Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2392 2393 2394 2395 2396 2397 2398 2399 2400 2401 2402 2403 2404 2405 2406 2407 Next
Comments 119951 to 120000:
-
Tom Dayton at 13:22 PM on 8 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
skepticstudent, for an even more detailed exposition of the fact that global temperatures have not decreased since 2000, see Tamino's "Hottest Year". For more fundamental evidence, see the Skeptical Science post It’s cooling. -
Phila at 13:16 PM on 8 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
#87 e, "Perhaps a new skeptic argument is in order: "Scientists won't release the raw data". If nothing else, it would be great as a compendium of raw data and software sources to expand on what Ned listed." Enthusiastically seconded. -
Marcus at 13:13 PM on 8 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
Yes the Earth was still turning back then, but mammals weren't part of that Earth-& nor were most of the plants which make up the current biosphere (& on which the bulk of our agriculture relies). Life at that time had evolved-over millions of years-to thrive in a relatively high CO2/high temperature world. Similarly, the life which exists in the Quaternary Era has evolved, over millions of years, to thrive in a low-CO2/low temperature world. So what we're doing is setting the climate clock back to a time for which current life on Earth is not adapted-& in a period of decades to centuries-not millions of years as has happened previously. Previous "rapid" changes in climate-(on the order of centuries to millenia)-caused massive extinction events. To suggest that our actions now won't have a bad-if not worse-consequences for life on this planet (& human life in particular) represents the worst combination of arrogance & ignorance imaginable. Oh & as for your ad hominem-it was claiming that everyone here has been "taught" to be alarmist & that apparently we can't think for yourself-& at the same time implying that somehow only people like you & Camel have access to the real *truth*! That constitutes ad hominem in my books, but fortunately it was since deleted from the site. -
barry1487 at 13:09 PM on 8 May 2010University of Queensland talk wrap-up
The slide show is a great progression of the evidence. Just a couple of nits to pick on the language. From page 2 of the PDF:The first step is to work out how human activity is affecting the atmosphere. This graph shows how much carbon dioxide we’ve been emitting over the last 6000 years.
Might want to rephrase that. How about - "This graph shows atmospheric CO2 concentrations over the last 6000 years. The upswing on the right is CO2 we've emitted since the industrial revolution." Or something better. Near the end:Another impact that will have a significant impact on humanity is sea level rise.
Too many impacts :-) Maybe something like - "Sea level rise will also have a profound impact on humanity." I've bookmarked the slide show for future reference. Nice job. -
skepticstudent at 12:59 PM on 8 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
42Thank Jeff. That was pretty much my point, although I didn't word it as succintly as you. People are always making accusations without looking at certain regions on the globe which are acting totally different. 48. Marcus...6 degrees warmer... and yet today the earth is still spinning just like it was then isn't it. So could it be that it is not so catastrophic and maybe more cyclical in natuer. You can't have your cake and eat it to. And What was my ad hominem? I couldn't find one. -
Marcus at 12:54 PM on 8 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
SkepticalStudent. Nice to see that you won't let the facts get in the way of a good story (I noted that, when against the wall, you resorted to ad hominem attacks again-the hallmark of someone whose position is incredibly weak) GISS shows a modest warming of 0.012 degrees for 2000-2009, in spite of that decade being dominated by a deep solar minimum (i.e. it *should* have cooled). Yet 10 years do not a trend make-because the results are statistically insignificant. 30-60 years of continuous data do provide the correct amount of statistical significance because the signal-to-noise ratio is much better, & all this data is showing a *strong* warming trend. BTW, I was never *taught* to be "alarmist". As a scientist I carefully reviewed *all* the scientific literature-both for & against-before I came to the conclusion that global warming was occurring, & that humans were the most obvious cause. Common sense also dictates my position on the issue-because I find it ludicrous that you can pump *millions of years* worth of geo-sequestered CO2 into the atmosphere, in the space of less than 200 years, & not expect it to have a measurable impact on the biosphere. When the basis for our oil & coal were being laid down, the planet's CO2 concentrations were 10x higher than today-& the planet was a good 6 degrees warmer than today too. Coincidence? I think not! -
Ron Crouch at 12:51 PM on 8 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
"One would have to assume that if ice grows back that quickly, that much that it is fairly cold, not rising catastrophically." I'm not sure what you mean at the end of this statement, but as far as cold temperatures and sea ice growth are concerned. There is much more that has to be taken into consideration than the temperatures on their own. You need to also take into consideration such factors as ocean currents and atmospheric pressures in order to make any definitive conclusions surrounding sea ice growth. The analysis of conditions posted at NSIDC on April 6, 2010 illustrates this very well. Quote: "This March, low atmospheric pressure systems persisted over the Gulf of Alaska and north of Scandinavia. These pressure patterns led to unusually cold conditions and persistent northerly winds in the Bering and Barents Seas, which pushed the ice edge southward in these two regions." but Quote: "This winter's strong negative mode of the Arctic Oscillation was moderated through the month of March. Average air temperatures for the month nevertheless remained above average over the Arctic Ocean region. Overall for the winter, temperatures over most of the Arctic were above average, while northern Europe and Siberia were colder than usual. and Quote: "Ice extent was above normal in the Bering Sea and Baltic Sea, but remained below normal over much of the Atlantic sector of the Arctic, including the Baffin Bay, and the Canadian Maritime Provinces seaboard. Extent in other regions was near average. and Quote: "The late date of the maximum extent, though of special interest this year, is unlikely to have an impact on summer ice extent. The ice that formed late in the season is thin, and will melt quickly when temperatures rise." And the latter statement is being borne out if you look at the graph of current Arctic sea ice extent. -
johnd at 12:48 PM on 8 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
Jeff Freymueller at 12:28 PM, can any of the rising parts of land be associated with subsidence elsewhere, or the reverse? Only some materials would be compressible but even those would require something to be drawn into their structure as the pressure reduced. -
Jeff Freymueller at 12:38 PM on 8 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
Now back to the original topic? The letter is a fine letter, and as a scientist I would be proud to sign it myself. If there is a supporting petitition, I'll gladly add my name, whether such things count for anything or not. I found it right on the money. I particularly liked the sentence, "Even as these are overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, fame still awaits anyone who could show these theories to be wrong." [referring to the age of the Earth and the age of the universe]. That's absolutely correct. -
Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
Skepticstudent, Nearly all your claims run counter to the bulk of mainstream peer-reviewed scientific literature, as you can see linked to profusely on this site. So, yes, you will need to provide some reliable references to back your claims. -
wingding at 12:29 PM on 8 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
Re notcynical 40. If too many sign the skeptics will just claim they were coerced to sign, or felt pressured to sign or just didn't want to appear not to sign. -
Jeff Freymueller at 12:28 PM on 8 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
Too much noise here this time. Repetitive posting of discredited arguments does not stimulate any useful discussion. Among the many fallacies presented here were a couple of comments about Alaska. Given that I live and work there, I'll respond to those. (1) 2008 was indeed a miserable, wet, rainy cold summer. The worst in many years. So the obvious question is, what about 2009? It was nearly the opposite! Far warmer and nicer overall than 2008. Was it an incredible warming trend in 2008-2009? No, this is what we call weather, and to say anything about climate you need to average over a lot of years of weather. (2) Along most of the southern coastline of Alaska, vertical motion of the land is much faster than the change in sea level. Some parts of southeast Alaska are rising faster than 30 mm/yr due to the rebound of the crust from melting ice. See Chris Larsen's website for a sampling of the results, if you don't want to track down the original papers. Along many parts of the Pacific coast from the Aleutians eastward, the land is subsiding due to the buildup of strain leading toward great thrust earthquakes at the Alaska subduction zone. Further inland, we find uplift (for example, along Cook Inlet) for the same tectonic causes. In many places the land level change, in either direction, is significantly faster than sea level change. So extreme changes in relative sea level in Alaska tell us nothing about global sea level rise or climate. -
Tom Dayton at 12:28 PM on 8 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
skepticstudent, there are data on snow cover over the entire northern hemisphere, which although less than global is hugely more than the tiny regions in which you have lived. Details in Tamino's post "Snow." -
Tom Dayton at 12:20 PM on 8 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
Really, people, if you want to argue over the number of scientists that are skeptics, you need to do it over at There is no consensus. It's fine to post one or two narrow comments on a broader post, but after that it's redundant and distracting. -
notcynical at 12:14 PM on 8 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
RE: Riccaro @#9 Yes, I'd bet that most would agree. However, NAS has over 2000 members. Even though only some sections were asked to sign, it would be more persuasive if we could say that 90%, say, of those requested did sign. The relative number (ie the percentage) of those signing is a more compelling statistic then the absolute number, in my opinion. -
wingding at 12:12 PM on 8 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
skepticstudent: "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." NASA GISS shows a warming trend since 2000. On a global basis. -
Ian Forrester at 12:11 PM on 8 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
Oops the graph didn't show up. It can be seen here: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2000/plot/gistemp/from:2000/trend -
Ian Forrester at 12:10 PM on 8 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
scepticstudent said: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.
Not true skepticstudent. Here is the GISTEMP graph for 2000 to 2010: -
Tom Dayton at 12:10 PM on 8 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
johnd, "natural cycles" cannot explain the recent warming. See John Cook's green-box Response to this comment in the thread on the It’s just a natural cycle thread. Also click on the links in Riccardo's comment on that thread. -
johnd at 12:03 PM on 8 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
Marcus at 11:39 AM re 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. I would consider that the said warming trend was more so proof that the post WW2 30 year cooling trend had ended, similar as it had previously done so as indicated by the various natural cycles identified and traced back centuries, many of which are still not fully understood. -
Ian Forrester at 11:54 AM on 8 May 2010Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science
skepticstudent, you seem to be confused about the relationship between CO2 and temperature over geological time scales. May I suggest you review The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History by Dr. Richard Alley. -
wingding at 11:53 AM on 8 May 2010Kung-fu Climate
Papers "supporting" skepticism of manmade global warming turns out to be a license to include papers which skeptics misunderstand or misinterpret to be an argument against manmade global warming. To pick a rather extreme example to make a point - I have bumped into skeptics that claim co2 is heavier than air so human emissions can't get into the atmosphere. It would therefore be the case that a paper which stated co2 is heavier than air could be listed as a paper "supporting" skepticism of manmade global warming. To pick an actual example - Caillon et al 2003 is on the 700 list. Caillon et al 2003 report that co2 rise lags temperature rise by 800 years in a certain part of the ice core record. The only way this can be percieved as "supporting" skepticism of manmade global warming is that it supports the argument that "co2 lags temperature, not the otherway round". But such a conclusion doesn't come from the paper or any other paper, it is "original research" by skeptics, just like the "therefore co2 cannot get off the ground". Caillon et al 2003 itself doesn't in fact support such a claim and even explicitly contradicts it at the end of the paper. Realclimate even has an article guest written by Jeff Severinghaus, one of the co-authors of Caillon et al 2003, further explaining why the "not the otherway round" argument is wrong. -
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.
Prev 2392 2393 2394 2395 2396 2397 2398 2399 2400 2401 2402 2403 2404 2405 2406 2407 Next
