Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2386 2387 2388 2389 2390 2391 2392 2393 2394 2395 2396 2397 2398 2399 2400 2401 Next
Comments 119651 to 119700:
-
tobyjoyce at 23:25 PM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
@johnd #157, I take exception to this remark, which betrays a certain insecurity in your demeanour: "Unless of course you never get out away from the TV, then that would be understandable." Sarcasm may be ok in the right palce, but I think it is against the spirit of this blog, which is wonderfully moderated well by John. No one has directed similar remarks at you or scepticalstudent, so I hope you will refrain from any repetition -
tobyjoyce at 23:17 PM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
@johnd Explain yourself a bit better please. The person who "gives the weather report on the evening news" are usually not climate scientists. They are not the people we are discussing here. Are you saying the chorus "Cold winter, therefore global warming is not happening" was correct? If you are saying the mass of people confuse weather and climate, that is pretty much expected by everyone. But you seem to do so also. Please supply references to buttress the assertion: "...even pro AGW scientists concede that the question as to whether the climate sensitivity is low or high remains unresolved. " Name a few such scientists, for starters. Alos indicate "evidence that they prefer to support the theory of high sensitivity otherwise their whole AGW hypothesis crumbles". This are wild and sweeping statements, which I believe are without foundation. Since you made them, please support them with facts. I suggest you read the entry on this blog for a discussion and refutation of the denialist argument about sensitivity. Climate sensitivity is low -
JMurphy at 23:16 PM on 9 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
Poptech wrote : "I replied to Dr. Pielke's illogical statement about how his papers could be used." Is that a version of the Dunning-Kruger Effect ? Poptech claims to know more about Pielke's papers, and the rationale behind them, than Pielke himself ! Pielke is therefore 'illogical' because he doesn't see things the way Poptech does, especially about his own papers ! You couldn't make this sort of stuff up, normally, but it is par for the course for the so-called skeptics... -
Dikran Marsupial at 23:14 PM on 9 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
Poptech @ 215 "And no I do not except your excuses for the data not being publicly available. I understand you find lack of data availability and reproduction in science acceptable but I don't." It is not correct to say the data are unavailable and the work is not reproducible. The data are available, just not from CRU as they don't own it. There is nothing to stop you or anyone else from negotiating with the national met offices for access to the data in the same way that CRU did. Furthermore, only a small fraction of the data is unavailable, the vast majority is available from the GCHN, and if you rebuild the HADCrut datasets using only the publically available data (at the met office did) you get a result that is almost identical. "Whether you consider a paper's science "questionable" is irrelevant." It isn't me that considered that a paper's science is "questionable", it is an objective fact that the paper is "questionable" as it has been "questioned" in a peer reviewed comment. It is a shame that you are unable to concede that you are wrong as I did (or accept the concession with good grace). "And it is your opinion that certain papers could not get published in any climate journals." No, that is also a simple fact, if a paper contains a conclusion that is obviously false (such as that man is not responsible for the growth in atmospheric CO2 - that is one of the few bits of science that actually is settled), it may get past the reviewers of a non-climate journal, but it would be unlikely to be published in a climate journal. "The following papers support skepticism of "man-made" global warming or the environmental or economic effects of." So how is it then that is contains papers written by Charles Keeling, Stefan Rahmstof (RealClimate contributor) and Carl Wunsch (signatory of the NAS statement)? As I said, if you really think that the papers in your list all support "man-made" global warming or the environmental or economic effects of." then the Dunning-Kruger effect is evident. If you made an attempt to take some of the criticism on board, you might get a better list that gives better support to the skeptic position. I would be in favour of that as I am all for rational scientific debate (for which skeptics are needed), but I am not in favour of misinformation. -
Dikran Marsupial at 22:44 PM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
johnd@146 said "Albatross at 16:57 PM, Spencer has a paper about to be published, it is currently being printed, that analyses 9 years of satellite data and concludes that indeed the climate sensitivity is low. Should make interesting reading, it apparently did get a good going over by the peer review process in order to be accepted for publication." Much the same was said about Linzen and Choi, but it turned out to be a damp squib as the argument put forward had significant flaws (as exposed by Roy Spencer, for example). It is a mistake to think that just because something appears in a peer reviewed journal that it must be correct. That is not true, the value of a paper is demonstrated by the research community citing the paper and taking up the argument and methods it puts forward. That takes time. It will of course make interesting reading, as did Lindzen and Choi. -
Dikran Marsupial at 22:38 PM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
scepticalstudent @ 103 said "It's neither here nor there of course but after reading the papers of M&M from Canada I would not consider statisticians to be mere anything. There science is just as valid as climatologists. In fact statisticians should be better able than anyone else to tell if climatologists are staying true to the scientific method." You could have picked a better example (the M&M papers I have read have had significant statistical flaws), but the real point is that criticizing scientists according to their background is simply an ad-hominem and should be avoided. If someones paper is wrong is is wrong because of the content of the argument, not the source. -
kdkd at 22:34 PM on 9 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
Poptech #212Any silly "reproduction" with computer models proves nothing.
Can you please explain what you think computer models can be useful for, as well as the kinds of situations that you think they are not useful. -
kdkd at 22:32 PM on 9 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
Dikran #198 Not to mention those of us unfamilliar with the literature in the 700 papers cited are expected to read them all! This is obviously silly, and if a proper job was being done of showing problems with the scientific consensus, each of the references would have at the very least a simple annotation indicating why the compiler thought they were evidence against the scientific consensus. -
Dikran Marsupial at 22:31 PM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
JohnD@103 says: "despite your detailed analysis concluding "it is arguably the mainstream that is concentrating on the basics there" it seems that the mainstream have hitched their horse to the wagon that is based on a foundation of a high climate sensitivity." No, mainstream science hasn't "hitched any horses", it has formed an opinion based on an analysis of the available data. That is the way science works, when new data comes in that refutes current thought, the theories are revised accordingly. "Not only is this most important pivotal question unresolved, not that you would think so given the strength of the assertions all dependant on a high climate sensitivity scenario," No, go have a look at the IPCC report, you will find that the mainstream are quite happy to talk about the uncertainties in climate sensitivity. "but it is increasingly appearing to be wrong with gathering evidence that low climate sensitivity may instead be the case, some such evidence soon to be published." Such as? I would also point out that the mainstream view can hardly be criticized on the basis of a paper not yet published! There is other evidence that suggests climate sensitivity MAY be even higher than the mainstream view. You can't pick and choose which data to look at according to your prior view, you have to take each paper on its merit, and decide where the balance of evidence puts climate sensitivity. If climate sensitivity is low, then there will be questions raised about paleoclimate data that can no longer be understood, or an explanation needs to be given why climate sensitivity is higher now than it used to be. -
Dikran Marsupial at 22:21 PM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
johnd @ 100 "Plants and soil account for about 100Gt of carbon in and out each year" you need to be very careful making arguments that involve exchange fluxes. The rise in atmospheric CO2 depends on the difference between total emissions and total uptake, the volume of the exchange flux is essentially irrelevant. If you halved the terrestrial emissions, but also halved the uptake, it would have no effect on the atmospheric concentration. So reducing the amount of forests doesn't necessarily lead to an imbalance, especially as uptake in old-growth forest is balanced by emissions. "When land use changes are made, there may be a one off release of carbon, but over and above that a certain percentage of land will be permanently withdrawn from the carbon exchange cycle, so the one off loss continues to multiply forever." What is your evidence that this is not already accounted for in the land use emissions data? Scientists are not stupid, if their was an obvious substantial discrepancy in the carbon budget, it would be talked about quite openly (that is exactly how the fact that there was a "missing sink" was identified). "the 100Gt exchange in and out between the plants, soil and atmosphere continues to decline" Environmental uptake is increasing, not declining. To see that, plot the difference between annual anthropogenic emissions and annual atmospheric increase. That gives you the difference between environmental emissions and environmental uptake. It is negative and becoming more negative. The rate at which it is increasing is (possibly) in declining. I went to a talk last week that discussed the change in the airborne fraction, and the speaker (Prof. Corinne Le Quere) made it clear that the downward trend in the airborne fraction is not (yet) statistically significant. -
yocta at 22:06 PM on 9 May 2010Over 31,000 scientists signed the OISM Petition Project
RE: Poptech Whilst on the EOS site I think you also forgot to put the link for this paper. Doran and Zimmerman have written: Reply to Comments on “Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change”s This paper addresses both the ones you quote, and I think it is important for SkepticalScience readers to get the full picture since it was published the same day! -
Dikran Marsupial at 21:58 PM on 9 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
Poptech @ 198 "These sorts of comments never cease to amaze me. ..." I am happy to concede that there are 700+ papers in the list not including responses to comments etc. Perhaps I should have said that the list is padded out with papers that are responses to comments, submitted papers and papers that have been rejected. However the key issue is that your complaint over this minor issue completely fails to address the substantive point that very many of the papers in your list contain science that is at best questionable (as indicated by the correspondence), that it contains papers that are not in the least skeptical of anthropogenic climate change, papers that obviously incorrect and couldn't have been published in a climate journal (e.g. Essenhigh), papers that are correct, but not relevant. Padding out with many papers that document the results of essentially the same piece of basic research. If you think the majority of the papers on your list support skepticism of mainstream scientific opinion, then you ought to read the IPCC WG1 report and find out what the mainstream view actually is. BTW, can you acknowledge whether you are satisfied with my explanation of why not all of the CRU data is publically available? -
kdkd at 21:43 PM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
johnd: I saw some literature recently that puts the reasonable minimum climate sensitivity at around 1.8ºC. This doesn't mean that the climate sensitivity is 1.8ºC, just that it's highly unlikely to be lower than this. Confusing uncertainty with improbability is fairly common among so called sceptics of AGW. I think the "climate sensitivity is unknown" argument is a good example of this. -
Ned at 21:42 PM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
In this comment from the previous page, NewYorkJ points out that skepticstudent's claims about 2008 temperatures are wrong, and rightly says Persistent unsubstantiated claims don't add value to any thread. I agree, and this is getting a bit frustrating. skepticstudent first made the claim (2008 temperatures were the third coldest since 1775!) in another thread. I immediately replied, pointing out that actually 2008 was the 10th warmest year, not 3rd coldest year on record. In fact, every year since 2001 has been in the 10 warmest years in the record. There was no response in that thread, but skepticstudent repeated the claim in this thread, this time referring to the winter of 2008 ("2008 had the 3rd coldest winter since thermometers were created in 1775.") Well, that's wrong too, as I pointed out in this comment, which skepticstudent ignored (winter 2008 wasn't in the top ten, but it was much warmer than the average). Skepticstudent, I would strongly encourage you to spend more time reading this site, to cut down your volume of posting by about 50% at least, to check your facts before posting and and to include sources or links as much as possible. When someone just churns out huge numbers of comments that include no sources or citations and are riddled with factual inaccuracies, it seriously degrades the quality of the site for everyone. -
JMurphy at 21:28 PM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
johnd, if the forthcoming paper by Spencer turns out not to be the comforting answer you are looking for (i.e. he doesn't satisfactorily prove the case for low climate sensitivity), will you just hang on and wait for the next paper which might come along with the same argument ? Or the next ? -
JMurphy at 21:27 PM on 9 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
PopTech wrote : "I suspect Dr. Pielke Jr. received a hysterical email from an alarmist which clearly backfired. Regardless I clarified this in the comments of his blog post." Yes - clear as mud. Pielke said : Using your logic, you'll find that my papers are also skeptical of the tooth fairy and Santa Claus.;-) And when you then reckoned that, according to one of your own criteria, his papers supported Skepticism of '1."man-made" global warming', he replied : "I'd be interested in your definition of #1, which is neither a scientific term nor meaningful in any way." Your reply ? You gave none, and yet here you are again trying to defend the indefensible. Shameful and shameless. -
johnd at 21:04 PM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
tobyjoyce at 19:52 PM, even pro AGW scientists concede that the question as to whether the climate sensitivity is low or high remains unresolved. Obviously they prefer to support the theory of high sensitivity otherwise their whole AGW hypothesis crumbles. If you have evidence that validates their theory then you should reveal it to them as it is such evidence that they are lacking. With regards to observations and experience, it is not generally necessary to wait until the weather report on the evening news provides enough evidence to allow you to determine the credibility of the person who earlier in the day told you that he was experiencing a hotter or colder day than normal. Unless of course you never get out away from the TV, then that would be understandable. At some point in time, most people will find that the physical conditions they experience generally reflects the scientific understanding of such conditions, because in the final analysis, the scientific understanding can only be validated by what can be measured in the physical world, not the other way around as you seem to suggest. -
Dikran Marsupial at 20:56 PM on 9 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
Poptech@202 says "Rob, the scientists I listed do not endorse the NAS statement. They are all outspoken against the type of language used in that statement and the conclusions. The only people who would take the NAS statement seriously are those who do not understand the debate." As I pointed out yesterday, one of the papers on your list is written by a signatory of the NAS statement, so I think it fair to conclude that he endorses it and takes it seriously. Gulf Stream safe if wind blows and Earth turns (Nature, Volume 428, Number 6983, April 2004) - Carl Wunsch BTW poptech, can you acknowledge whether you accept my explanation of why not all of the CRU data are publically available or not? -
tobyjoyce at 19:52 PM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
@johnd #152 There has been efforts to show an inbuilt cyclical mechanism in the earth's climate, such as the abortive effort of McClean et al to show a connection with ENSO cycles. McClean, de Freita et al There are other, even less impressive efforts to show 60-year cycles. I think these can be dismissed, unless you have new data you want to discuss. Using my own (modest enough) statistical knowledge, I have examined these cyclical models and found them to be fatally flawed, as many others have. Why should we wait around to see if something pans out, something which the evidence does not support right now? From what I read, Dr. Roy Spencer is about to bring forward a paper to support low climate sensitivity. This seems to me to be the last effort by those sceptics who still retain some credibility to win back the scientific high ground. Again, it is not good science to base your beliefs on what you have "observed and experienced". I doubt if my or yours or anybody's personal experiences carry a tither of credibility here, unless backed by evidence. Science works by "inference to the best explanation". Global warming is still the best explanation for multiple phenomena, and not even Roy Spencer is offering an alternative. -
johnd at 19:41 PM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
Stephen Baines at 19:23 PM, I hope that what you were trying to say did not come out right, hence the double post, because your first post made it seem that an old boy's club is entirely possible, only avoided if the reviewer himself decides whether to participate or not. Hopefully not a case of the mike being left on? :-( -
johnd at 19:27 PM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
Riccardo at 18:23 PM, we will have to wait to read the final paper when published. The peer review process was apparently quite rigorous, the paper being rejected for publication initially. Either Spencer's persistence wore down the reviewers or he convinced them of the validity of his methods and conclusions. -
Stephen Baines at 19:26 PM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
@SS #137 Peer-review is not perfect -- it's capricious, cumbersome, and often painfully adversarial. But this view of it as an old boys club doesn't match my experience. I have rejected papers of acquaintances I know and like and accepted those of others I didn't particularly care for and I don't review papers I feel I have any sort of conflict about. I think the vast majority of scientists do the same. -
Stephen Baines at 19:23 PM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
@SS #137 Peer-review is not perfect -- it's capricious, cumbersome, and often painfully adversarial. But I don't know where this view of it as an old boys club comes from. One is not allowed to have people you have recently collaborated with in any way review your papers for any decent journal, and especially in venues like Science and Nature you tend to get tough reviewers. The competition among scientist is fierce due to self interest, as the letter we're discussing states, but you have to accept when its a good peice of science. I have rejected papers of acquaintances I know and like and accepted those of others I didn't particularly care for and I don't review papers I feel I have any sort of conflict about. I think the vast majority of scientists do the same. -
johnd at 19:17 PM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
tobyjoyce at 18:15 PM, it is all very well to have multiple lines of converging evidence, but the point they are converging on must surely be whether the climate has an inbuilt mechanism to self correct, that is, it inherently is of low sensitivity producing a nett negative feedback, or not. For me this has always been the crucial question that has until now not been resolved, and I find that whenever I bring the matter up, up most pro AGW believers try to avoid addressing it as there are only opinions, nothing conclusive, to support their own tightly held opinion. One of the reasons I accept the proposition that there is a nett negative feedback system is because it is compatible with what I have observed and experienced over many decades in both equatorial and temperate climates, occupied generally outdoors where an awareness of both short term and long term weather conditions was both relevant and necessary. There is no doubt in my mind that there are short and long term cycles in play that are measured in decades that occupy the greater part of centuries, and that an extended swing towards one set of conditions sets in place events that will cause an eventual correction or even over correction. Backing that up has been theories developed by suitably qualified scientists that seem to be based on sounder logic than the alternative, and importantly recognises that it is still an unresolved matter, rather than assuming one way or the other. I do not expect those whose world is mainly indoors with lives that are not weather dependent to share the same position, as how it reads in theory may be more important to them then how it relates to the physical world, especially in rural and remote locations far removed from many of the influences of crowded human civilisation. -
Mike_Allen at 18:26 PM on 9 May 2010University of Queensland talk wrap-up
Thanks for tha,t the presentation left me more than a tad concerned. What about a badge for websites concerned about climate change? Is anyone doing this. I don't like being called "warmist" or "CAGW", but I am concerned and would like to raise this as a concern but not like a pink ribbon sort of thing. Maybe a Facebook page would be good for concerned Aussie people. -
Riccardo at 18:23 PM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
johnd, offtopic here but let me throw my two cents on what Spencer wrote in his blog (we really need to read the paper though). Spencer still keeps using monthly variation. While this is not wrong in principle, it only accounts for the fast response part of the climate system. This will obviously underestimate the overall sensitivity. -
tobyjoyce at 18:15 PM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
@scepticalstudent #137 Well, if you have read all the papers and still think global warming "has been disproved 3 ways to Sunday", there is not much we can do for you here. Personally, I though the M&M paper had long since been debunked, but you are entitled to your opinion. I think you idea of what science is all about is not very realistic. Galileo is not a good example, because in his day what we now call "science" did not really exist. Scientific disputes are not for the faint-hearted, but are usually confined to journals and conferences. It is unusual for scientists to come under such media assault as has happened recently. Evolution and AIDS denialism are the only precedents. If I can point out (as John recently quoted Naomi Oreskes), there are "multiple lines of converging evidence supporing the scientific theory of AGW". While denialists have cherry-picked at issues within each line of eveidence (the hockey stick, Arctic ice etc.), there is no rival theory or body of scientists to explain the evidence for Global Warming simultaneously (temperature, ice, CO2 level, sea level, ozone hole, and others). If science is "inference to the best explanation", there is no other "better explanation" out there. -
Phila at 18:09 PM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
#137 skepticstudent "I don't care what anyone here thinks I believe...." Well, if that's your approach, and you intend to stick to it at all costs, regardless of any facts that are brought to your attention, then there's really not much more to say. To me, the statement "I don't care what anyone here thinks" is totally incompatible with humility and skepticism, and thus with science itself. -
tobyjoyce at 17:56 PM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
@skepticstudent at 17:16 PM on 9 May, 2010 The good Glenn said "There are not enough knives for "dishonoured" scientists to kill themselves". Rush Lumbaugh told Andrew Revkin (a NYT columnist and blogger) to "just go kill yourself". Given the obvious popularity of Beck and Lumbaugh, do you think this type of violent rhetoric creates the best atmosphere for a rational discussion? Perhaps you might enlighten us as to reason for this form of hate-speech directed at scientists, and whether you think it good for science in general? This is one of the reasons why 255 scientists felt obliged to write the letter under discussion. Glenn Beck Hatespeech -
Stephen Baines at 17:31 PM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
SS you said in #108 above. "Even if man is the predominate cause of CO2 trees are growing back in exponential numbers in the rain forests where man has farmed and over harvested for years. Because the trees were cut down and there was an abundance of co2 locally the tree growth is growing explosively" The idea being the increasing CO2 offsets negative effects of climate change. To which Marcus and Tom Dayton responded regarding effects of CO2 on plants, the latter pointing you to a very good set of posts on the subject with refs from the scientific. You then, in response to their comments, posted the links I looked at. I think I was being fair expecting a link between CO2 and plant growth in them. -
johnd at 17:20 PM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
Albatross at 16:57 PM, Spencer has a paper about to be published, it is currently being printed, that analyses 9 years of satellite data and concludes that indeed the climate sensitivity is low. Should make interesting reading, it apparently did get a good going over by the peer review process in order to be accepted for publication. -
skepticstudent at 17:16 PM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
I am at a total loss how anyone could even remotely construe anything Glenn Beck has ever said as "go out and beat up them there bad guy scientists!" I have watched Glenn Beck since before Obama's camp started a boycot parade against him. I have never seen him say go beat up a global warming scientist. Hmmm wouldn't that be construed as not only an ad hominem but a vile case of libel? -
NewYorkJ at 17:13 PM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
Persistent unsubstantiated claims don't add value to any thread. "2008 had the 3rd coldest winter since thermometers were created in 1775." Winter 2007-2008 (la Nina peak): 0.27 C above the 1951-1980 average Winter 2007-2008 Map: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2010&month_last=3&sat=4&sst=1&type=anoms&mean_gen=1203&year1=2008&year2=2008&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=1200&pol=reg Winter 2008-2009: 0.49 C above the 1951-1980 average Winter 2009-2010: 0.66 C above the 1951-1980 average and the 2nd warmest on record (behind 2006-2007 winter) http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt "Temperatures have been continuously declining since 1999." ??? http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1999 -
skepticstudent at 17:12 PM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
I would also humbly disagree that there is over 100 years of empirical acgw study. perhaps 30 at the most and I would stand on my soap box and say that most of that is not empirical. -
johnd at 17:09 PM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
skepticstudent at 16:25 PM, an examination of any coal seam will confirm the connection between CO2 and prolific tree growth. For trees made up of about 50% carbon to be transformed into coal, sufficient moisture must be available to create a wet environment where fallen trees are unable to decay due to low levels of oxygen. This lack of decay then also limits the amount of nutrients including carbon available for recycling by new growth unless they were leached from the submerged trees, which obviously the carbon was not. CO2, high levels of moisture and warmth would indeed seem to be the major drivers of tree growth. -
skepticstudent at 17:09 PM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
139 if you'll read post 137 you will see the reason for my comments in 136 and they were very well thought out, laid out and dispensed with. If one can't believe for a minute that one's side could possibly be wrong. Especially when 3/4 of the "peer reviewed" Emperical evidence has been reviewed by the chums of the author rather than pure peer review of un biased reviewers and editors (while that is getting harder and harder to do in the polarization of 2 sides on this subject) then I don't think one is truly thinking scientifically to the detriment of future science. If the academia laid down to the feelings of Einstein simply because he was a good scientist (of course at the time they thought him a basket case) then we would have never learned the thousands of things we have learned about space exploration or any number of things since then. Far too much of the "peer reviewed" work which is being lauded as empirical study far too many time falls short. If all the people on this post want to do is hear from each other and only from those that never question their points of view then how are they to be challenged and have the rough edges removed from their diamonds of science? -
skepticstudent at 16:59 PM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
re marcus 114 I think we should worry about new regulations coming from the codex alementarius which will require radiation of all foods and allows for numerous chemicals that have been shown harmful to man by farmers and ranchers than CO2 which has been at much higher levels in the past and the same plants that were around then are here now and they didn't mutate or become endangered. -
Albatross at 16:57 PM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
Phila @135, well stated! I think the following sentence may succinctly describe the problem at hand here (from #136): "so much of the ACGW warmist point of view is theoretical and hypothetical and has not been proven, it is merely a point of view." Nothing could be further form the truth as evidenced by the volumes of scientific literature on the underlying theory of AGW going back over 100 years, not to mention both surface-based and space based observations and other overwhelming empirical evidence all pointing to AGW. What is also telling is that one, of course, can not "prove" unequivocally that enhanced GHGs cause warming, anymore than one can prove unequivocally that smoking causes cancer. IMO, the author of #136 needs to seriously contemplate the implications of the quoted statement before harshly judging and cavalierly dismissing the science and empirical evidence in support for AGW. Even, Lindzen and Spencer agree that AGW is real. They believe that climate sensitivity is very low. They have, however, been unsuccessful in demonstrating that CS is as low as they believe. Lindzen has tried, but his work has not held up to close scrutiny/critique by his peers (e.g., Lindzen and Choi 2009). IMHO, the NAS statements stand. -
skepticstudent at 16:47 PM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
Philla, No offense but as I mentioned yesterday, I don't believe that the warmist side has satisfactorily debunked the skeptic side in all areas. Also as I said if a man comes up to me stark naked I'm not going to tell him, wonderful new suit joe, no I’m going to tell him he's bloody naked. I believe the points of the letter that started this thread have been disproved. Many of them three ways to Sunday. I have been called on the carpet for an Ad Hominem attack on the Mann paper. I don't care what anyone here thinks I believe that it was truly shot full of holes by the M&M paper and even some of the senior warmist scientists have made comments of a similar nature, yet it still continues to be a focal point of the IPCC. I have not only read the Mann paper, I have read the IPCC 1, 2, and 4th assessment as posted by the IPCC. I'm not just idly making comments without reading the enemies point of view (I use that term loosely not that I consider you bright minds as the enemy per se). Many of the comments in this blog bring up the same comments over and over, doesn't make them correct, just oft repeated. 23% of the world polled in the last 2 years still say they believe that the earth is flat. There have been people saying the earth is flat for a couple millennia, does that mean I close my eyes to their nonsense and let it slide? In Galileo’s day there were many older more experience scientists that thought Galileo was wrong, He was in the minority. Bernstein and Woodward were inexperienced journalists and they took on Watergate. Am I comparing myself to Galileo or Woodward and Bernstein? No. I have read numerous “peer reviewed” papers in journals. I have also stepped behind the scenes to see who the reviewers were in some instances. They were people that had either written previous papers with the author(s) or were in current process of writing a paper with an author(s). I believe there is something to be said for conflict of interest. In fact to prove myself right I read a paper by a renowned author and reviewer from Dartmouth who said that it should not be that that ever occurs. Now have all warmist papers been reviewed and approved by their fellow authors and friends? No but far too many of them have been. As to authors from the other side far too many of them have been denied journalistic publishing after publishing on numerous occasions. The only reason for denial was the editor said the reviewers didn’t believe it was to be published and never gave further evidence or opportunity to read what was wrong with their paper or make corrections, If you chose I can bring up evidence of at least one case of the latter. So am I going to believe everything I read blindly at face value simply because it was “peer” reviewed and published in Nature, Science, or New Scientist? No I have to confess I am not. Doesn’t mean I’m going to stop reading them however. If for no other reason I find a lot of what is published in Nature or Science to be fascinating. So don’t assume I haven’t read the “other” side. I firmly believe that one should not speak out for either side unless one has read extensively from both sides. The very reason I’ve seen Al Gore’s movie and read Mr. Hoggan’s book and numerous other articles from the side of the Warmists. -
Albatross at 16:28 PM on 9 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
Potech, I urge you to please continue this discussion about the petition over on the appropriate NAS thread. I have also responded to your claim that Oregon petition "has never been debunked", and added some more revelations to the petition's rather dubious origins, criteria used to garner signatures, lack of authentication, and criteria for what is considered a scientist. The list of concerns is long. IMHO, I believe that the host has been way, way too accommodating with the plethora of off topic comments on a thread which is about placing the current warming in context using a variety of independent temperature reconstructions. There is no denying the fact that all the reconstructions have one heck of a blade, and that the rate of warming of global temperatures in the last 150 years or so is exceptional in the last 1000-2000 years, perhaps longer (please correct me someone on the time line). Moreover, even after allowing for changes in solar output, aerosols etc., the observed warming of global air and ocean temperatures cannot be reproduced without invoking enhanced GHG levels. -
skepticstudent at 16:25 PM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
Stephen Baines the articles that I cited had not much to do with co2 in general but as more of a hint. I mean after all so much of science and so much of the ACGW warmist point of view is theoretical and hypothetical and has not been proven, it is merely a point of view. There are other cases and studies on the point but as I was attempting to point out, there was not much effort put into being able to go find 5 stories about a faster than normal or faster than expected regrowth of jungle forrestation in the South American Rain forrest region. What is the one key factor in tree growth, aside from water, aside from sun? I will leave it to the august body of scientist in this blog to come to their own conclusions. As has been stated and I would daresay not argued by AGW warmists is that trees absorb and hold co2 if they absorb and hold co2 it would go to reason that if there is a tremendous amount of co2 in south america because there hasn't been any trees soaking it up over the last 20 years or so, that if new tree growth is growing in large numbers that it would be to the CO2 principle of plant growth. You may have missed the intitial cause for my posting those links. It wasn't to prove anything about CO2 at all, other than the obvious that I didn't even need to mention that co2 makes trees grow... It was in response to Marcus asking me on 2 different occasions to give evidence of my statement that trees are growing back quicker than normal and in vast quantities. I would daresay that I proved my case quickly and efficiently by bringing up 5 evidenciary postings in less than 60 seconds. I don't really feel that it is fair to attack me from two fronts when I was merely answering to one question from one person, I never said that those links were anything to do with CO2, merely that Marcus asked me for proof of major growback in the rainforrests of South America.Once again I would say this post is quite the undelicate ad hominem attack. For a place that doesn't like Ad hominem attacks there sure are quite a few of them being thrown my way over the last couple of days, um no actually since yesterday when I posted the first 6 posts in this thread. -
Phila at 16:21 PM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
#131 skepticstudent, "I appreciate your sentiments. However if you took the time to get to know me you would realize that I am the humblest of people." If that's the case, then I suggest you help us get to know your humble side. You could start by wondering, in all honesty, how likely it is that your arguments have not already been considered, with great care, by people who study this subject for a living. In addition to the normal peer review process, which is very rigorous, AGW has been subjected for decades to a huge amount of skeptical inquiry from people in a wide variety of fields, because of its political and economic implications. You may be the smartest person who has ever posted here, but even so, the chance that you're going to come up with a serious critique of the theory that hasn't already been counted, weighed, and found wanting by a significant number of scientists is vanishingly small. Your chance of making a really strong argument will improve if you take the time to learn the basics, and to understand not just the skeptics' arguments, but also the experts' rebuttals of the skeptics' arguments. A truly humble person should be able to understand that this is necessary not just to avoid making elementary mistakes, but also to avoid casting frivolous aspersions on the competence and honesty of scientists you've never met. I could consider myself the humblest person on the face of the earth, but if I suggested to a biologist that evolution never happened, despite having no serious expertise in the field, she would think that I was being very arrogant indeed. And rightly so. -
Albatross at 16:12 PM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
Poptech (from other thread), "The [Oregon]petition has never been debunked, ever." Not true, and you know it. Many legitimate and very serious concerns have been raised regarding the petition, you choose it seems to ignore them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05 http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2004/05/oregonpetition.php Also, a recent survey has found that over 97% of scientists who are actively involved in research climate research agree that AGW is a real and legitimate concern. http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01 (see January 19) You also fail to recognize that all signatories of petitions are not, or should not be weighted equally. One Manabe or Santer or Hansen, for example, carry a heck of a lot more weight than someone with a BSc in say computing science when it comes to actually understanding the scope and depth of science involved in climate science, or the potential impacts on the biosphere. At the end of the day though, the radiative forcing of GHGs and climate sensitivity to doubling of CO2 (not to mention increasing other, more powerful, GHGs) do not care about petitions. You can, of course, continue to seek out those opinions and data which fit your belief system on this, but that does not change the integrated scientific understanding amassed in the last century, nor does it change the reality that the planet is accumulating energy because of a radiative imbalance caused by increasing GHGs. And that the effects of that energy imbalance (warming of atmosphere and oceans, Arctic ice loss, loss of ice from glaciers and ice sheets, longer growing seasons etc. etc.) are now clearly becoming apparent for all to see, if they wish to see. The concerns and statements made in the NAS open letter are accurate and supported by the observations and legitimate/credible science. What is also incredibly important about the letter is that they are calling those who choose to make cowardly attacks on science and scientists, and who are inciting people to take violent action against scientists (e.g., words of Beck, Limbaugh and Morano), to stop doing so. Many lay people have no idea how bad the situation is right now, so I for one, am glad that they have highlighted that very unfortunate fact. -
Stephen Baines at 16:09 PM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
SS @ 125. I followed those links - at least the 4 I could. There is nothing about CO2 effects on plant growth. Two stories actually reference another where two scientists are talking about how fast regrowth of tropical forests occurs secondary succession. So those three are really the same story. The other actually references a blog report on a discussion of the potential for sections of the Amazon to flip into a savanna state with further drying. That hardly helps your case, and it makes me grumpy. Look...the CO2 fertilization effect is well known among plant physiologists. It's incorporated in global C cycle models. But it long term effects on plants and the communities they belong to are complex and depend heavily on other limiting factors. It won't help species that are limited due to temperature requirements to mountain tops or the poleward limits of continents as climate warms. It won't offset the effects of severe dought stress or fire. You should really talk about this in the appropriate threads, and bring real references with you. -
johnd at 15:53 PM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
Marcus at 13:56 PM, whilst your post remains on this thread I need to respond here also. I think you may be confusing the effects of years of global warming on farmers with the effects of regular but cyclic droughts. Although the droughts of the 1800's are not documented as well as those since the advent of TV, critical study will show the 1800's to be particularly drought prone, eased somewhat in the first half of the 1900's and followed in the next half century by perhaps the most favourable farming conditions ever since the arrival of the first fleet, with the mid 1970's being considered the wettest period ever since that arrival. In terms of fires, the worst ever in Victoria since settlement began, in terms of area burnt, occurred in 1851. It is well documented but often overlooked as are most that also occurred before the advent of TV in Australia. -
skepticstudent at 15:51 PM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
excuse me in regards to... 111.Mal Adapted at 13:06 PM on 9 May, 2010 I appreciate your sentiments. However if you took the time to get to know me you would realize that I am the humblest of people. I have overgrown some very major learning obstacles to arrive at a fairly high IQ. I am not trying to come off as an expert, merely someone who wants to get to the heart of the matter. Read my comments earlier as to why I feel so strongly about this. -
skepticstudent at 15:46 PM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
93.Dikran Marsupial at 04:35 AM on 9 May, 2010 It's neither here nor there of course but after reading the papers of M&M from Canada I would not consider statisticians to be mere anything. There science is just as valid as climatologists. In fact statisticians should be better able than anyone else to tell if climatologists are staying true to the scientific method. And whilst we're laying fingers at one level of science over another, let's remember that Mann for instance is neither a climatolologist, meterologist, or paleo-ecologist. Yet his paper even still today gets high acclaim despite the wide ranging criticism it has received. -
skepticstudent at 15:41 PM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
re 84. 84.e at 02:57 AM on 9 May, 2010 I never said I was an expert. I don't know half of what you peple in here know. I have bowed to the wisdom of the people in here on numerous occasions. However in my line of work, I have had to work hard to devolop what you could call a BS sensor (Bad Science) I see things that I don't necessarily agree with on the sides of the warmists. I don't necessarily believe they have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, which I believe they should do if I'm going to be taxed back to stonehenge by cap and trade. Many make the assumption based on my name that I am a young cub who hasn't learned much of anything in life. In reality I'm 50 years old. I just happen to be going to college currently. My education and science in general mean a lot to me. I have enjoyed studying science for many years. I believe that in some instances not all, that some are using science and education to further their political and monetary agendas. ( It could be said of scientists on both sides I'm sure, and if I find any I will speak out against them most harshly I assure you) One thing that really annoys me is when their science can't be debunked many on the side of warmists continuously bring up that some scientists have taken money from exxon and thusly should be disbarred from future discussion in the ACGW arena. Dare we ask how much money the major players on the side of ACGW are receiving from the US Government and from the IPCC? I recall reading one of the hacked emails which haven't been denied by the authors of said emails, only decried that the person should not have hacked their computers and published them... and in a later email Mann said himself that there is no use denying the emails, McIntyre and McKitrick are going to do what they are going to do whether we deny them or not! I've also read other emails where the scientists were bragging about their new offices and plush leather chairs received from grant money. In the last 10 years the US government has dropped nearly 2 trillion dollars to scientists studying ACGW. Should we really point fingers over 53 million spent by Exxon when we have a huge log sticking out of our own eye? -
skepticstudent at 15:00 PM on 9 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
Marcus – no one would want to see harm to Australian farmers or anyone else in Australia. The major fire which occurred in Australia and the drought there occurred almost 100 years to the day of a similar major drought and fire in Australia. Can that be laid at the feet of man expelled CO2? In honor of Australia and to prove my sense of humor I thought I would refer to the news of the odd bobkin… An Australian scientist says that global warming is to be blamed for a transsexual lizard. Tuatara ABC Catalyst 25 March 2004, http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s1073835.htm Also Cold spell’s weird cause Sydney Morning Herald, 4 July 2006, http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/cold-spells-weird-cause/2006/07/03/1151779973599.html So which is it Marcus since 2009 had a nationwide cold snap in 2009 and the second coldest winter since 1950 is it global warming or regional cooling? Windmills to change local and global climates Live science 9, November, 2004 http://www.livescience.com/environment/041109_win_mills.html -
johnmacmot at 14:50 PM on 9 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
Poptech, how about you actually go and read the posts and threads on this site about the Oregon Petition, and respond to specifics if you disagree with what is said, in those threads. That's the protocol here, and if your data is convincing, we'll take notice. "The petition has never been debunked, ever." is simply not true, and you haven't engaged with posts on this blog that do so. In essence, your postings are assertions and subjective opinions, without any evidence. You've been politely invited to provide some substance by a number of posters, but haven't done so. Your present approach is having the opposite effect to what you intend.
Prev 2386 2387 2388 2389 2390 2391 2392 2393 2394 2395 2396 2397 2398 2399 2400 2401 Next
