1  2  Next

Comments 1 to 50 out of 52:

1. Stephan Lewandowsky at 21:37 PM on 15 May, 2011
   Seriously Cool. Good luck with Senator Fielding and co.
   0 0
2. Darcindora at 00:19 AM on 16 May, 2011
   well done, lets hope that it gets read, understood and acted on asap by those in power.
   0 0
3. Albatross at 02:08 AM on 16 May, 2011
   Superb idea John. Now we can only hope that most of them take the time to read it. Not sure how one determines that without being pushy. But I would be curious for starters which MPs acknowledges receipt of the book and if that note they state whether they or one of their staffers will read it. The next indicator would be if any of them contact you afterwards with some questions. Will be interesting to see how this plays out. Maybe even one of them will be waiving it around during a debate in the House (?) :)
   0 0
4. les at 03:04 AM on 16 May, 2011
   Well done. Take some courage from the the recent news of the UK ship of state starting to set a reasonable course.
   0 0
5. Patrick Kelly at 05:03 AM on 16 May, 2011

   ".. we commend this book to you so you can consider the problem of denial in society.

   You really must do better than this. The attempt to continually present the "science is settled" view is increasingly hollow. That approach will no longer cut it except in the increasingly irrelevant halls of the ABC and BBC. If there is a dire threat, which is by no means certain, the solutions proposed by the green commentariat are risible. Wind power will not suffice. Hydro and nuclear are condemned. This is a multi faceted discussion and I suspect that the CAGW brigade are the ones mostly with the heads below the sand level.
   0 0
   Response:

   [DB] Patrick, this has been brought up, discussed and refuted a thousand times before (PRATT).

   Those who have taken the time to study the primary literature and the fundamentals of the science of climate change agree:

   • That our world is warming is an established fact
   • That humans are very likely (>90%) responsible for most of the temperature rise post-1970 due to fossil-fuel GHG emissions (primarily CO₂).

   All that is left to decide is what to actually DO about it.  Bandying about ill-defined labels like CAGW contribute nothing positive to this discussion.

6. Paul D at 06:03 AM on 16 May, 2011
   Re: Les@5 Yes indeed, for the first time that I can remember the Treasury lost the argument. The time of the old school economists (left and right) seems to be ending. Common sense appears to be driving green policy through the sticks in the mud.
   0 0
7. actually thoughtful at 07:01 AM on 16 May, 2011
   Patrick Kelly, to the contrary - renewable solutions, even starved for funds and ridiculed by the right and policy makers, continue to improve, and are already available to solve this problem. If the science wasn't settled when Al Gore said it was in 2007, it IS settled now. All that is left is to iron out small (but important) details - how much, how bad and how soon. (and I note it turns out Al Gore was right - the science is settled, and we need to take immediate action. Some on the right try to attack Al Gore as if killing the messenger will change the physics. It won't.)
   0 0
8. Albatross at 07:17 AM on 16 May, 2011
   Patrick @5, The defeatests and obstructionists arrive on cue. Presumably to "balance" the fact that John Cook is being proactive and positive and actually trying to make a difference. The strawman raised here about the "science being settled". The term, "the science is settled", as has been explained many times-- whether or not it is true depends on which science one is referring to. Also, an analogy, the medical science concerning the links between tobacco and cancer is not settled on all fronts, but that has not prevented huge advances being made, action being taken with astoundingly positive results. The defeatests would, it seem, have us do nothing until we know exactly how tobacco causes each kind of cancer and that each treatment is demonstrated to be 100% effective. However, unlike the link between cancer and tobacco we actually know for a fact that increasing CO2 causes warming, and have known that for well over 100 years now. Patrick, it is not CAGW (catastrophic anthropogenic global warming)-- that emotive and alarmist term was fabricated by those in denial about AGW and by "skeptics". The reality is that it is you and your ilk who have their heads firmly entrenched in the sand, preventing you from seeing and hearing about the problems, not to mention potential solutions. Now kindly please step out of the way. Thanks.
   0 0
9. citizenschallenge at 07:22 AM on 16 May, 2011
   Congratulations and best of luck. I'm looking forward the arrival of my copy.
   0 0
10. kampmannpeine at 08:20 AM on 16 May, 2011
    also from my side: congratulation .. and best of luck. As I said yesterday: I got my copy already (here in Germany)
    0 0
11. nico at 10:36 AM on 16 May, 2011
    Congratulations. The book is as good as the website ... need I say more? But be sure to put the Parliamentary Edition into the hands of the Parliamentarian's staffers, who (in many cases) do the actual thinking on behalf of their masters. And be sure to put the book into the hands of the Parliamentary Library, a great and under-used facility with admirable science librarians.
    0 0
12. Marcus at 11:33 AM on 16 May, 2011
    Wow Patrick, how many denialist memes can you fit into a single post? As always you play up the "lack of certainty" straw-man, then tell us how rotten renewable energy is....well, Wind Power at any rate-as if that's the *only* renewable energy technology currently at our disposal. Then you refer to the CAGW "Brigade", as if there's a bunch of people out there who actually *want* the planet to warm. Might I suggest, Patrick, that this kind of ill-informed sewerage would find a better reception at WUWT.
    0 0
13. Riduna at 12:23 PM on 16 May, 2011
    Senator Christine Milne will definitely read this book from cover to cover before handing it to her staff. Let us hope it receives the same attention from Greg Hunt and, for that matter, Greg Combet. Let me guess the answers to the questions posed by actually thoughtful #7. Are they: a lot, very bad and before 2100 ?
    0 0
14. Chemware at 12:23 PM on 16 May, 2011
    Well done John ! The very best of luck at Parliament ! Patrick @5: This is a science blog. It is not the comments column of a trashy News paper. As such, you need to support your claims by reference to peer-reviewed literature. In contrast to your claims that "the science is not settled", there is ample evidence in the peer-reviewed literature - see Skeptic Argument #4: There is no consensus.
    0 0
15. Michaelf at 12:57 PM on 16 May, 2011
    Seriously brilliant. So worried that the debate was being hijacked by herald sun commentators and politicians more worried about getting into power than the planet itself. Great idea Thanks
    0 0
16. Marcus at 13:16 PM on 16 May, 2011
    Got to love Abbott's extreme oversimplification of the impacts of a Carbon Tax today. He was at a Leather-goods manufacturer saying "well their electricity bill is X now, so under a carbon tax it will be X+(X/10) dollars a year extra". Well *sure*-if said manufacturer continues to source *all* its energy from fossil fuels & *if* they don't implement any demand management strategies, then that is what will happen, but the Carbon Tax isn't simply going to happen in a vacuum. Of course the irony for me was this-what impact did the GST have on this leather-manufacturer's costs? Not just electricity, but *everything* they purchased became about 10% more expensive-& no way to avoid it either. It was also ironic given that it was manufacturers like these who got *stiffed* by the unilateral reduction of tariffs. Sorry, but Abbott is a complete *hypocrite*.
    0 0
17. Bern at 13:43 PM on 16 May, 2011
    Marcus: he's a politician, so, sadly, we pretty much *expect* him to be a hypocrit (although there are, fortunately, some politicians who aren't). Re the "CAGW" label - I've only seen that used by the Watt's Up With That brigade. Ironically, it is the intransigence by the deniers that will be responsible for the "Catastrophic" part of the term, if it comes to pass.
    0 0
18. John Brookes at 14:12 PM on 16 May, 2011
    Well done John! But I'm not sure the Nationals will appreciate a book - if you could somehow write it on stubby labels, you might get through to them....
    0 0
19. Glenn Tamblyn at 16:24 PM on 16 May, 2011
    John. High 5. If not already considered, how about a press release to the media, including some of the key political journo's to the effect that the polies now have a copy. Then a followup media release in a month or so for the journo's to find out if they have read it. May be an emailed request for feedback to each member of parliament with the responses released to the press as well. Patrick... "green commentariat!" Oh LOL man, can we have some more comedy please. Even J Edgar Hoover is probably chuckling in his grave.
    0 0
20. Bud at 01:10 AM on 17 May, 2011
    Amazing that you could find a group of people to produce such meaningless statistics. Consensus is not a scientific process. In using claimed authority, the argument is relying upon testimony, not facts. A testimony is not an argument and it is not a fact. 97% of practicing climate scientists is a meaningless, worthless statistic...whether or not it could be proved true. Most of these climate scientists are dependent on continuing money from governments for the pay checks to study global warming, so most of them are heavily biased to keep the gravy train rolling. However, there are many Auzzie scientists who dispute the fallacy of AGW. Here's just one recent example: “The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s. But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the governments, and their tame climate scientists, now outrageously maintain the fiction that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant.” David Evans consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part-time 2008 to 2010, modelling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. He is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees, including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering. The comments above were made to the Anti-Carbon-Tax Rally in Perth, Australia, on March 23. http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/04/07/climate-models-go-cold/
    0 0
    Response:

    [dana1981] David Evans is a computer programmer who doesn't understand even the most basic climate science

21. Bud at 01:20 AM on 17 May, 2011
    “How are important climatic systems (e.g. the role of clouds, water vapor, etc.) simulated in computer models that are used to predict climate change.” Answer. "Most models predict that water vapor and clouds will greatly amplify the warming due to CO2 alone. There is little observational support for these predictions. Furthermore, the models do not explain relative large climate changes in past when there was negligible combustion of fossil fuels." Statement of William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University Before the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming U.S. House of Representatives May 20, 2010
    0 0
    Response:

    [dana1981] Once again, Happer is not a climate scientist, and it shows, since his comments are entirely false.  Also, listing a handful of "skeptic scientists" does not disprove the consensus among 97% of climate scientists

22. CBDunkerson at 01:31 AM on 17 May, 2011
    Bud, the David Evans claim that CO2 driven warming was disproved in the 1990s is based on the supposed necessity of a tropospheric hot spot (which really isn't indicative of CO2 warming at all) and its absence in decades old weather balloon data (which have been proven to be inaccurate). See: There's no tropospheric hot spot Note also that he's a mathematician, not a climate scientist. As to Happer's claim that there is little support for positive feedback effects... pure fiction. The positive feedback from water vapor has been conclusively demonstrated for a long time now. See: Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
    0 0
23. Bud at 01:36 AM on 17 May, 2011
    The paleoclimate record of temperature and CO2 changes prior to human influence contradicts CO2 as a cause or forcing factor to significant temperature change. Plenty of examples in peer reviewed literature, here's one. "The phase relations (leads/lags) among atmospheric CO2 content, temperature and global ice volume are key to understanding the causes of glacial}interglacial (G}IG) climate transitions. Comparing the CO2 record with other proxy variables from the Vostok ice core and stacked marine oxygen isotope records, allows the phase relations among these variables, over the last four G}IG cycles, to be estimated. Lagged, generalized least-squares regression provides an e$cient and precise technique for this estimation. Bootstrap resampling allows account to be taken of measurement and timescale errors. Over the full 420 ka of the Vostok record, CO2 variations lag behind atmospheric temperature changes in the Southern Hemisphere by 1.3 +/-1.0 ka, and lead over global ice-volume variations by 2.7 +/- 1.3 ka." "The phase relations among atmospheric CO2 content, temperature and global ice volume over the past 420 ka." Manfred Mudelsee Institute of Meteorology, University of Leipzig, Stephanstr. 3, D-04103 Leipzig, Germany Quaternary Science Reviews 20 (2001) 583-589
    0 0
24. Philippe Chantreau at 01:45 AM on 17 May, 2011
    So Bud disputes the idea of a "testimony" by offering somebody's opinion. I'm sure it makes sense, in some obscure way. You have it wrong on consensus, Bud. The consensus does not precede the science, it follows from it. It is the result of all these scientists doing their work and reaching similar conclusions through different avenues. It is a consensus of research results, not of opinion. Although it is a grotesque and stupid accusation, although it is nothing else than appeal to conspiracy, I find it funny that you would argue that they need to keep the gravy train rolling. Let's be logical in the paranoid delirium here: If that was truly the case, then those evil scientists who are in it for the money would cultivate doubt, promote a lack of knowledge and argue that they don't really know the stuff they know, so as to continue studying it ad-infinitum. That's pretty much the opposite of what all the so-called skeptics say is the problem: claiming certainty where there supposedly isn't any. I don't know which skeptic to believe any more. I guess I'm just not going to believe any then.
    0 0
25. JMurphy at 01:47 AM on 17 May, 2011
    Bud, what makes you believe and trust those not involved in Climate Science, when getting your information about Climate Science ? Is it all to do with your belief in a conspiracy and "gravy-train" ? If so, what evidence do you have ? Also, you still haven't given your backing to the 100 scientists against Evolution. Why not ? Don't you agree with them that "Consensus is not a scientific process" ? Or would you prefer to avoid being questioned, and continue copying-and-pasting your tenuous appeals to authority ?
    0 0
26. Bob Lacatena at 01:52 AM on 17 May, 2011
    23, Bud,

    The paleoclimate record of temperature and CO2 changes prior to human influence contradicts CO2 as a cause or forcing factor to significant temperature change.

    This is like saying that studies of patients with advanced colon cancer prove that old age is not a factor in death. Of course, you could actually intelligently look at and understand the distinctions. That would lead to a different conclusion. Suggestion: Go do some studying first, and then reach conclusions after you have acquired and understand all of the information.
    0 0
27. JMurphy at 01:56 AM on 17 May, 2011
    Bud wrote : "The paleoclimate record of temperature and CO2 changes prior to human influence contradicts CO2 as a cause or forcing factor to significant temperature change." Oh, is that the same as this : The evidence of forest fires prior to human influence contradicts humans as a cause of forest fires.
    0 0
28. Stephen Baines at 01:57 AM on 17 May, 2011
    "Consensus is not a scientific process." No, it is the result of the scientific process. The fact that consensus has arisen from a notable lack of consensus in the not so distant past is a remarkable testament to the robustness of the evidence for the position that climate is changing and that humans are responsible. "But the gravy train was too big" It never ceases to amaze me that this argument gets any traction. Individual scientists could easily make quite a bit more money as hired guns, consultants for private interests or through grants from corporations than they do working for universities and competing for grant money. Plus, you wouldn't have to deal with those pesky reviewers. If greed were truly the motivating force here, how would such a consensus have been reached? In any case, you don't get grant money from anyone by claiming that a problem is basically settled and that you want to study it some more. Try running a business as a mechanic by fixing a car and then asking for more money to fix it again. In the end, it is the anti-AGW crowd that are keeping climate scientists working on this problem at all -for the most part they have moved on to more interesting and useful things.
    0 0
29. KR at 02:00 AM on 17 May, 2011
    Bud - "The paleoclimate record of temperature and CO2 changes prior to human influence contradicts CO2 as a cause or forcing factor to significant temperature change." You should look at (i.e., please read) the CO2 lags temperature thread, where this is debunked. In the past, CO2 acted as a feedback, amplifying other changes such as Milankovitch cycles. We've artificially raised CO2, so now it's acting as a forcing. Natural fires in the past don't rule out arson in the present.
    0 0
30. Philippe Chantreau at 02:01 AM on 17 May, 2011
    Bud, does it say in the Mudelsee paper that, because CO2 acted as feedback in the past, it can't act as a forcing ever? Following links on the page where your reference took me, I found this Feedback between deglaciation, volcanism, and atmospheric CO2 Peter Huybers and Charles Langmuir. Earth and Planetary Science Letters Volume 286, Issues 3-4, 15 September 2009, Pages 479-491 Abstract: "An evaluation of the historical record of volcanic eruptions shows that subaerial volcanism increases globally by two to six times above background levels between 12 ka and 7 ka, during the last deglaciation. Increased volcanism occurs in deglaciating regions. Causal mechanisms could include an increase in magma production owing to the mantle decompression caused by ablation of glaciers and ice caps or a more general pacing of when eruptions occur by the glacial variability. A corollary is that ocean ridge volcanic production should decrease with the rising sea level during deglaciation, with the greatest effect at slow spreading ridges. CO2 output from the increased subaerial volcanism appears large enough to influence glacial/interglacial CO2 variations. We estimate subaerial emissions during deglaciation to be between 1000 and 5000 Gt of CO2 above the long term average background flux, assuming that emissions are proportional to the frequency of eruptions. After accounting for equilibration with the ocean, this additional CO2 flux is consistent in timing and magnitude with ice core observations of a 40 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration during the second half of the last deglaciation. Estimated decreases in CO2 output from ocean ridge volcanoes compensate for only 20% of the increased subaerial flux. If such a large volcanic output of CO2 occurs, then volcanism forges a positive feedback between glacial variability and atmospheric CO2 concentrations: deglaciation increases volcanic eruptions, raises atmospheric CO2, and causes more deglaciation. Such a positive feedback may contribute to the rapid passage from glacial to interglacial periods. Conversely, waning volcanic activity during an interglacial could lead to a reduction in CO2 and the onset of an ice age. Whereas glacial/interglacial variations in CO2 are generally attributed to oceanic mechanisms, it is suggested that the vast carbon reservoirs associated with the solid Earth may also play an important role."
    0 0
31. Albatross at 02:06 AM on 17 May, 2011
    The misguided and oft refuted statement being made by Bud @23 are passé. Really, the "skeptics" and deniers of AGW (like Bud) just keep recycling the same old trash. Not sure what the quoted text @23 even has to do with this thread. Anyways, this myth has been dealt with here and here, and here. Now a true skeptic would seek out the information in the links above, instead of finding something that supports their preconceived and uninformed ideas. Please take further discussion of this point to one of the above linked threads.
    0 0
32. Stephen Baines at 02:23 AM on 17 May, 2011
    Albatross is right. There are other threads and posts just a click away that deal directly with Bud's comments. He probably knows that and is only trying to distract from the topic at hand. John...spectacular work! At least member of Parlaiment can't say in honesty they weren't properly informed about the science, and the dis-science. The burden lies on them now to act according to their conscience and wisdom...
    0 0
33. Bud at 02:34 AM on 17 May, 2011
    In science, a consensus or testimony by one of more authorities does not validate an hypothesis. However, experiments, data or analysis of data by another person, scientist or not, climate scientist or not, can be sufficient to falsify an hypothesis. For example: Mann et al., misused certain statistical methods (i.e. a misuse in principal component analysis) in their studies, which inappropriately produce hockey stick shapes in the temperature history. Wegman’s analysis concludes that Mann’s work cannot support claim that the 1990s were the warmest decade of the millennium. The Wegman Report to Chairman of the U.S. Congress Committee on Energy and Commerce as well as the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations: “Our committee believes that the assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade in a millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year in a millennium cannot be supported by the [Mann et al.98/99] analysis. As mentioned earlier in our background section, tree ring proxies are typically calibrated to remove low frequency variations. The cycle of Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age that was widely recognized in 1990 has disappeared from the [Mann et al 98/99] analyses, thus making possible the hottest decade/hottest year claim. However, the methodology of [Mann et al 98/99] suppresses this low frequency information. The paucity of data in the more remote past makes the hottest-in-a-millennium claims essentially unverifiable.” Statisticians Edward J. Wegman, George Mason University, David W. Scott, Rice University, and Yasmin H. Said, The Johns Hopkins University invalidated the claims of so-called "climate scientists" Mann et al by using the tools of their science. As this audience is probably aware, the climate studies in question, by Dr. Michael Mann, et al, formed the basis for the IPCC conclusions (1) that the increase in 20th century Northern Hemisphere temperatures is “likely to have been the largest of any century during the past 1,000 years” and that the “1990s was the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year” of the millennium. I am not trying to rehash the Mann arguments here. My point is that it is incorrect to say or assume that a non-climate scientist cannot falsify he claims of a climate scientist. (1) The IPCC report Climate Change 2001: Third Assessment Report consists of four sub-reports: 1) Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, 2) Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerabilities, 3) Climate Change 2001: Mitigation, and 4) Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report.
    0 0
    Response:

    [DB] You have been pointed to various threads here that are more appropriate threads to discuss the topics you bring up.  Please do so.

    As others will no doubt be happy to point out, Wegman's report has been thoroughly discredited.

    Future off-topic comments on this thread will be subject to deletion.

34. DSL at 02:40 AM on 17 May, 2011
    Holy take-it-to-the-appropriate-thread, Budman!
    0 0
35. Stephen Baines at 02:48 AM on 17 May, 2011
    It's ironic that Bud brings up Wegman at the very moment when his social network paper on climate scientists is getting retracted. No exactly falsification, but not exactly a vote of confidence either.
    0 0
36. CBDunkerson at 02:52 AM on 17 May, 2011
    Bud writes: "What I am doing is discrediting your ceaseless and invalid statements about consensus and your repeated statements concluding, more or less, that the work or opinion of a non-climate scientist is irrelevant." And you are doing that by not responding to any of the counter-arguments presented to you or reviewing any of the data and explanations about actual climate science? I think you'll find this strategy less than effective. BTW, the journal which published the Wegman Report recently withdrew it after discovering that it's authors committed academic fraud.
    0 0
37. Stephen Baines at 02:52 AM on 17 May, 2011
    The correct link. Feel free to delete if considered OT.
    0 0
    Response:

    [DB] From George Mason University:

    University spokesman Dan Walsch says the study retraction was a "personnel matter" and declined to comment.

    Note the use of "personnel" instead of "personal".

38. JMurphy at 03:10 AM on 17 May, 2011
    Yes, very ironic about Bud's use of Wegman, but what is even more ironic is that so-called skeptics rely so much on 'criticisms' of Climate science which are themselves (authors and papers) perfect examples of those supposed criticisms. And yet, for some strange reason, the so-called skeptics can't see the irony ! Won't be long before we hear the wailing of "Conspiracy !", "They're all biased against our 'experts' !" and "The truth is being suppressed !!".
    0 0
    Response:

    [DB] You mean like this?

39. DSL at 03:16 AM on 17 May, 2011
    Bud @34: no, really, it doesn't. These claims about money are uncritical. Describe, if you would, this "gravy train" and how it differs from the "gravy train" of privately-funded science. In whose interests is publicly-funded science done, and how is integrity maintained? In whose interests is privately-funded science done, and how is integrity maintained? If you were a scientist and someone spent tens of millions of dollars just to try to corrupt the public understanding of your conclusions--just on rhetoric--you would also endlessly demonize that someone. But what I'm waiting for now, Bud, is your recognition that you might have made a few errors in your original postings (on CO2 as a forcing). If you were a true skeptic, you'd consider the evidence and either provide a counterargument or change your understanding of the situation (not here, of course: on the appropriate thread). Can we expect this from you, or will you go the way of so many others and refuse to admit new evidence into your understanding?
    0 0
40. Paul D at 04:06 AM on 17 May, 2011
    Bud: "In science, a consensus or testimony by one of more authorities does not validate an hypothesis." That isn't exactly true. Logically if those 'authorities' have gathered enough evidence, then it validates the hypothesis sufficiently as understood at the time. One can only act on what is known at the time, not on an alternative hypothesis that might be formulated in the future.
    0 0
41. Bud at 04:07 AM on 17 May, 2011
    DSL, I am a scientist-businessman, and people are spending billions of dollars trying to corrupt the public understanding of science - just on rhetoric and politics - but I don't demonize them. These people are doing great harm to science. I have following this subject since 1980 when many of these same people were alarmed about global cooling. I believe I am more ready to accept new evidence than you are. In any event, I have no ties to academic grants or oil or energy companies (except being a normal energy user). If I have any errors in my posting, then tell me. But posting elsewhere would be better. But keep in mind, unlike many responders here, I am staying on the the point of this thread, i.e. I was giving examples with regard to the ability of non-climate scientists to falsify a climate scientist's hypothesis. I am also discrediting the use of consensus, which is known in science and logic as a fallacious appeals to authority in the general form: Person (or people) P makes claim X. Therefore, X is true. As I said, I am not trying to re-argue the science published by others. If you deny that there have been more ad hominem attacks on AGW skeptics than on proponents, then you are not honest with yourself. Just look at the responses to me in this specific thread.
    0 0
    Moderator Response:

    [e]The comment on global cooling has already been addressed here.

    [Edit: I cited the wrong thread here. I intended to direct you to the ice age predicted in the 70s thread.]

    The examples you gave were not scientific evidence but opinion statements by persons without the relevant expertise necessary to lend weight to their opinion (discounting retracted research). They have no relevance to this thread.

    If you prefer to discuss the scientific evidence rather than general expert consensus, then you are in good company on this site. If you review this site's list of skeptic arguments you will find that this site is predominantly focused on discussing the scientific evidence. You are welcome to find the appropriate thread and take your scientific objections there.

42. Paul D at 04:12 AM on 17 May, 2011
    Bud said: "Most of these climate scientists are dependent on continuing money from governments for the pay checks to study global warming, so most of them are heavily biased to keep the gravy train rolling." But you are quoting from scientists that are also paid for by public money! You are a ( -snip- ) is stating that one set of publicly funded scientists should be ignored and others should be listened to. Effectively you are invalidating the idea that payment from taxes is an issue.
    0 0
    Response:

    [DB] Please attack the argument only.

43. Paul D at 04:16 AM on 17 May, 2011
    Bud: "I am also discrediting the use of consensus..." The consensus is based on a vast tranche of data and research. So in reality using the concept of consensus does make sense because it is a written shorthand for that research.
    0 0
44. Bud at 04:36 AM on 17 May, 2011
    The moderator's statements are wrong. If statisticians do not have the relevant expertise to weigh in on climate modelling, and obvious misuse of statistical techniques used by climate scientists, then climate science is not a science.
    0 0
    Moderator Response: [e]

    As has been discussed, the paper you cited has been retracted and no longer has bearing on this discussion. If you are concerned about the opinions of statisticians, note that the American Statistical Association endorses the IPCC's conclusions.

    In any case, the statistical viability of Mann's research is discussed elsewhere on this site. Please review the existing discussions and take your points to the appropriate thread. Future off-topic posts will be deleted.

45. Stephen Baines at 05:00 AM on 17 May, 2011
    "I have following this subject since 1980 when many of these same people were alarmed about global cooling." I remember 1980 Bud. Your timeline is wrong. I was only an undergraduate at the time, but the NAS Charney Report on global warming came out the year before in 1979. We discussed it in class. At that point there was already a consensus on the action of GHG on climate among climate modelers - and that consensus, based on the known physics at the time, suggested warming not cooling. As has been pointed out in the consensus thread, there were still a lot of scientists who remained unconvinced at that point and into the 90s. They have been gradually convinced over the ensuing three decades by the accumulating evidence until virtually all of them now agree. Those people have not arrived at their opinions by appealing to authority, but by evaluating evidence. Look...What if you took your car to 100 mechanics, and 97 of them said you needed to replace your radiator to prevent an engine failure while providing good reasons for their position. One disagreed without giving you a good reason, claiming simply that the others don't know what they are talking about and are not completely sure. Who would you listen to?
    0 0
    Moderator Response: [e] When responding to clearly off-topic comments, please place the comment in the appropriate thread then link to it here (or politely point the commenter to the appropriate thread). Thank you.
46. JMurphy at 05:07 AM on 17 May, 2011
    Bud, I seriously urge you to look up the word 'refute', because you have refuted nothing so far. If you DO intend to refute anything (in the real sense of the word), why not do so on the relevant threads. As well as the other suggestions that have been sent your way (and seemingly ignored) you could have a look at : Ice-age predicted in the 70s Not the 80s, as you have suggested, so perhaps you could provide more information about those 80s 'predictions' - on that thread.
    0 0
47. Stephen Baines at 05:22 AM on 17 May, 2011
    Moderator...didn't realize consensus was off topic here. My apologies. Bud...a vigorous discussion of consensus is here. I have reposted my question there. there.
    0 0
    Moderator Response: [e] The note was directed more towards the "ice age predicted in 70s" line of argument, though consensus in general has also been discussed at length in other threads.
48. pbjamm at 06:12 AM on 17 May, 2011
    Bud is repeating himself. This is the same discussion that took place on the Infographic thread. At least it was somewhat on topic there. John, congratulations on the book. Can you make a special US Congress Edition?
    0 0
49. KR at 06:19 AM on 17 May, 2011
    pbjamm - "John, congratulations on the book. Can you make a special US Congress Edition? " Agreed, John. And can you deliver it by (ahem) dropping each copy onto their heads from a great height?
    0 0
50. DSL at 06:33 AM on 17 May, 2011
    Wouldn't work, KR--there's that whole sand thing protecting the Congressional noggins.
    0 0

1  2  Next

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.