Notices
Results 1 to 16 of 16
Like Tree5Likes
  • 2 Post By Strange
  • 2 Post By adelady
  • 1 Post By iceaura

Thread: Global Bias in Global Warming Science?

  1. #1 Global Bias in Global Warming Science? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    7
    Various scientists have been challenging the theory of "global warming" / "climate change" with different views.

    Here are some examples.

    U.S.: Richard Lindzen, Atmospheric Scientist, MIT

    U.K.: Freeman Dyson, Fellow of the Royal Society

    Greece: Demetris Koutsoyiannis, National Technical University of Athens

    Canada: Steve McIntyre, Geologist, founder of Climate Audit

    Australia: Ian Plimer, Geologist

    Ethiopia: Messele Zewdie Ejeta, Civil Engineer working in the U.S., uncovered associations between Saros cycles and hydrological conditions on earth while trying to address uncertainties in Global Circulation Model outputs.

    Please add those scientists that you know of challenging the theory of climate change or trying to address its uncertainty. It may help to infer if a global bias exists in this pool of scientists?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,585
    Quote Originally Posted by GGII View Post
    Please add those scientists that you know of challenging the theory of climate change
    I am guessing that that list will include no climate scientists (not even Lindzen).

    or trying to address its uncertainty
    And that list will include all climate scientists.

    I'm not sure what the point is.


    adelady and MrMojo1 like this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    22
    Climate change is a complex beast. There are so many factors that play in, and some of which, contribute greatly. It's no surprise that specialist, such as a geologist or a person who studys the atmosphere, would seem skeptical or even deny it. However, if you look at all the factors, it doesn't add up by natural causes alone, and it's most definitely a verified issue.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GGII View Post
    or trying to address its uncertainty
    And that list will include all climate scientists.
    But if a "climate scientist" not only attempts to hinder the effort to address this uncertainty but goes to the extent of retaliating against the effort, it ceases to be science, at least in view of the acts of the particular "climate scientist." Doesn't it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by EddyBearr View Post
    Climate change is a complex beast.
    May be not any more.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    The Enchanter westwind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,079
    For GG11. Ozone has been having an effect on our atmosphere through various zones. However the big picture would suggest that climate disturbances are a likely consequence of more severe weather patterns that are being experienced right here and now. Weather changes have been noticable over the last 100 years. They are getting more severe. We should be aware of this, and we are not doing enough or investing enough money concurrently to predict the likely consequences of inaction. I have no doubt that weather events will occur more often worldwide in the coming years. Yes, we can plan better. We have to plan better. This problem is not going to go away. You might poste that Conferences and Debates and collection of scientific information is going on all the time. In all Nations with an interest in Financial Investment in Futures etc. This has to continue and National Politics need to be more proactive and aware of what the mainstream scientific community have to tell them. Failure to do this and Global Distribution of Food Resources will be disrupted, not in the long term, in the short term. Twenty Years is my estimate based on the situation throughout the Planet at this time. Then the belt tightening and concern by the masses will escalate. Sorry about this, I do not want to be alarmist, but I,ve had a long time to make my own observations and, unless there is a turnaround of present trends, it's going to get worse quickly. I'll have another Thread on this Topic when I've had a think about what can be done to cope with this now coming condition. Accelerated Disasters. westwind.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Quote Originally Posted by GGII View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GGII View Post
    or trying to address its uncertainty
    And that list will include all climate scientists.
    But if a "climate scientist" not only attempts to hinder the effort to address this uncertainty but goes to the extent of retaliating against the effort, it ceases to be science, at least in view of the acts of the particular "climate scientist." Doesn't it?
    Most climate scientists I know of are very clear about the uncertainty; they are scientists. after all. It is those with an anti-science agenda that seize on the uncertainty (without understanding it) to push a political agenda. At least, that's been my experience.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,585
    Quote Originally Posted by GGII View Post
    But if a "climate scientist" not only attempts to hinder the effort to address this uncertainty but goes to the extent of retaliating against the effort, it ceases to be science, at least in view of the acts of the particular "climate scientist." Doesn't it?
    Hard to know what you are talking about with such a generic statement. I'm not aware of any examples of scientists (of any sort) trying to stop work to reduce uncertainty. That is a large part of what science is about: understanding that there are uncertainties and doing as a much as possible, through experimentation and improved theory, to reduce them.

    Do you have a specific example to make it clear what you are talking about?
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,585
    Quote Originally Posted by GGII View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by EddyBearr View Post
    Climate change is a complex beast.
    May be not any more.
    No, it is. Really.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    But if a "climate scientist" not only attempts to hinder the effort to address this uncertainty but goes to the extent of retaliating against the effort, it ceases to be science, at least in view of the acts of the particular "climate scientist."
    Physics doesn't fall apart if a physicist mucks something up.

    When you talk about "a climate scientist" are you talking about .....
    ..... a climatologist, an oceanographer, a radiative physicist, a glaciologist, a meteorologist, a paleoclimatologist, a cryologist, a statistician, a fluid mechanics physicist? Someone who specialises in ice cores or clouds or forestry or hurricanes or deserts or corals or tropical soils?

    What effect would any possible reprehensible action on the part of one, or even more than one, scientist among the tens of thousands involved in all the relevant fields have on the accumulated body of work of all the rest of them?

    Climate science is not a delicate crystal vase that can be shattered by a single person or action.
    John Galt and Ken Fabos like this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GGII View Post
    But if a "climate scientist" not only attempts to hinder the effort to address this uncertainty but goes to the extent of retaliating against the effort, it ceases to be science, at least in view of the acts of the particular "climate scientist." Doesn't it?
    Hard to know what you are talking about with such a generic statement. I'm not aware of any examples of scientists (of any sort) trying to stop work to reduce uncertainty. That is a large part of what science is about: understanding that there are uncertainties and doing as a much as possible, through experimentation and improved theory, to reduce them.

    Do you have a specific example to make it clear what you are talking about?
    I agree that science involves understanding uncertainties and reducing them as much as possible. Many of us in the scientific community may have taken that for granted. ... I am talking about a specific case, which is documented and may be taking its course.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    But if a "climate scientist" not only attempts to hinder the effort to address this uncertainty but goes to the extent of retaliating against the effort, it ceases to be science, at least in view of the acts of the particular "climate scientist."
    Physics doesn't fall apart if a physicist mucks something up.

    When you talk about "a climate scientist" are you talking about .....
    ..... a climatologist, an oceanographer, a radiative physicist, a glaciologist, a meteorologist, a paleoclimatologist, a cryologist, a statistician, a fluid mechanics physicist? Someone who specialises in ice cores or clouds or forestry or hurricanes or deserts or corals or tropical soils?

    What effect would any possible reprehensible action on the part of one, or even more than one, scientist among the tens of thousands involved in all the relevant fields have on the accumulated body of work of all the rest of them?

    Climate science is not a delicate crystal vase that can be shattered by a single person or action.
    Who is a climate scientist is a good question. In my earlier comment, I used quotation marks with the term climate scientist for the same reason. I get confused when I read phrases like "98% of climate scientists" and started asking who they are by training. I have yet to get a clear definition of the term somebody coined recently. It turns out that the science itself is an emerging area of specialty. For instance, the Climate Sciences Department at the University of California at Berkeley was formed in April 2007 as the newest department in the university's Earth Sciences Division.

    If we try to see climate science and climate change through different crystals, they fall into two categorically distinct but related vases. It is fair to say that a single finding, or looking at an existing science through a different lens, can and has shattered pseudoscience. Nature's law is very powerful.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GGII View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by EddyBearr View Post
    Climate change is a complex beast.
    May be not any more.
    No, it is. Really.
    Perhaps, the most important thing that has come out of the whole exercise is our enhanced capability to characterize it; finding simplicity out of complexity, in relative terms. I no longer think that it is what it used to be. May be we needed another Galileo Galilee to get here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,585
    Quote Originally Posted by GGII View Post
    I am talking about a specific case, which is documented and may be taking its course.
    And ... ?

    Or is it a secret? Or should we guess?
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Steve McIntrye is not a geologist - he's a mathematician with training and experience in economics, who made some embarrassing mistakes in an analysis of the "hockey stick" graph (probably because he was unfamiliar with the kind of data involved, although his political and economic connections do hint at other factors) : Stephen McIntyre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Richard Lindzen is a genuine scientist in a relevant field, and like all the others agrees that the anthropogenic CO2 boost has a large and inescapable warming effect on the planet - his arguments are against predictions of catastrophe, on the grounds that there are feedback effects that will counter the CO2 warming and limit the temperature rise. These feedback effects have not been demonstrated yet, at the level required (Lindzen's analysis of satellite data that bid to do that was shown to be in error, and no other demonstration has yet been published).

    Freeman Dyson is a genuine scientist in a mostly not relevant field, and he fully accepts the demonstrated anthropogenic CO2 boosting and the indicated heat-trapping consequences. His quarrel is not with global warming per se, but with what he feels is an unwarranted confidence in specific predictions and what he objects to as the overtly hostile and politically corrupted treatment of those few scientists who criticize the consensus (IPCC) findings.

    And so forth. The OP is garbage.
    John Galt likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by GGII View Post
    I agree that science involves understanding uncertainties and reducing them as much as possible. Many of us in the scientific community may have taken that for granted. ... I am talking about a specific case, which is documented and may be taking its course.
    Moderator Note: This is a science discussion forum. We don't use ESP here. Please state clearly what specific case you are talking about. If this case is sub judice then you should not have introduced the subject at this time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 99
    Last Post: April 3rd, 2012, 09:19 PM
  2. Global Warming: Science or Religion?
    By tkkenyon in forum Environmental Issues
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: September 2nd, 2009, 05:30 AM
  3. global warming, time travel and science fiction
    By William McCormick in forum Earth Sciences
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: April 7th, 2009, 03:23 PM
  4. science (global warming)
    By trigger in forum Earth Sciences
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: October 12th, 2008, 04:33 PM
  5. Global warming
    By anand_kapadia in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: March 11th, 2007, 08:01 AM
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
  •