability projections that the IPCC is so famous for? I won't argue there are declarations of concern, since any snake-oil peddler can write such a declaration.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    To put it simply there's no equivalency between the weak scientific opinion of cooling in the 70's and there near unanimous assessment that we are causing warming of today.
    Other than media hype and Al Gore's good word, what evidence do you have to support this assertion? You tend to go from ignorance to expert whenever it suits you, so forgive my cynicism.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    I would agree the media does a terrible job of reporting science, and that is nothing new.
    So if some news anchor announces that global warming will cause extreme damage, etc., etc., we should be skeptical, right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Most of media hype of the 70's had to do with their misinterpretations when scientist pointed towards a new ice coming but failed to understand the vast majority thought it was thousands of years off or simply said they didn't know when it would come but needed to be resourced to determine the time line, to which the media assumed the worse.
    I don't know why you bothered to ask me who said what, where, when about the 70's ice-age hoax. You seem to think you know everything. So what is your angle? Do you sell carbon credits? Going for a research grant?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    That's why Americans should look past the story to the agencies responsible for research in that area.
    So which agencies predicted global warming in the 70's? Why wouldn't the news media report it and grossly exaggerate it like they do today? It would have been so simple.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Today that's much easier than in the past--the science is much more available. Of course it still takes critical thinking, initiative and a basic understanding of science--all of which are missing from too many of the American public.
    Yes today is such a special time! Almost a perfect utopia! Give me a break! I agree though that there is a lack of critical thinking and basic understanding of science. Take yourself, for example. You seem to be under the impression that the IPCC has made clear predictions when their most recent reports only made probability projections.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    I did not find a source for that particular prediction yet, ...
    I'm shocked!
    Are you sure you are shocked? Or are you just feigning it like you feigned ignorance of the ice-age prediction? You indicated on another thread that you were interested in serious discussion. You even accused me of trolling. Perhaps that accusation was misplaced. Perhaps you are the one who has webbed feet and lives under a bridge.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    817
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    What this study doesn't address of course is the certainty of that position--and for all of us, I hope it can be nudged towards what the science is telling us.
    The science is telling us that global warming is caused by the sun. Comparing satellite data with solar irradiance data results in a positive match. This significantly decreases the supposed role that humans play in changing the weather. However, it does not eliminate the role.

    As for the rest of the thread, I am apalled by the fact people are arguing over something as meaningless as a consensus. Consensus is not science. Consensus is politics. I cannot emphasize enough how important this following speech is: http://www.crichton-official.com/spe...alwarming.html

    I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

    Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.

    In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    With all due respect to Michael Crichton he's never done a day of science. I don't want to rehash my earlier point, but science tends to stall until the majority in a particular field generally agree and are satisfied they have a hypothesis that best fits the observations. It also doesn't mean it's some immutable belief that can never be reexamined. If someone develops a better hypothesis, the community will eventually move towards the favoring that hypothesis and any work derived from the original will be reexamined. People might not like the term consensus, but that's as good as any other term to describe that community's agreement. It is how science works.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    817
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    With all due respect to Michael Crichton he's never done a day of science.
    Okay then, lets use reductionism!

    "X has never done biology, therefore X is wrong."
    "X has never done chemistry, therefore X is wrong."
    "X has never done farming, therefore X is wrong."
    "X has never done politics, therefore X is wrong."

    That's brilliant there. You just excluded all outside perspectives from each occupation. However, these are occupations, and science is a pratice.

    The fallacy you appear to be making is twofold. First, science is not an occupation. Second, just because someone has not been a part of something does not suggest in any way whatsoever that they are incorrect. This is elitism, pure and true.

    I don't want to rehash my earlier point, but science tends to stall until the majority in a particular field generally agree and are satisfied they have a hypothesis that best fits the observations.
    You misunderstand. Yes A consensus is a natural phenomenon, but it can never be used as evidence FOR or AGAINST something. PERIOD. That is the argument, that is Crichtons argument, and that is why this study (and arguments for/against global warming based on it) are unscientific. All woes in civilization have come from the consensus using said consensus to say an idea was incorrect.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    With all due respect to Michael Crichton he's never done a day of science.
    Okay then, lets use reductionism!

    "X has never done biology, therefore X is wrong."
    "X has never done chemistry, therefore X is wrong."
    "X has never done farming, therefore X is wrong."
    "X has never done politics, therefore X is wrong."

    That's brilliant there. You just excluded all outside perspectives from each occupation. However, these are occupations, and science is a pratice.

    The fallacy you appear to be making is twofold. First, science is not an occupation. Second, just because someone has not been a part of something does not suggest in any way whatsoever that they are incorrect. This is elitism, pure and true.
    Actually it's common sense. The person mostly likely to be correct is someone who actually practices in the area in question. If you have a question about a problem with your car you'll generally have better luck if you take it to an ASE certified mechanic, than someone's who's never worked on a car before. I wouldn't accuse someone of the fallacy of appeal to popularity if a group of ASA certified mechanics at my local repair shop all had the same opinion about how to fix my car regardless of what my barber recommended.

    You misunderstand. Yes A consensus is a natural phenomenon, but it can never be used as evidence FOR or AGAINST something. PERIOD.
    Not sure what you mean by "evidence." The practical reality is you have little choice but to look for consensus among scientist if you're making public policy because it identifies what the favored hypothesis is at that point in time among those who have studied the subject. What other system would we use--base strength of an hypothesis on the hair color of the one who supports it? Superstition? What ever is likely to hurt our investments? What ever is least convenient? No. Until we build a time machine, the only pragmatic choice is to decide things on the scientific consensus of "what we know."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    What this study doesn't address of course is the certainty of that position--and for all of us, I hope it can be nudged towards what the science is telling us.
    The science is telling us that global warming is caused by the sun. Comparing satellite data with solar irradiance data results in a positive match. This significantly decreases the supposed role that humans play in changing the weather. However, it does not eliminate the role.

    As for the rest of the thread, I am apalled by the fact people are arguing over something as meaningless as a consensus. Consensus is not science. Consensus is politics. I cannot emphasize enough how important this following speech is: http://www.crichton-official.com/spe...alwarming.html

    I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

    Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.

    In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.

    Here here! (Fireworks!) Great speech and so true!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

    Here here! (Fireworks!) Great speech and so true!
    The pure irony of course is we regard them as great only because scientific consensus recognizes them as having come up with better hypothesis.

    Every scientific advancement was a minority opinion (sometimes of a single person) at one time or another, but only few outside that field of study would have been able to tell so and it would have irresponsible to make decisions until that community of experts agreed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    With all due respect to Michael Crichton he's never done a day of science.
    Okay then, lets use reductionism!

    "X has never done biology, therefore X is wrong."
    "X has never done chemistry, therefore X is wrong."
    "X has never done farming, therefore X is wrong."
    "X has never done politics, therefore X is wrong."

    That's brilliant there. You just excluded all outside perspectives from each occupation. However, these are occupations, and science is a pratice.

    The fallacy you appear to be making is twofold. First, science is not an occupation. Second, just because someone has not been a part of something does not suggest in any way whatsoever that they are incorrect. This is elitism, pure and true.

    I don't want to rehash my earlier point, but science tends to stall until the majority in a particular field generally agree and are satisfied they have a hypothesis that best fits the observations.
    You misunderstand. Yes A consensus is a natural phenomenon, but it can never be used as evidence FOR or AGAINST something. PERIOD. That is the argument, that is Crichtons argument, and that is why this study (and arguments for/against global warming based on it) are unscientific. All woes in civilization have come from the consensus using said consensus to say an idea was incorrect.
    Exactly! Thank you! Evidence might lead to a consensus believing the Earth is flat, but consensus should never be used to shut down any proposal that the world is round. Further, the fact that surveys are being done shows the so-called consensus is not obvious. No one has to do a survey to determine the consensus view on the shape of the Earth. It is obvious that the majority believes it is round. It is also obvious that the evidence does not lead to Man being the principal cause of climate change. If the evidence truly led to such a conclusion, then it would speak for itself--no need to harp on the so-called consensus.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    Exactly! Thank you! Evidence might lead to a consensus believing the Earth is flat, but consensus should never be used to shut down any proposal that the world is round.
    Why do you often use this silly example? There wasn't even modern science back then. I doubt it's even true in any case. Anyone who's ever been at sea knows the earth is round, because you can see the curvature, the Greeks learns the earth was round and even had a pretty good estimate of the size, and by 1492, well before the advent of modern science literate Western Europeans know the earth was a sphere. You're pretty much propagating an irrelevant myth.

    You might this short article. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/history/1997Russell.html
    It attributes story teller Washington Irving with starting the myth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Actually it's common sense. The person mostly likely to be correct is someone who actually practices in the area in question. If you have a question about a problem with your car you'll generally have better luck if you take it to an ASE certified mechanic, than someone's who's never worked on a car before. I wouldn't accuse someone of the fallacy of appeal to popularity if a group of ASA certified mechanics at my local repair shop all had the same opinion about how to fix my car regardless of what my barber recommended.
    Well you should accuse someone of appeal to popularity if the mechanics fail to fix cars time and time again. If your barber has fixed your car successfully, when the majority of mechanics keep screwing up, you may want to listen to your barber. It really comes down to results. What are the results? Are they on target? Or did they miss the target completely? I have watched your so-called consensus for 35 years and they are batting zero. No gloom-and-doom prediction they have ever made has materialized. The evidence shows that CO2 is good for life. Further, it is not clear that there was even a consensus to begin with. The point you keep missing over and over is the fact that results matter in science more than opinion, whether that opinion is the consensus view or not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Not sure what you mean by "evidence." The practical reality is you have little choice but to look for consensus among scientist if you're making public policy because it identifies what the favored hypothesis is at that point in time among those who have studied the subject. What other system would we use--
    Here is the system I use:

    1. Double check to see if there is really a consensus. If you find evidence to the contrary, be skeptical;

    2. Check to see if the predicitons made in the past have come true. If you find a poor batting average, be skeptical.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

    Here here! (Fireworks!) Great speech and so true!
    The pure irony of course is we regard them as great only because scientific consensus recognizes them as having come up with better hypothesis.

    Every scientific advancement was a minority opinion (sometimes of a single person) at one time or another, but only few outside that field of study would have been able to tell so and it would have irresponsible to make decisions until that community of experts agreed.
    In a perfect world I would agree with you, but the issue of climate change is highly political and there are a lot of special interests involved. You would have to live in a cave not to notice.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    Exactly! Thank you! Evidence might lead to a consensus believing the Earth is flat, but consensus should never be used to shut down any proposal that the world is round.
    There wasn't even modern science back then.
    OK, if you say so.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    ...the Greeks learns the earth was round and even had a pretty good estimate of the size, and by 1492, well before the advent of modern science literate Western Europeans know the earth was a sphere.
    Gosh! How was that possible? There was no modern science back then.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    You're pretty much propagating an irrelevant myth.
    LOL! Feel free to wipe the egg off your face once again.


    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    You might this short article. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/history/1997Russell.html
    It attributes story teller Washington Irving with starting the myth.
    Myth, fact or legend. Once again the main point zooms over your head. If the majority of the people believe that the majority at one time believed in a flat earth, and that belief turns out to be a myth, what does that do for your consensus argument? Thank you for demonstrating how people can be duped by the consensus.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    817
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Actually it's common sense. The person mostly likely to be correct is someone who actually practices in the area in question. If you have a question about a problem with your car you'll generally have better luck if you take it to an ASE certified mechanic, than someone's who's never worked on a car before. I wouldn't accuse someone of the fallacy of appeal to popularity if a group of ASA certified mechanics at my local repair shop all had the same opinion about how to fix my car regardless of what my barber recommended.
    I am no certified mechanic, but I have never failed to fix a car or diagnose a car problem. In fact, the truth of the matter is, "backyard mechanics" do better work for less. You actually have MORE LUCK if you can get your hands on one. Go figure.

    At the same time, an outside perspective can just as easily study and learn all the material in biology without having a degree. It's a fallacy to exclude one group over another just because one group has certification.

    Not sure what you mean by "evidence." The practical reality is you have little choice but to look for consensus among scientist if you're making public policy because it identifies what the favored hypothesis is at that point in time among those who have studied the subject.
    You cannot say "X is true because the consensus says so". You CAN say "X is true because the evidence says so". The consensus is coincidental, and has often times been wrong because they cling to wrong ideas. Worse, they enforce their wrong ideas by putting down those that disagree. The consensus means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in regards to the validity of an idea. It's just a crutch that shields us from a major problem.

    What other system would we use--base strength of an hypothesis on the hair color of the one who supports it? Superstition? What ever is likely to hurt our investments? What ever is least convenient? No. Until we build a time machine, the only pragmatic choice is to decide things on the scientific consensus of "what we know."
    OR we could actually decide based on the true validity of an idea? This is why a consensus is bad. You're now using it as justification for your incorrect views, rather than looking at the evidence for yourself. Imagine the chaos if OTHER SCIENTISTS began to do this. Well, here's a wake up call, scientists ARE doing this.

    We do not need a consensus. All we need is one person and people willing to listen. Fuck the stragglers. They'll pick up EVENTUALLY.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Darius I really don't follow your argument at all.

    I haven't said once that consensus of experts means something is "true." My position is that that consensus of scientist is the most likely to be true because they are trained and often the only ones really qualified to look at the evidence. A consensus of scientist = best hypothesis that matches the evidence. I don't really see how it could be any other way and still be considered a rational approach.

    If you don't believe this you either have a different definition of consensus or really don't understand the scientific process. And all science works exactly this way...IN EVERY FIELD. Perhaps we need a different word? How about "majority of X-field scientist;" from how I define it, it amounts the same thing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    817
    I argue that it is not so, because if it was we would have no need for individual scientists (or non-scientists) to come along and burst the consensus bubble every hundred years. I also use plain examples of individuals without a TITLE in a field doing better than those with one. The only thing a title means is that you SHOULD be capable of doing what your title says you do. However, it is by now means a guarentee in any way whatsoever.

    To suggest otherwise is both elitism and a form of appeal to authority fallacy. Consensus, position, title, none of it means anything. It is not how science works. Consensus is how politics works.

    Throw as many "you don't know how science works!" insults as you like. You seem to be trying to convince yourself more than me.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    I argue that it is not so, because if it was we would have no need for individual scientists (or non-scientists) to come along and burst the consensus bubble every hundred years.
    I'm not following you at all. The only way you can say this is if you think consensus="truth," which I've done out of my way to explain isn't the case. Scientific consensus = "most likely to be true." Without new scientist, there wouldn't be new hypothesis to explain things better, or as Newton once said, ""If I have seen further it is by standing on ye shoulders of Giants."

    Not sure what plain examples you have in mind, even out of field scientific discoveries are exceedingly rare in modern times, and most common in fields where power of observation is poor but growing rapidly such as astronomy. With new observations, there's opportunity to test new and existing hypothesis.

    Part of our disagreement is you think I'm saying that consensus is part of the scientific method--I'm not. It is however however integral to science. It's how we (scientist) decide what the teach, what to test if new observations are made available, what to spring board off of for new research, and most importantly to big issues like climate change, what to advise (along with level of certainty). It's also the question every American should ask: "what do most of the experts in field-X think?" Not because they think it should be a 100% guaranteed answer, but because it represents what most scientist think is true based on the evidence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    817
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Scientific consensus = "most likely to be true."
    That is not the case either. As I said above, consensus means absolutely nothing. It only means that people that SHOULD know what they're doing agree on something. Which, as far as science is concerned, means nothing, and is just an appeal to authority.

    Also, I apologize for misreading some of your earlier posts. It did appear as though you were equating consensus to factual validity. Then again, you just did here, claiming it "most likely to be true", so apparently I was not too far off.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    I argue that it is not so, because if it was we would have no need for individual scientists (or non-scientists) to come along and burst the consensus bubble every hundred years.
    I'm not following you at all. The only way you can say this is if you think consensus="truth," which I've done out of my way to explain isn't the case. Scientific consensus = "most likely to be true." Without new scientist, there wouldn't be new hypothesis to explain things better, or as Newton once said, ""If I have seen further it is by standing on ye shoulders of Giants."

    Not sure what plain examples you have in mind, even out of field scientific discoveries are exceedingly rare in modern times, and most common in fields where power of observation is poor but growing rapidly such as astronomy. With new observations, there's opportunity to test new and existing hypothesis.

    Part of our disagreement is you think I'm saying that consensus is part of the scientific method--I'm not. It is however however integral to science. It's how we (scientist) decide what the teach, what to test if new observations are made available, what to spring board off of for new research, and most importantly to big issues like climate change, what to advise (along with level of certainty). It's also the question every American should ask: "what do most of the experts in field-X think?" Not because they think it should be a 100% guaranteed answer, but because it represents what most scientist think is true based on the evidence.
    There is the problem right there. If you do not know what to teach, do not look at the consensus. Better to teach nothing then the consensus.

    I look at less then one degree Celsius temperature rise, I look at the equipment and the procedures over the last one hundred years. And I see no proof. No reason for a second look.

    I do see that Volcanos, played a massive role in temporary weather patters at different times in our history. However I would not call that climate change.

    I noticed that millions of tons of fuel was burned very rich, during the Gulf war. I would like to know how much of the carbon was deposited on the ice. To me this is a real issue. That could cause the ice to melt at ten times normal rate.

    This Gulf war oil field fire, is probably the cause of the ice melting. However you will be hard pressed to prove global warming. It is probably the cause of the weather patterns we are having.

    They will reverse violently. By all historic information.

    Did you see this link. You can just "x" the black screen and go through that magazine. It is a couple pages long. Very interesting stuff.

    http://www.digital-almanac.com/digit...2009/?folio=68


    But you can see this rather anal debate between hot and cold has been going on for a long time. When weather patterns are capable of much worse then we are seeing now. No need for climate change.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Take a look at what is in that link. Global warming or cooling, is like telling the new guy on the football team that his cup is an oxygen mask.

    http://www.digital-almanac.com/digit...2009/?folio=68












    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Darius I really don't follow your argument at all.

    I haven't said once that consensus of experts means something is "true." My position is that that consensus of scientist is the most likely to be true because they are trained and often the only ones really qualified to look at the evidence. A consensus of scientist = best hypothesis that matches the evidence. I don't really see how it could be any other way and still be considered a rational approach.

    If you don't believe this you either have a different definition of consensus or really don't understand the scientific process. And all science works exactly this way...IN EVERY FIELD. Perhaps we need a different word? How about "majority of X-field scientist;" from how I define it, it amounts the same thing.
    I think the problem here is you are assuming we live in a perfect world where authority figures can be trusted. Peer review is part of the scientific method, and there is nothing wrong if scientists can form a consensus. The red flag goes up when some politically bent journalists and scientists on their payroll allege that X is the consensus view in lieu of the evidence that allegedly supports X. If X is really really true, then we only need look at the evidence, the track record of predictions made. To keep harping that the consensus believes X is true points to a weakness in the evidence.

    For example, the consensus of scientists believe the sky is blue on a sunny day. Does anyone need to declare there is a consensus on the issue? No. All one needs to do is look at the evidence: the blue sky. The evidence is that strong and that obvious. Where the consensus card is needed is in a situation such as global warming where all gloom-and-doom predicitons have fallen flat, where the evidence is sketchy at best: a set of computer models and assumptions and probability projections. New ideas are a threat to those seeking research grants for old ideas. If you want to keep the grant money flowing, you better use whatever intimidation you can. Shouting down dissention with the consensus argument is one method. That has nothing to do with pure science in a pure world. It has to do with politics and greed in the real world. Selling carbon credits is big business. If you really want to understand how the world works, follow the money.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    ... Selling carbon credits is big business ....
    so is selling oil
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Take a look at what is in that link. Global warming or cooling, is like telling the new guy on the football team that his cup is an oxygen mask.

    http://www.digital-almanac.com/digit...2009/?folio=68












    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    What a fabulous post! PT Barnum was right. There is a sucker born every minute, and every generation has a set of gloom-and-doomers. If record hot and record cold temperatures are set, it is most likely because we have only been taking measurements for a short time, and satelite data is even shorter. It is easy to break records when there is so little competition.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    ... Selling carbon credits is big business ....
    so is selling oil
    That is correct. Let's assume everyone lies, cheats, steals and kicks their dogs. That is why we should look at the empirical evidence: the gloom-and-doom predictions that never came true. William McCormick just posted some examples over the last century.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Going to tone down the rhetoric a wee bit. (I hope)

    For example, the consensus of scientists believe the sky is blue on a sunny day. Does anyone need to declare there is a consensus on the issue? No. All one needs to do is look at the evidence: the blue sky.
    Questions are far more complex than the "sky is blue," and unfortunately most Americans would struggle to even define what "blue" is, or why it is in a meaningful scientific way. As much as I like the idea of the Renascence man, the truth is we've advanced to the point where the vast majority of people don't have the capability to learn enough to make that independent assessment because of education, time or intellectual capability, or some combination of the above. It's not elitist, it's just a cold statement of fact. For good or bad, we're increasingly dependent on groups of scientist to sort through the types of hard questions that face us, and asking them in turn to grow the professional organizations we need to provide the best advice, and teach our our population science--hence the new NOAA director's appeal to scientist.

    Selling carbon credits is big business. If you really want to understand how the world works, follow the money
    The vast majority of scientist don't make any extra money regardless of their position, in most places like the US, who's atmospheric scientist are the world's leaders, they work for the government (like I did as a scientist) where they can't take extra money. As one prominent example, Hanson's salary, other than cost of living adjustments, hasn't increased in decades.

    I can't comment on certain industry motivations, all I can tell you when it comes to climate research, business interest are very separated from the sciences because almost none on the scientist work for business either directly or indirectly. The Navy payed for my graduate education, the tenured professor I worked with worked for his salary and had no interest an much other than being left alone to do science--he was like most other atmospheric professors there (Penn State). I fully realize that's not the case in all areas of science such as medicine which I think receive proportionally more funding from private business.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    172
    Argue (lamely if you must) these truisms:

    (1) Geologic evidence indicates that we are due (maybe overdue) for a period of deep cold, i.e. an Ice Age, and none of us will disagree that an Ice Age is bad if you happen to be, like us, a would be, continuing organism.

    (2) The flimsy evidence for Global Warming is largely based on computer models, and computer models are easily massaged to any desired position with ease.

    (3) Our good friends the Dutch have lived meters beneath sea level for many years and yet Henny Penny proclains that a one meter rise in sea level will doom us all forever. Help!

    (4) The hope for the long tern continuance of ourselves and of our favorite species of neat lifeforms lies in the will and the resources of all mankind and not in those few of us who would divert these resources to a ponzi scheme called "carbon credits". May God help us all.

    Go ahead, argue lamely if you must.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Going to tone down the rhetoric a wee bit. (I hope)

    For example, the consensus of scientists believe the sky is blue on a sunny day. Does anyone need to declare there is a consensus on the issue? No. All one needs to do is look at the evidence: the blue sky.
    Questions are far more complex than the "sky is blue," and unfortunately most Americans would struggle to even define what "blue" is, or why it is in a meaningful scientific way. As much as I like the idea of the Renascence man, the truth is we've advanced to the point where the vast majority of people don't have the capability to learn enough to make that independent assessment because of education, time or intellectual capability, or some combination of the above. It's not elitist, it's just a cold statement of fact. For good or bad, we're increasingly dependent on groups of scientist to sort through the types of hard questions that face us, and asking them in turn to grow the professional organizations we need to provide the best advice, and teach our our population science--hence the new NOAA director's appeal to scientist.
    I think Lincoln said you can fool all the people some of the time...but not all the time. And Shakespeare wrote: "Methinks the lady protests too much." Your continued appeal to authority figures just further reveals the weakness of the evidence. To use your previous analogy, if a mechanic does work on your car, you don't have to be an expert in automechanics to know your car does not run and that you've been had by a dishonest or incompetent mechanic. If the mechanic told you that you are too ignorant to understand that your car is actually running properly, I seriously doubt you would buy into that BS. I personally may not understand all the minutiae of your field, but I understand results and so does the rest of the human population. If we don't, then your so-called results have no value to society. If we can't somehow notice that the weather is changing and that such change spells a crisis, then you have failed.

    Even if you are 100% correct, and the mean temperature of the Earth has increased, that information is useless for the vast majority of people, since the only climate that counts with them is their local climate--not the overall mean. Even if your climate model can predict the mean with pin-point accuracy, it does me no good, because it does not tell me what my local temperature is gonna be. Unfortunately you climate people can't even predict the mean temperature with any degree of reliability. I am sorry but such a piss-poor track record is insufficient cause to award you and your ilk with some sort of elite status.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Selling carbon credits is big business. If you really want to understand how the world works, follow the money
    The vast majority of scientist don't make any extra money regardless of their position, in most places like the US, who's atmospheric scientist are the world's leaders, they work for the government (like I did as a scientist) where they can't take extra money. As one prominent example, Hanson's salary, other than cost of living adjustments, hasn't increased in decades.

    I can't comment on certain industry motivations, all I can tell you when it comes to climate research, business interest are very separated from the sciences because almost none on the scientist work for business either directly or indirectly. The Navy payed for my graduate education, the tenured professor I worked with worked for his salary and had no interest an much other than being left alone to do science--he was like most other atmospheric professors there (Penn State). I fully realize that's not the case in all areas of science such as medicine which I think receive proportionally more funding from private business.
    Well your professor won't be left alone to do his science if funding is cut for his little computer modeling projects. He will have to work on more important problems like curing cancer.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by milum
    Argue (lamely if you must) these truisms:

    (1) Geologic evidence indicates that we are due (maybe overdue) for a period of deep cold, i.e. an Ice Age, and none of us will disagree that an Ice Age is bad if you happen to be, like us, a would be, continuing organism.
    I will add here that geologic history shows that sudden, catastrophic changes in climate are very rare. The probability is extremely high that any change will be gradual enough for life to adapt. The evironmentalist wackos are more likely to be killed in an auto accident on the way to their next green peace meeting than to suffer from climate change.

    Quote Originally Posted by milum
    (2) The flimsy evidence for Global Warming is largely based on computer models, and computer models are easily massaged to any desired position with ease.
    Finally! Someone who knows something about computer models.

    Quote Originally Posted by milum
    (3) Our good friends the Dutch have lived meters beneath sea level for many years and yet Henny Penny proclains that a one meter rise in sea level will doom us all forever. Help!
    Great point! It is ironic that the Henny Pennys think they are smarter than astute people like yourself.

    (
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn

    Even if you are 100% correct, and the mean temperature of the Earth has increased, that information is useless for the vast majority of people, since the only climate that counts with them is their local climate--not the overall mean. Even if your climate model can predict the mean with pin-point accuracy, it does me no good, because it does not tell me what my local temperature is gonna be.
    I agree, the local effects are most important. While the public wallows in the disinformation campaign on the unwitting public, scientist have been putting most of their effort for the past ten or fifteen years on identifying local impacts of the warming. The government had quite a few state impact summations before Bush political appointees pulled down. (I think you'll see what you're asking for in the next year or two) The President has already asked for some actionable information and advice. Some States are standing up their own teams of scientist and taking it on their own initiative to put up climate change impacts. As an example I put up a figure from Minnesota State web site the shows the change in forest. Their web site is here: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/climatechange/

    I am sorry but such a piss-poor track record is insufficient cause to award you and your ilk with some sort of elite status.
    What track record are you referring to? Despite multiple request no one has put up a forecast from any scientific agency that made a climate prediction that turned out to be wrong. Sorry Newsweek, nor non-climatologist quips at hippy conventions (not that there's anything wrong with hippies :-) ) don't count--I'm asking for a real forecast from a climate agency or scientific agency that studies climate. You're pretty much just making up things at this point.



    Selling carbon credits is big business. If you really want to understand how the world works, follow the money.
    The vast majority of scientist don't make any extra money regardless of their position, in most places like the US, who's atmospheric scientist are the world's leaders, they work for the government (like I did as a scientist) where they can't take extra money. As one prominent example, Hanson's salary, other than cost of living adjustments, hasn't increased in decades.

    I can't comment on certain industry motivations, all I can tell you when it comes to climate research, business interest are very separated from the sciences because almost none on the scientist work for business either directly or indirectly. The Navy payed for my graduate education, the tenured professor I worked with worked for his salary and had no interest an much other than being left alone to do science--he was like most other atmospheric professors there (Penn State). I fully realize that's not the case in all areas of science such as medicine which I think receive proportionally more funding from private business.
    Well your professor won't be left alone to do his science if funding is cut for his little computer modeling projects. He will have to work on more important problems like curing cancer.
    Most of his funding came from (he retired two years ago) the Department of Defense and the National Science Foundation--neither of which is associated with any kind of carbon trading business. (We did a lot of field time as well--it wasn't all models)

    You suggested yourself that we should follow the money--I'd at least partially agree with that when trying to evaluate possible bias. Most Climate research dollars aren't in any way associated with business--in fact as of the last report I read a few years ago, private funding amounted to less than 5% of climate research money. The money doesn't lead to where you think it does, it's pretty much a myth that climate research is funded or bias by carbon trading interest.

    edited to add with one study about climate funding: http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/289.pdf



    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    [quote="Lynx_Fox"]
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn


    I am sorry but such a piss-poor track record is insufficient cause to award you and your ilk with some sort of elite status.
    What track record are you referring to?
    See previous comments on this post. William McCormick and I posted links to past predicitons that fell flat.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Despite multiple request no one has put up a forecast from any scientific agency that made a climate prediction that turned out to be wrong.
    Yes I did! I posted a link to the IPCC's predictions that were way off. (See previous comments.) Now the ball is in your court: show us the predictions made by any agency that were on target. I have requested this of you prevously. You have failed miserably thus far.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Sorry Newsweek, nor non-climatologist quips at hippy conventions (not that there's anything wrong with hippies :-) ) don't count--I'm asking for a real forecast from a climate agency or scientific agency that studies climate. You're pretty much just making up things at this point.
    I agree that one of us likes to make stuff up. See my IPCC link on my previous comment. You have heard of the International Panel on Climate Change, right? Do they count or are they in the same league as Newsweek and hippy conventions?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Most Climate research dollars aren't in any way associated with business--in fact as of the last report I read a few years ago, private funding amounted to less than 5% of climate research money.
    What about public funding? Congressional grants? And possible taxes on carbon dioxide? Carbon credits? These are just myths? Uh huh.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    To put it simply there's no equivalency between the weak scientific opinion of cooling in the 70's and there near unanimous assessment that we are causing warming of today.
    (....I want proof...or what ever you said))
    I've done that at nausea already William, the Orlanski paper shows it, and a couple evenings in a library would be how you'd confirm it. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../306/5702/1686


    You still have completely failed to show one agency which predicted the imminent ice age....not one. Meanwhile it's easy to find statement of forecast for warming along with concerns from multiple scientific agencies such as:
    Academia Brasiliera de Ciências, Brazil
    Royal Society of Canada,
    Chinese Academy of Sciences
    Academié des Sciences, France
    Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Germany,
    Indian National Science Academy,
    Accademia dei Lincei, Italy
    Science Council of Japan,
    Russian Academy of Sciences,
    Royal Society, UK
    National Academy of Sciences, US

    And dozens more. Like I said--no equivalency between the minority opinion of a few scientist from the 70s that thought cooling might be in order and the near unanimous opinions of climate scientist and their organizations that things are warming today.

    I asked you to show what's been gotten wrong...you put up one non-review paper by the Heartland institute, which according to your own standard of "follow the money," would be dubious for its receipt of more than a half million from Exxon alone. It does bring out a couple interesting points but unless you would have gotten specific, which is something you seem to loath, I wasn't going to do the bullet by bullet thingy--and it would have been difficult getting you familiar with the underlying science. I doubt you really would have been that interested.

    Shown that business doesn't fund the climate science which you disagree with so much, you bring up other things which are equally silly...like congressional grants approved by Congress even during the years when the party which controlled congress by and large didn't like the warming implications. But believe a novelist if you must He's good at fiction that sells books. He's not so good at science.

    Every time a model is brought you go into the whole "well models can be made to show anything." Well if that were the case, than how come there aren't models being published which show a cooling in the near future? You should ask yourself that.

    Seriously we can't do this if you're not going to be specific about anything. You hand wave, you bluster, you attempt to win arguments by shout out, you just make stuff up or recite things without even trying to fact check the source while violating your own standards of "follow the money" credibility in the process.

    Good bye until next time.
    --
    Maybe Milum will start a "next ice age" thread, it's an interesting subject in its own right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

    (....I want proof...or what ever you said))

    I've done that at nausea already William, the Orlanski paper shows it, and a couple evenings in a library would be how you'd confirm it. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../306/5702/1686
    This paper only expresses the opinion that there is a consensus regarding global warming. Again, this is not empirical evidence. This is political spin. I don't care if the majority believes in voodoo, OK? William McCormick's comment shows that all predictions made by scientists and agencies over the last century have fallen flat. There is nothing in your link source that shows that an estimate or prediction of some sort was made and came to pass. Some links I provided in previous comments show that predictions made by the IPCC were off. You need to show a prediction they made that was on. Good luck.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    You still have completely failed to show one agency which predicted the imminent ice age....not one.
    Well that allegation is rediculous because when the ice age was predicted your precious agencies probably did not exist. As McCormick and I have demonstrated, the predictions that were made (by whatever authorities existed at the time) fell flat.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Meanwhile it's easy to find statement of forecast for warming along with concerns from multiple scientific agencies such as:
    Academia Brasiliera de Ciências, Brazil
    Royal Society of Canada,
    Chinese Academy of Sciences
    Academié des Sciences, France
    Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Germany,
    Indian National Science Academy,
    Accademia dei Lincei, Italy
    Science Council of Japan,
    Russian Academy of Sciences,
    Royal Society, UK
    National Academy of Sciences, US
    What forcasts have they made that have come true? What is their track record? Do they each have a different forcast, or are they in full agreement as to one forcast? According to the IPCC reports, only probability projections have been made. They have given up making predictions simply because they have failed so many times in the past. (See the link I posted previously that shows their past failures.)
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    And dozens more. Like I said--no equivalency between the minority opinion of a few scientist from the 70s that thought cooling might be in order and the near unanimous opinions of climate scientist and their organizations that things are warming today.
    Why not? There is a lack of empirical evidence in either case. If there is a consensus today, it is most likely based on the desire to tax carbon dioxide emissions. However, to do this, they must first convince the public there is a consensus. Hopefully, the public will be wise enough to know the majority is not always right and that politics, not science is the driving force.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    I asked you to show what's been gotten wrong...you put up one non-review paper by the Heartland institute, which according to your own standard of "follow the money," would be dubious for its receipt of more than a half million from Exxon alone. It does bring out a couple interesting points but unless you would have gotten specific, which is something you seem to loath, I wasn't going to do the bullet by bullet thingy--and it would have been difficult getting you familiar with the underlying science. I doubt you really would have been that interested.
    See, I knew you wouldn't be able to debunk it point by point. You chose to make an ad hominem attack instead. Make it easy on yourself: just take one point you think you can debunk and post it on this thread. I understood the science behind both the IPCC reports and the NGIPCC report, so don't worry about little ol' me getting lost. Worry about yourself. No more excuses. Put up or shut up.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Shown that business doesn't fund the climate science which you disagree with so much, you bring up other things which are equally silly...like congressional grants approved by Congress even during the years when the party which controlled congress by and large didn't like the warming implications.
    But believe a novelist if you must He's good at fiction that sells books. He's not so good at science.
    As I stated before. Forget the spin, forget the ad hominem attacks. Focus on the results, the empirical evidence. Time to put up or shut up.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Every time a model is brought you go into the whole "well models can be made to show anything." Well if that were the case, than how come there aren't models being published which show a cooling in the near future? You should ask yourself that.
    Looking at preditions made over the last century, it appears that models predict whatever the current trend is. If there is cooling, they predict an ice age. If there is warming they predict more warming. None of them seem to factor in a reversal of the trend, which is what actually happened in reality. Even IPCC makes the following admission:

    "According to the IPCC, the majority of climatologists agree that important climate processes are imperfectly accounted for by the climate models. Scientists point out that there are specific flaws in the models, such as albedo errors, and external factors not taken into consideration that could change the conclusion above."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_climate_model

    Here is an article that discusses a new climate model that predicts global cooling over the next decade.

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...global-cooling

    "The IPCC currently does not include in its models actual records of such events as the strength of the Gulf Stream and the El Nino cyclical warming event in the Pacific, which are known to have been behind the warmest year ever recorded in 1998."

    "This would mean that the 0.3°C global average temperature rise which has been predicted for the next decade by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change may not happen, according to the paper published in the scientific journal Nature."

    Gosh! I guess your favorite agency will have egg on its face again! Assuming of course that climate models are reliable to begin with. LOL!



    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Seriously we can't do this if you're not going to be specific about anything.
    LOL! You can leave with your tail between your legs anytime now.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    You hand wave, you bluster, you attempt to win arguments by shout out, you just make stuff up or recite things without even trying to fact check the source while violating your own standards of "follow the money" credibility in the process.
    You should not talk to yourself. What will the neighbors say? LOL!

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Good bye until next time.
    Thanks for playing. Final score: Williampinn--1; Lynx_Fox--0
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    I think global warming and time travel belong in the same category, science fiction.
    i perceive a difference in kind here : the physics behind global warming is fairly well understood - on the other hand, we don't have the first idea what the physics of time travel might look like
    We have no temperature records beyond the acceptable, expected error of our instruments and recording procedures, to verify global climate change.

    Just like we have nothing but fantasy ideas about time travel.

    Some people are doing experiments on neutrons that do not exist, and telling us that they noticed a time flux, or some other bizarre term.

    You have some scientists looking at melting ice and claiming fire and brimstone is coming.

    It is the exact same thing to me.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    Enough hairsplitting. Show us the predictions that have been successfully made by climatologists. I haven't seen any yet. Have you? At least forward time travel is established physics, since they actually performed various physical experiments over the years. Climatologists, on the other hand, seem to prefer computer models, but computer models are a fiction--a science fiction. As I said before, science fiction can be based on established science, but it is still fiction if the science is misapplied and if the results contradict what was expected.

    I just wanted to ask a question and possibly point out something.

    Now my terminology is terrible. Mostly due to poor scientists calling themselves scientists. I tend to think of most modern scientists as idiot Savant at best. Even though there are probably some out there that would laugh with me. Ha,ha.

    Are all climatologists for global warming?

    I know there are a quiet, very hardy, a very sturdy bunch of real weather experts that do see all this as weather cycles. But they are almost embarrassed to be seen with global warmers. I just did not want you to attack the good ones that do stand with us, if the good ones are called climatologists?

    I cannot believe I just had to write that. Ha-ha.

    The fellow who founded the weather channel is against the idea that global warming exists. He is firm on the fact that it is just sun spot cycles. Being misinterpreted as they have done before.

    The same thing happened with the atom. We had the atom. Unlimited potential. Any man was unstoppable with such power. You might be wondering what happened? Nuts, happened. They started creating the most fantastic lies about atoms. Science fiction writers would be in awe of their creativity or stupidity.

    To me this is exactly what is happening with global warming. They are looking at the reality and jumping to conclusions, wrong conclusions. Then when they are pressed to a wall, they use the very reasons we gave them to combat them. Against us in the opposite direction.

    If you look at the history of the atom and subatomic particles. You will see the same cycles occur. They go from all electrons, to all photons. And back and forth. We are in an all photon cycle now. The electron is almost an imaginary particle.

    This is what happened to good Universal Scientists in America. Poor scientists claimed to be Universal Scientists. And the average fellow started to call all Universal Scientists nuts. From the average mans point of view, rightly so. But the out numbered Universal Scientists could not combat the power of the government, that was supporting poor science.


    What I am saying is that most Americans never got to meet see or know a real Universal Scientist. They only got to see the puppet scientists claiming to be Universal Scientists. I am just wondering if the same thing is happening with weather experts?



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    Enough hairsplitting. Show us the predictions that have been successfully made by climatologists. I haven't seen any yet. Have you? At least forward time travel is established physics, since they actually performed various physical experiments over the years. Climatologists, on the other hand, seem to prefer computer models, but computer models are a fiction--a science fiction. As I said before, science fiction can be based on established science, but it is still fiction if the science is misapplied and if the results contradict what was expected.

    I just wanted to ask a question and possibly point out something.

    Now my terminology is terrible. Mostly due to poor scientists calling themselves scientists. I tend to think of most modern scientists as idiot Savant at best. Even though there are probably some out there that would laugh with me. Ha,ha.

    Are all climatologists for global warming?

    I know there are a quiet, very hardy, a very sturdy bunch of real weather experts that do see all this as weather cycles. But they are almost embarrassed to be seen with global warmers. I just did not want you to attack the good ones that do stand with us, if the good ones are called climatologists?

    I cannot believe I just had to write that. Ha-ha.

    The fellow who founded the weather channel is against the idea that global warming exists. He is firm on the fact that it is just sun spot cycles. Being misinterpreted as they have done before.

    The same thing happened with the atom. We had the atom. Unlimited potential. Any man was unstoppable with such power. You might be wondering what happened? Nuts, happened. They started creating the most fantastic lies about atoms. Science fiction writers would be in awe of their creativity or stupidity.

    To me this is exactly what is happening with global warming. They are looking at the reality and jumping to conclusions, wrong conclusions. Then when they are pressed to a wall, they use the very reasons we gave them to combat them. Against us in the opposite direction.

    If you look at the history of the atom and subatomic particles. You will see the same cycles occur. They go from all electrons, to all photons. And back and forth. We are in an all photon cycle now. The electron is almost an imaginary particle.

    This is what happened to good Universal Scientists in America. Poor scientists claimed to be Universal Scientists. And the average fellow started to call all Universal Scientists nuts. From the average mans point of view, rightly so. But the out numbered Universal Scientists could not combat the power of the government, that was supporting poor science.


    What I am saying is that most Americans never got to meet see or know a real Universal Scientist. They only got to see the puppet scientists claiming to be Universal Scientists. I am just wondering if the same thing is happening with weather experts?



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    One of my favorite experts on climate, S. Fred Singer, refers to himself as an atmospheric physicist. Apparently he does not want to be lumped in with a science that has made a bad name for itself. Meteorologists also make a point of distinguishing themselves. However, there is a new climate model that predicts global cooling over the next decade. (See link above and we shall see if this model can get it right for a change. LOL!)

    I don't know for certain if the scientists who developed this new model call themselves climatologists. The IPCC has toned down and scaled back their projections over the years, so these other climate scientists (the ones who like real experiments and evidence) have had an impact--but old ideas die hard as you have astutely pointed out with examples of past junk scientists coming to terms with other phenonmena.

    The main flaw I see with models is they extrapolate into the future whatever pattern or trend the model indicates (whether real or imaginary). Short-term predictions are difficult, and the butterfly effect makes long-term predictions a joke! It is analogous to standing close to a target. Your chances of hitting the bullseye (making a valid prediction) are much higher than if you stand further away (make a prediction for the distant future). The more time that is allowed, the greater the probability that unexpected variables will interfere with the predicition.

    Additionally, the more specific and useful the prediciton is, the less likely it will happen. It is analogous to making a sports bet: if you predict your team will score a touchdown during its next game, the probability is high that they will. If you predict they will win, the probability is less. If you predict they will win by a certain point spread, the probability is even less and so on.

    Therefore, the only way that climatologists can make a reasonably accurate prediction is to keep it short-term and general. "The climate will change" is the only prediction that they can be reasonably certain about. But that information is not very useful. To make matters worse, they then jump to the conclusion that any change must spell doom! So I can understand why serious scientists might want to distance themselves from this crowd of wackos!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    (posted in wrong thread)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...global-cooling

    From your posting this I can only assume you don't understand the context or simply chose to ignore this in the same article by the same scientist:
    None of the above.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    ""Such a cooling could temporarily offset the longer-term warming trend from increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere."
    Translation: The warming trend that was predicted ain't gonna happen for awhile, so we best do a spin and say that the cooling trend is only temporary.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    The purpose for his research was to explore the short term natural variability of the type we've been observing for the past 120 years. His research does not in any way refute the findings summarized in the IPCC report which spends an entire chapter about variability. The 0.3 increase is an average rise derived from a forecast of a longer period, specifically 3 C by the year 2100. It is not a forecast of the next ten years.
    The IPCC report makes no forecast shorter than, 20 years, and points out that this is shorter than the common climatologist convention of measuring over 30 year or longer periods. The models themselves include much of the variability, for example I'll show UK Hadley center's model below. Note while it also rises about 0.3C/ 10 years, there are many ten year periods from point to point where they are no increases at all--or course those periods end and the temperature peaks again enough to create a rising average. Below that I put up a figure from the last IPCC report that compares the groups of climate models outputs of the last century. Note the observed and individual models both show lots of short term variability within a long term average rise.
    A BIG SO WHAT? Again, anyone can chart the past. Hindsight is always 20/20. Look at McCormick's evidence (see his comments). It shows what predictions were made, by the authorities that existed in the past, in real time! The batting average of these predictions is ZERO! You would think by chance they would get at least one gloom-and-doom prediction right. LOL!
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    For the most part the all the radiation, thermodynamic, and fluid equations included in climate models have been known for at least a half century--(some like Navier–Stokes equations go back almost 200 years). The hard part is figuring out what terms to omit based on the scale, and which terms need to be parameterized because for lack of good observation, computer power limitations, or combinations of the both. The same can't be said for physics, which is still struggling to come up with a unified theory which leads to a serious scholarship and lots of make believe like time travel (going backwards) due to symmetry in some of the equations. But I could see how they might be equally unfathomable for those lacking a science background so they assume it's sci-fi from a position of ignorance.
    LOL! I can predict that if you take an airplane ride, your watch will tick slower. What can your climate models predict? Maybe the past, but not the future thus far. This assertion of mine has nothing to do with ignorance; it has to do with the total failure on your part of showing any evidence of any reasonably accurate predicitons made by climate models. I have read IPCC reports and their disclaimers and cautions with regard to climate models.

    I see you have come out to play again. Are you going to try to debunk the NGIPCC report or are you just going to make excuses once again?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Does the chart on the right include satellite data? If so, that type of measurement was not available early in the 20th century, so the chart may be comparing temperature- data apples to temperature-data oranges. The apparent increase in overall temperature could be attributed to the new precision at which measurements are taken. If satellite data could have been gathered over the last 100 years instead of the crude measurements that were taken prior to satellites, your chart would very likely look different.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •