pup
enthusiast
Posts: 3933
Reg: 03-29-06
|
04-09-14 03:08 PM - Post#167468
In response to Cheatham Parent
People have missed the point of this thread entirely.
That alone, proves the study invaluable.
|
Jimi Ray Clapton
enthusiast
Posts: 2394
Reg: 09-03-07
|
04-09-14 03:10 PM - Post#167469
In response to mgrayar
I thought the debate was always centered around man's influence on that constant climate change. That is in fact a very debatable subject. You could write the exact same paper in opposite depending on who's data you choose to look at. The same scientists have flip flopped on man's influence more than once.
There is *no debate* among the overwhelming majority of the international scientific community that a) the global climate is warming incrementally and that b) the cause is largely a human caused phenomena.
Weblady makes an excellent point - one that I have been repeating for quite some time now. It goes like this:
I am not a scientist; climate or otherwise. Therefore I look to the scientific community for there view(s) on the subject. Anyone can be skeptical for whatever reason about a) whether the Earth climate is warming and b) whether that warming is related to human activity - carbon emissions, in particular. Why any non climate science expert would make such an argument is beyond me, but I observe that they do (the 900 Forbes articles, for instance). What you can not plausibly or responsibly do is deny that an overwhelming majority of the international scientific community takes the above mentioned position. It's simply denial, as in "deny": state that one refuses to admit the truth or existence of.
As I stated above - unless and until the international scientific community changes it's views on the subject or it becomes a much narrower majority opinion - I'm going to follow their lead. As opposed to say, James de la Garza or Rush Limbaugh.
|
pup
enthusiast
Posts: 3933
Reg: 03-29-06
|
04-09-14 03:17 PM - Post#167470
In response to Jimi Ray Clapton
We simply live in a time of overwhelming disinformation spewing from every angle possible.
99 44/100ths of the white noise is a pure lie.
Even if one happens to agree with the lie, it is still a lie, mainly designed to separate you from your money.
|
nomoon
enthusiast
Posts: 1026
Loc: Allen
Reg: 05-31-06
|
04-09-14 03:20 PM - Post#167471
In response to weblady
Reading this thread leaves me to wonder just how many of you have any scientific background or how many of you actually have done any real research into this subject.
My research for my doctoral dissertation included lots work with infrared radiation and thermal modelling. I’m familiar with the technical issues related to climate science, though most of the technical problems that I’ve found can be easily understood with anyone familiar with basic scientific and engineering concepts.
97% of the scientists all agree that climate change is real and is caused by man. It is just a fact.
If you were really aware of this subject, you would also be aware that the sham paper making the “97% consensus” claim on this subject was retracted after fraudulent and misleading practices were pointed out by the same group of skeptics that the paper was attempting to marginalize.
The arguments from some of the advocates seem to be getting more shrill as evidence continues to show that the models do not reflect reality. One disturbing trend that I’ve seen is the attempt to reframing the debate by declaring victory (the debate is over), and scorning further discussion. Serious debate shouldn’t be allowed. John Kerry has been advocating that position recently.
I would encourage people to avoid the adhominem, “follow the money,” and authority arguments. Also, try to avoid the one-liners as a deciding factor. Stick to the science, and follow the back and forth of both sides of the argument. Don’t stop when you find an explanation that supports a point of view. Seek out the rebuttal of the other side, and try to understand that explanation. Then try to find a rebuttal from the other side, if there is one. In my experience, the alarmist positions tend to fall apart when the issues are examine in this manner. There are lots of websites out there that will give you one-sided strawman arguments for your position. However, it gets more interesting if you try to understand both sides.
As mgrayer mentioned, climate change is normal and constant, whether or not man has any influence at all. No one disputes that. Most people accept that the climate has warmed over the last 150 years as the earth emerged from the Little Ice Age. Most people accept that additional CO2 is more likely to cause warming than cooling. The critical issue is whether the additional CO2 will cause catastrophic warming. The basic physics says that is would be quite a hurdle to prove. The following facts are not disputed:
The greenhouse effect is overwhelmingly dominated by water vapor and clouds, not CO2.
Increased CO2 alone cannot cause the amount of heating needed to create the catastrophic scenarios promoted by the alarmists. This kind of heating would require a significant amount of warming caused by feedback (primarily feedback from atmospheric water). The warming with the feedback would have to be 300-450% of the warming predicted by CO2 alone.
Four very serious issues with the original and subsequent proxy temperature reconstructions are:
- They are heavily weighted on tree rings from trees from the western US, from cores that were mostly collected from a single researcher. This researcher (whose specialty is trees) said that this data should not be used for temperature reconstructions.
- The statistical methods used by the initial hockey stick studies has been shown to produce hockey sticks when any sort of red noise was used. In order words, you could replace the core measurements with noise and still get hockey sticks, based on the way the data was calibrated and weighted.
- The proxies are not calibrated to local thermometers. They are calibrated to global temperature averages.
- Every single reconstruction that I am aware of does not show warming in the later 20th century. This is the “divergence problem,” in case you are not already aware of the term used in these circles. If the proxies don’t show later 20th century warming, why would anyone believe that they would show earlier warming, such as during the Medieval warming period.
That is just a start. There are so many really really stupid practices and methodologies that seem to be mainstream for climate science would not stand a chance in the mainstream engineering world. This is apparently one reason why many are so reluctant to share their data.
|
Jimi Ray Clapton
enthusiast
Posts: 2394
Reg: 09-03-07
|
04-09-14 03:21 PM - Post#167472
In response to pup
We simply live in a time of overwhelming disinformation spewing from every angle possible.
99 44/100ths of the white noise is a pure lie.
Even if one happens to agree with the lie, it is still a lie, mainly designed to separate you from your money.
I don't agree with any of that as it relates to the subject of climate science.
|
nomoon
enthusiast
Posts: 1026
Loc: Allen
Reg: 05-31-06
|
04-09-14 03:23 PM - Post#167473
In response to Jimi Ray Clapton
There is *no debate* among the overwhelming majority of the international scientific community that ... b) the cause is largely a human caused phenomena.
Sure there is. There is a huge debate about this, no matter how often someone says otherwise.
|
Jimi Ray Clapton
enthusiast
Posts: 2394
Reg: 09-03-07
|
04-09-14 03:39 PM - Post#167474
In response to nomoon
I would encourage people to avoid the adhominem, “follow the money,” and authority arguments. Also, try to avoid the one-liners as a deciding factor. Stick to the science, and follow the back and forth of both sides of the argument. Don’t stop when you find an explanation that supports a point of view. Seek out the rebuttal of the other side, and try to understand that explanation. Then try to find a rebuttal from the other side, if there is one. In my experience, the alarmist positions tend to fall apart when the issues are examine in this manner. There are lots of websites out there that will give you one-sided strawman arguments for your position. However, it gets more interesting if you try to understand both sides.
I appreciate your very lucid comments. I agree wholeheartedly with the need for a measured, balanced approach when attempting to fact find on this subject.
It has been my experience that of the large majority scientific community that have signed on to what you seem to generally agree with - that a much smaller group are actually suggesting catastrophe in a sky-is-falling sort of way. The majority seem to be pretty measured with their approach to getting their message out to the public.
On another note, does it not concern you in the slightest that there is such a HUGE bunch in this country that bite on the "ad hominem, follow the money, and authority arguments" in a dangerously and irresponsibly dismissive way?
|
pup
enthusiast
Posts: 3933
Reg: 03-29-06
|
04-09-14 03:50 PM - Post#167475
In response to Jimi Ray Clapton
We simply live in a time of overwhelming disinformation spewing from every angle possible.
99 44/100ths of the white noise is a pure lie.
Even if one happens to agree with the lie, it is still a lie, mainly designed to separate you from your money.
I don't agree with any of that as it relates to the subject of climate science.
Ok, 99 77/100ths when it relates to climate science. My bad.
|
Jimi Ray Clapton
enthusiast
Posts: 2394
Reg: 09-03-07
|
04-09-14 03:58 PM - Post#167477
In response to nomoon
There is *no debate* among the overwhelming majority of the international scientific community that ... b) the cause is largely a human caused phenomena.
Sure there is. There is a huge debate about this, no matter how often someone says otherwise.
Respectfully, I beg to differ. In the sense that the only serious debate, that I'm aware of, among the leading research groups with regard to whether "the cause is largely a human caused phenomena" is how much and how bad. I will consider that I may be wrong on that to a degree - but I have read too much and looked at this subject for too long to have any understanding other than that, to a very high degree, the "jury is in".
|
Cheatham Parent
enthusiast
Posts: 225
Reg: 01-23-11
|
04-09-14 04:02 PM - Post#167478
In response to Jimi Ray Clapton
“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.”
― Neil deGrasse Tyson
|
Jimi Ray Clapton
enthusiast
Posts: 2394
Reg: 09-03-07
|
04-09-14 04:08 PM - Post#167480
In response to Cheatham Parent
“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.”
― Neil deGrasse Tyson
 
|
Jimi Ray Clapton
enthusiast
Posts: 2394
Reg: 09-03-07
|
04-09-14 04:14 PM - Post#167481
In response to Jimi Ray Clapton
For anyone interested in setting aside any possible preconceived notions and looking into this subject with a fresh POV - there are a ton of great learning resources out there - but MIT’s Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Climate Change is a vast resource on the subject in general and a good place to start.
I would recommend to anyone to generally ignore CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News and many other news sources and look to what the actual experts, academics, and scientists are saying, writing, etc.
|
Jimi Ray Clapton
enthusiast
Posts: 2394
Reg: 09-03-07
|
04-10-14 04:08 PM - Post#167533
In response to Jimi Ray Clapton
Broadcast live last Friday night... right here close by in Tyler, TX:
Neal Barton tells his audience that "global warming" is laughable.
|
