Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2388 2389 2390 2391 2392 2393 2394 2395 2396 2397 2398 2399 2400 2401 2402 2403 Next
Comments 119751 to 119800:
-
skepticstudent at 11:52 AM on 8 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
Tom your second point about commenting in another post then pointing a link from a post like this to that one not mottling the main topic is a good point. I will endeavour to take that track in the future. -
johnd at 11:49 AM on 8 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
e at 11:19 AM re "the logical fallacy here is the idea that regional trends are the same as global trends" This is something I am somewhat sceptical about where proxies have been used to reconstruct historical global temperatures. How many of the proxies are tied to local temperatures, as they should be, and how many are tied to the global temperature. I wonder just how available, or how reliable are local temperature records given that many proxies seem to be located in remote locations. It is not something that is readily apparent when the research is being presented. -
skepticstudent at 11:48 AM on 8 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
Marcus you want to recheck your facts. Even the NASA GISS facts don't dispute that the temperatures have been declining on a global basis since the year 2000. Agree with me or not the facts are there. so we'll just let this one go and agree to disagree. -
skepticstudent at 11:46 AM on 8 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
Ron, I think I have a pretty good grasp on temperatures and snow fall since I've lived in the Pacific Northwest for over 30 years and I have lived in Alaska. Ron, you are totally 100% correct, I will not dispute with you on your statements. The only reason why I mentioned that was earlier someone asked me what snowiness had to do with coldness. The warmest I've ever seen snow occuring in at less than 1000 ft elevation was around 36F. The whole point was to go into the information about the windstorms and blowing snow drifts and the faster than normal buildup of ice in 2008. There is a fascinating read on the fabled inland passage which was actually open in 2007 and closed again by a massive and quick buildup of ice in the Arctic in early 2008. There have been several scientific papers written on this and even one of the global warming faithful tried to take a kayak with two ships of camera crew and journalist behind him but he was turned back by a vast amount of unexpected ice which had grown in less than a year. One would have to assume that if ice grows back that quickly, that much that it is fairly cold, not rising catastrophically. If I have to pull out all the references to this I will but it's pretty well known. -
Marcus at 11:39 AM on 8 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
>the fact that I lived in Alaska in 2008 and it was colder than the previous year Skepticalstudent needs to grasp the very simple difference between *climate* and *weather*. Here in Australia, we've had going on *6 months* of above average temperatures-with November 2009 recording some of the highest temperatures seen since records were first kept. Now, in spite of my leanings on this issue, I'm not going to turn around & claim that this is *proof* of global warming-because its not (well, not on its own anyway). What *is* proof of global warming is the 30 year warming trend-from 1979-2009-occurring in spite of a decline in Total Solar Irradiance over a similar period. So to is the long-term (i.e. decades) decline in glaciers & ice-caps. -
skepticstudent at 11:39 AM on 8 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
i'm responding to this here because the insulting comments were aimed at me here. michael sweet at 11:10 AM on 8 May, 2010 Skeptic student, You are clogging up this site with repetative ranting. You are uninformed about the temperatures that have been measured. As was pointed out to you on another thread, 2008 was the 10th warmest year measured since the thermometer record started, not the 3rd coldest. (reference NCDC and GISS). Many of your other assertions are covered on this site. If you cannot get the basics right you need to inform yourself before you continue your ranting. Before you start insulting people, you might want to take another look at peer reviewed papers on the debaucle known as the weather data for october 2008. The information from the NCDC and Giss has been called into question because it was a major anomoly. The temperature information from the GISS output was proven wrong for at least October 2008. The temperatures given by the GISS were in error and after investigation, it was found that GISS was given the temp readings for September so the readings for October were based on incorrect readings. The actual correct temperatures were shown to be the 70th warmest season since 1775. I will be responding to NCDC temperature readings in another post when I have time. If you had really read what I had said you would have seen that I stated the temperatures have been declining for the last 20 years, I think that meets your qualification for 10+. Your comments to regionalism is one of the main contentions of the side of the skeptics that we aren't even talking about global warming trends we are talking about a few regions. But I won't make my comment any lengthier than it already is to discuss things already mentioned. -
Ron Crouch at 11:24 AM on 8 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
"Snow has typically been known (since I took science in 6th grade) to mean a given point in time that temperatures are colder." The temperatures may be colder but that's no guarantee of snowfall. The majority of snow falls when the temperatures are -9C (15F) or warmer. See All About Snow. So therefore depending upon conditions it is totally possible for there to be more snowfall in a warmer climate than a colder one. There is a fairly good elementary discussion here. -
Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
skepticstudent, >NO, but a decade of snowy winters in Alaska, Washington, Russia and most of western Europe make a statement towards declining temperatures Even if we assume this is accurate, the logical fallacy here is the idea that regional trends are the same as global trends. They are not. Take a look at the posts on this site that discuss global temperature trends, especially that of ocean temperatures. >the fact that I lived in Alaska in 2008 and it was colder than the previous year This is similar to the above fallacy but on a temporal scale. Year-to-year changes do not reveal long term trends. You need to look at long term (10+) year averages on a global scale. Please take some time to try and understand what constitutes a long-term global trend. -
Tom Dayton at 11:17 AM on 8 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
skepticstudent, for followup on wingding's response to you, see The significance of past climate change. To find the info on the Sun's activity that you said you are looking for, a good starting point is It's the Sun. Since you seem to have wide-ranging interests, you probably would enjoy the broad but fairly short overview The Global Warming Debate. It will also save you a lot of time by orienting you to better take advantage of this Skeptical Science site's detailed info on specific topics. -
michael sweet at 11:10 AM on 8 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
Skeptic student, You are clogging up this site with repetative ranting. You are uninformed about the temperatures that have been measured. As was pointed out to you on another thread, 2008 was the 10th warmest year measured since the thermometer record started, not the 3rd coldest. (reference NCDC and GISS). Many of your other assertions are covered on this site. If you cannot get the basics right you need to inform yourself before you continue your ranting. -
wingding at 11:04 AM on 8 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
"That comment that Mr Cook was nice enough to link me too pretty much denies that any manmade activity could cause disastrous results because the carbon levels in the past were not caused by man." Man can cause a disaster by starting a fire in a forest even though forest fires in the past were not caused by man. The cause has no relevance as to whether the result is disastrous. Homo Sapiens didn't exist last time co2 was as high as it is today. So this is the first time that cities and agriculture is going to be tested against raising co2 levels. As a result there's no way we can rule out disasters occurring to human civilization. It's also not so much the carbon levels, but how fast they change. All species, including us, are going to find it easier to adapt to slowly changing conditions than fast changing conditions. -
Tom Dayton at 11:02 AM on 8 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
skepticstudent, one way to comment on cross-post topics is to add your substantive comment to the post that is devoted to that topic (e.g., "It’s the Sun" and the other posts that John Cook and others have pointed you to), and then add a short comment to the multi-topic post (such as this one) with a link to your comment on the other thread saying "I've commented in more detail on the thread X." You can link to your comment by right-clicking on the comment's time-date, copying the link, then pasting it into your shorter comment within the appropriate HTML tags. A major reason for commenting in the appropriately specialized post, is that the post and the existing comments probably address your concern. By reading those first you can hone your comment to more effectively get the answer you desire or to spark the discussion you hope to start. Another reason to stick to the appropriately specialized post is to avoid diluting the discussion of the broader post. -
Nichol at 10:58 AM on 8 May 2010University of Queensland talk wrap-up
very nice slides! Nice the way you start by showing the earth is not in a static equilibrium, but in a dynamic one, with lots of CO2 being released and absorbed, but the natural flows balance each other. The balance is now tipped a bit by burning all those fossil fuels. Likewise with energy: lots of energy arrives from the sun, heating up the earth, and the warm earth radiates off lots of energy, balancing what came in. If we add even a thin blanket of CO2, that balance is shifted, causing the earth to warm up. This non-static equilibrium is not so easy to communicate, and I think you did it very well. ok, as you asked for some nitpicking, I'll try ;) I'm curious to see the effect of water in the graph on page 10, is that to the left, at lower frequencies? (Not sure if you'd want to explain at this point that water can be considered a feed-back, but it would still be nice to have it in the plot). Is 'brightness temperature' proportional to energy flow at a given frequency? I'm a bit confused at how you define a 'temperature' at each given frequency, while the energy per foton is also proportional to frequency (wave number). Looking at this plot naively, one might get the impression that the 'dent' due to CO2 is not as bad as the one from methane. Might be worthwhile if you could remake this plot with axes more easily understandable in terms of energy flow. What is the problem with the nice graph on page 11? Are there no measurements in the US and Canada? The white band across Sudan, Congo, Angola might be easier to understand.. but isn't it still surprisingly blank? About page 14: the warming of the troposphere is not all that obvious, compared to the fluctuations. Also: should the big fluctuations in the top and bottom graphs not be more anti-correlated? OK, after zooming in, I see volcanic eruptions played a role.. tricky plot. Did people get stumble over the subtleties during your talk? page 27: after so many plots about melting ice, you only mention that seawater expands when it warms up. Did people pick up that this effect is not less important than the ice? -
kdkd at 10:29 AM on 8 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
Poptech: The list of 700 references that you linked to is pretty useless without including annotations at the least. Without reading each of the 700 papers it is impossible to tell why you think they go against the scientific consensus, and given the strength of the scientific consensus, I have a strong position that in many cases you must be misrepresenting the findings of the authors. However because you've decided on this listing approach and provide no extra information, it's impossible to tell. -
HumanityRules at 10:19 AM on 8 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
155.JMurphy at 02:25 AM on 8 May, 2010 Humanity Rules quotes CoalGeologist asking : "the presumption that there has to be some other explanation than AGW, because AGW couldn't be true" For me, the important word in CG's sentance is "couldn't" that may appear in polemical rants but it doesn't appear in any of the science that questions the concensus. You could argue a little of the reverse appears in the AGW arguement. Using CG words from any earlier post. Because CO2 is the biggest (or only) knob controlling contemporary climate change then we have to have theories that exclude all others. There is a little of this in Trenberths ideas on the 'missing energy'. The argo bouys have to be wrong or the energy has to be in the deep ocean because AGW says it has to be somewhere. -
skepticstudent at 10:12 AM on 8 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
Well as I said, I give the devil (no reference intended) his due. Whether I agree with all the comments here, it is increasing my education level and honing my skills and making me a better writer. -
skepticstudent at 09:49 AM on 8 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
To Tom and John, I believe it was fair of me to enter my comments here. If the 5 points of the NAS paper have been addressed in other threads, I think it is fair to address them here as they are being brought up here. I don't think it could be fairly construed as off topic when the topic of the thread IS the paper. With all due respect.Response: A fair point which is why the comments stand (and I appreciate you taking my suggestion of shorter, more specific comments). I would still recommend doing a quick search before commenting in the chance that you're bringing up a point that has been examined elsewhere - at least so you can see what is being discussed elsewhere. -
skepticstudent at 09:45 AM on 8 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
As I mentioned yesterday in a post that needs to be re-written end of calendar year 2007 beginning of 2008, Alaska, Canada and Arctic Ice in general saw a tremendous increase in ice levels. 2008 had the 3rd coldest winter since thermometers were created in 1775. Temperatures have been continuously declining since 1999. The main reason for the tremendous increase in Arctic ice was accounting to heavier than normal windstorms causing the snow to not stay in one spot as is typical. As we all know, eskimo's build igloos as the snow acts as insulation. Having said that, because there was far much less snow insulating the ground there was a tremendous amount of ice growth in the arctic. I would like to know what logical fallacy I threw out by the way. -
Riccardo at 09:41 AM on 8 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
Poptech, being right is seldom obtained by brute force. Your unchecked list just indicates that someone (you?) had a lot of spare time to compile it. Given the lack of science (which your final yawn well clarify) this is what is left to skeptics. We don't need such lists, reading the scientific litterature is a far better tool, the rest is nonsense. -
skepticstudent at 09:40 AM on 8 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
In response to angliss at 08:55 AM on 8 May, 2010 skepticstudent - if you want to be taken seriously here, please supply references and refrain from logical fallacies. Would you care to provide a reference for your claim that winters in Alaska, Washington, Russia, and western Europe have been snowier, as well as evidence that snowier = colder? I will reference the tracked temperatures of the US Weather beareau and the fact that I lived in Alaska in 2008 and it was colder than the previous year etc etc. Snow has typically been known (since I took science in 6th grade) to mean a given point in time that temperatures are colder. It doesn't snow in summer, ergo winter is colder than summer. Given the temperatures of Alaska, Russia and several other places, it would be a reasonable conclusion that my statements were not baseless. It has been suggested to me that my comments be made shorter so I won't go further than that. As to what makes snowier=colder. next comment -
skepticstudent at 09:34 AM on 8 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
To Mr. Cook and everyone else. I just went and read the comments about previous global temperatures and co2 levels. They seem to be right on with what I've been saying both in response to this paper at the top of this thread. The only thing I would have to check from both sides is whether or not during the medevil warming period what the levels of sun activity was. I believe there have been some newer research showing that at times in the past when sunspots were higher the temperatures were similar to what they are today. However I digress. That comment that Mr Cook was nice enough to link me too pretty much denies that any manmade activity could cause disastrous results because the carbon levels in the past were not caused by man. I'm just making this reference here because it was linked to this thread based on my earlier response to this paper. -
Tom Dayton at 09:27 AM on 8 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
skepticstudent, in the left margin, near the top, of every page there is a list of "Most Used Skeptic Arguments." At the bottom of that list there is a "View All Arguments" link that leads to a descriptive list with links to all the arguments that have posts. Also useful is the Search field at the top left of every page. -
skepticstudent at 09:23 AM on 8 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
Tom, I was responding to the topics as presented by the paper in this thread. Which is why I numbered each of my statements to match the numbered statement in the release. I am new to this blog and I don't know where all the threads are yet, however I was very much on track as I was responding directly to the topics as numbered in the paper. -
omnologos at 09:22 AM on 8 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
re #11 Lest we forget: it took 80 years for the evidence of pre-Cambrian fauna to be accepted. Ironically, Nature magazine rejected one of the most compelling proofs, as it was presented by a "nobody", only to change their mind when finally a renowned scientist bothered to check things out. So much for peer-review and consensus science. -
Tom Dayton at 09:19 AM on 8 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
skepticstudent, it sounds like you might want to discuss that topic on the thread There is no consensus.Response: Just for the record, I did email skepticstudent suggesting he post shorter comments on specific scientific topics and he has been doing that. I would also suggest to skepticstudent that you do a quick search before commenting as many of the topics you do raise are covered in detail elsewhere on this site and a quick search will find them easily. -
omnologos at 09:18 AM on 8 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
On a lighter note...why 255? Did they run out of memory on their Z80 processors? 8-) -
skepticstudent at 09:16 AM on 8 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
robhon I gave them the respect they deserve. Whether I agree with them or not does not mean I don't respect the hours, sweat, and time away from family any scientist puts into their scientific degree. However, and I mean this with all due respect... Einstein was laughed out of numerous houses of academia because he had not proven his theory of relativity. He went from one to another with the same results. If I were around at the time of Einstein, I would have told him the same thing I am saying today, just because you say the same thing over and over based on previous results doesn't make it any more right this time than the previous times. It doesn't make it any more valid when you have a bunch of well respected scientist saying the same thing that less experienced scientists say. -
Riccardo at 09:11 AM on 8 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
notcynical, given the well known offical position of the NAS I bet many of them will agree at least on the part about the science. -
Rob Honeycutt at 09:06 AM on 8 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
@skepticstudent... I think you need to step back for just a moment and challenge yourself and your own grasp of the subject matter. We are talking about 255 members of the NAS. These are not your run-of-the-mill PhD's. These are some of the finest minds in the world, and these are also the members of the NAS who are most familiar with climate science. They know of what they speak. One needs to ponder the significance of the statements these people are making. These are NOT willy-nilly assertions. They are making very definitive statements about the state of climate science and the predicament humanity faces. Stop and listen. -
notcynical at 09:03 AM on 8 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
It would be interesting to know how many, if any, members of the Academy were asked to sign and declined to do so. -
skepticstudent at 08:58 AM on 8 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
5.5.The combination of these complex climate changes threatens coastal communities and cities, our food and water supplies, marine and freshwater ecosystems, forests, high mountain environments, and far more. Again, there is no scientific evidence to date that shows any horrendous raising of coastal water. I believe the IPCC worst estimate brought forth in any of the 1-4 assessments was a raising of about 1 foot globally. Where is the catastrophe in a one foot rise in oceanic levels. The seas have risen and lowered far more drastically than that through the ages. If there is any question, I can take you to places in Alaska where ancient natives wrote in rock that is now under water and then other ancients that wrote on rocks which is now dozens of feet from shoreline even at highest of tides. The importance to note is this is at a known native Alaskan fishing village which is over 2000 years old or older. Another good example is Lake Shasta, California. My grandfather grew up there in the latter half of the 19th century. The town he grew up in was flooded and covered by water for 45 years because of heavy rainfall for several decades. It is now uncovered again.Response: Sea level rise is observed by tidal gauges all over the world - you can't judge a global trend by a few anecdotal examples. This trend is confirmed by satellite measurements.
Observations of sea level rise since the IPCC predictions show they have underestimated future sea level rise by not taking into account the accelerating ice loss from Greenland and Antarctica. When this is taken into account, various studies using independent methods have found sea level rise by 2100 in the range of 75cm to 2 metres. -
angliss at 08:55 AM on 8 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
skepticstudent - if you want to be taken seriously here, please supply references and refrain from logical fallacies. Would you care to provide a reference for your claim that winters in Alaska, Washington, Russia, and western Europe have been snowier, as well as evidence that snowier = colder? Also, just because CO2 has followed initial temperature rise over the ice core record, that doesn't mean it's doing so now. This is referred to as a "predictive appeal to history" fallacy, and it's something I addressed here. In fact, given that deglaciations take thousands of years, scientists currently hypothesize that a CO2 feedback in response to a small initial change in insolation is what drives the ultimate transition from a glacial period to an interglacial (Source). -
skepticstudent at 08:53 AM on 8 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
4. Where are the studies that say the oceans are becoming more acidic in nature? I have not seen one. Throw into this again the fact that combined NASA and Remote Sensing Systems study showing oceanic temperatures are showing global oceanic cooling over the last 10-20 years. Are we absolutely positively sure beyond a 100% shadow of a doubt that any possible acidity levels have not been caused by volcanic effluence beneath the oceans surface? I have not seen any exhaustive studies on either side of this comment.Response: I have links to studies on ocean acidification here (note - it is by no means a comprehensive list - I very much welcome anyone willing to submit more peer-reviewed papers to our database). There's also more exposition on ocean acidification here.
The oceans are not cooling. The upper waters show some short-term variability due to exchange of heat with deeper waters. But measurements of ocean heat down to 2000 metres show a steadily warming trend. -
skepticstudent at 08:50 AM on 8 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
3. Again at numerous times in earth history the co2 ppm levels have been 18 to 36 x's higher than they are now so, which natural forces are being overpowered by human interevention. At times when the equator was a sludge pot so hot you'd boil just getting into the water the co2 levels were lower than they are today, there have been an ice age or two where the co2 levels are higher than they are today and there have been times with similar temperatures where the co2 levels were 18x's higher than they are now. Once again there is a statement of previous times natural forces being affected by man's activities but no scientific evidence to back this up. -
Rob Honeycutt at 08:46 AM on 8 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
@poptech...I would also point out, as John just has on his latest post, that the 255 NAS members who signed this letter were the list of members who are MOST familiar with climate science. -
skepticstudent at 08:45 AM on 8 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
2. ***( deforestation surely plays a role, however since many of the farms which stole trees from the South American Rain forests are now growing back in exponential numbers we should see some leveling in that region. Also again CO2 is known to be the 5th least effective of the greenhouse gases and there have been points where it was 7000 to 14000ppm compared to the paultry 385ppm today. Where is the emergency? The earth is still here and has levelled out numerous times. It has been proven numerous times that when you look at things over a million to 10 million year period, it is very obvious that carbon levels follow temperature levels so again what is the emergency? -
skepticstudent at 08:44 AM on 8 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
Let me be the first to respond to this august panel (my compliments to anyone who sits through 4-12 years of science to earn a degree of any kind) 1. **** NO, but a decade of snowy winters in Alaska, Washington, Russia and most of western Europe make a statement towards declining temperatures. -
Rob Honeycutt at 08:34 AM on 8 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
@poptech... The individual degrees these people hold is irrelevant. This is THE top scientific organization in our fine nation. This is a rather large group of HIGHLY accomplished scientists, arguably many of the finest living scientists humanity has to offer. Their issue is not about climate science per se. It is about the outside political and special interest forces being exerted on their colleagues. They are also making a clears statement that the climate science is sound, to the point of declaring it a "theory" same as evolution and the big bang, and stating that it can be viewed as fact. These are extremely definitive terms they are choosing to lay out. And they are also stating that climate science is, at the same time, a process of discovery that involves, as I have pointed out, disagreements. But you can't take the disagreements and hold them up to suggest that AGW is not real, anymore than you can hold up a disagreement in evolution and hold that up to suggest that evolution is not real. -
MarkR at 07:40 AM on 8 May 2010University of Queensland talk wrap-up
cdion: the argument seems quite complex in the papers I've read (Hansen did one in '95 iirc), involving interactions with clouds too... But one simple explanation might be that days are cooler than nights. Heat flow is related to temperature by something like Planck's Law (accounting for emissivity), dQ/dt = A ε σ T4 (that's heat flow proportional to temperature to the power 4, the other symbols are constants). If you change heat flow by a given amount, a hotter thing will warm up less than a cooler thing will. To increase from a T of '1' to a T of '2' requires an increase in heat flow of 15/(Aσε) (from '1' to '16'). To increase from a temp of '5' to a temp of '6' requires an increase in heat flow of 671/(Aσε) units. So if you add a heat flow of 15/(Aσε) from, say, greenhouse gases, you could warm something from 1K to 2K, or from 5K to something like 5.02K. i.e. nights should warm faster than days. Once again though, the real argument seems pretty complex; with the full observations requiring greenhouse gases and cloud changes and scientists seem to take a full paper to explain it! Maybe a quick look at Hansen's '95 paper is worth a go, you've reminded me to check it again when I next have time! -
Tom Dayton at 07:36 AM on 8 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
Poptech, instead of pasting large blocks of content from other sites (your comment with that was deleted), you should link to the original site. In response to your request, no I will not do that research for you. The signers of the letter are listed at the bottom of the letter, and their affiliations are listed in the supporting material. But if you want to argue about how many scientists take which position, the appropriate thread is not this one. Instead, post on There is no consensus or on the threads listed in the "Related Arguments" green box at the bottom of that one. -
carrot eater at 07:30 AM on 8 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
This is turning into a mere exercise of digging up things other people have said somewhere. Which is useful inasmuch as they're relevant, but simply linking something is not the same as reading it, understanding it, critically assessing it, and then discussing it. Simply showing that something exists does not demonstrate that it is valid. Granted, for somebody who isn't a specialist in paleoclimate (and I surely am not; I'm not even that interested in it), there's only so much time you might want to devote to getting into it. No one person can be an expert in all things. I applaud robhon for being upfront, that he isn't a specialist, but that he appreciates that the process works out - science proceeds over time. -
Riccardo at 07:20 AM on 8 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
Again, as in the main post, this is just a useless fight. This kind of argiung is not in the interest of adding something to the science. There's something really a-scientific behind it. Sentences like "Defending Mann's work is the equivalent of defending the Titanic as unsinkable" means absolutely nothing but make clear the intention. Which is unacceptable. -
Tom Dayton at 06:57 AM on 8 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
Poptech, the letter from a great many members of the National Academy of Sciences was published in the May 7 issue of the journal Science. -
Rob Honeycutt at 06:47 AM on 8 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
The NAS letter is about YOU. -
Rob Honeycutt at 06:39 AM on 8 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
@poptech... It takes only one but also takes more than one person to believe it. The broader scientific community has NOT accepted it. But again, that is part of the scientific process. What you are doing is literally taking film of one punch in a 12 round fight and deciding the whole match on it. The rest of the scientific community obviously did NOT see this as a knock out blow, as witnessed by the open letter from 255 NAS scientist that came out today. -
Rob Honeycutt at 06:31 AM on 8 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
@poptech... I think you should read my previous post again. It wasn't about Mann at all. It was about the public perception of science and the battles that go on that are part of the scientific process. -
Doug Bostrom at 06:19 AM on 8 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
Poptech, for the slow-witted among us, could you explain how Mann's reply to Mc&Mc 2009 is incorrect, in your own words? How is it funny? Tell us in your own words, please. -
Rob Honeycutt at 05:50 AM on 8 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
@poptech... I think what doug's comments point out is the same thing that I'm actually trying to say in my main post above. This IS what scientists do! They challenge each other. They battle. They quarrel. They snipe and sometimes even get unpleasant in their exchanges. That is part and parcel to most science and is particularly true of a contentious issue like global warming. The mistake to make is thinking that Mc&Mc somehow completely invalidate Mann's work. This is the process by which solid scientific theories are built. But what is happening is the broader public out there is being fed details of this robust scientific process and are being told that everything is broken, when in fact it's not. The good fight is extremely important. Science would get nowhere without it. The problem with the public perception of this process has to do with a lot of unfair amateur refereeing going on along at the side lines. -
cdion at 04:50 AM on 8 May 2010University of Queensland talk wrap-up
Nice slides! I have a question. In the notes, you say: "The greenhouse effect operates day and night so this means nights should be warming faster than days." The logic for this escapes me. Why faster warming during the night? -
NewYorkJ at 03:12 AM on 8 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
Ned: "Maybe you're right and the previous commenter was just referring to "why he cannot get any climate change papers published." If that was unclear to me, it was probably unclear to others as well (or, maybe not :-) " I took it to mean "why he cannot get [the stuff he's complaining about] published". Thanks for the link to the E&E discussion.
Prev 2388 2389 2390 2391 2392 2393 2394 2395 2396 2397 2398 2399 2400 2401 2402 2403 Next
