Global warming or not?

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by kazbates

Okay, already. . .I stand corrected. Some of his conclusions have been brought into serious question, though, even by the all holy scientific community! Sheesh, you guys are tough. Believe it or not, I agree with some of Darwin's theory even though I am a Christian. The two do not HAVE to be mutually exclusive. A quote by Charles Darwin:



There is a great deal in this world that defies explanation by the science that we know. I like to keep all my options open.

Kenny, when I'm wrong, I admit it. I am not wrong. I have come to no definitive conclusion other than to say that what we have done in the past through our own short-sightedness has had an effect on our planet. I am still withholding judgment on the ultimate cause of Global warming. You, however, have closed your mind to any other conclusions or data that might be significant if they do not agree with your own viewpoint. The fact that you have quoted a very definitely left leaning media source tells me that you are doing the same thing that you've accused the general populace of doing and that is following the hype. If someone quotes a source that you perceive to be right leaning, you ridicule them and tell them they are wrong. Yet, there is scientific truth in what they are saying as well.

The TRUE Scientific Process is continually reevaluating the conclusions drawn, no matter what the theory.

Kaz, you are right, Darwin's theory of evolution has had some details added to and modified by the Process of Science. The core of the theory had never come under any substantial challenge. As with all theories of science it evolves as we learn more.

You are right, there are many things we do not understand, nor can they be addressed by science -- such as supernatural beings. It is simply not the realm of science which attempt to explain the world around us and is restricted to things that are measurable, testable and falsifiable as you know.
There is no reason Science and Religion should ever be in conflict provided the stick to dealing with their own realms.

As far as being wrong. All I am saying is that if their is a theory that is thought to be the best examination for some phenomena then it is held as the current truth by science. Other viewpoints in contention with that are wrong (as far as science is concerned).

I fail to understand how you can accuse me of having a closed mind. Simply because I agree with and trust science? I'm as big a skeptic as they come, all real scientists are and when the evidence or experiments indicate a theory is wrong it is gladly replaced with something better. I don't know how you can accuse me of being closed minded. It doesn't make sense.

See I'm not (as I've said repeatedly) a climate scientist. It is not up to me to stand up for or negate any claim for or against the current consensus of science, but I do support it because I know that science works.

[Dulin's Books]

decent article from Popular Mechanics although i disagree with the concluding section

http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...43.html?page=1


So you agree then kennyc that knowing about the authors of a peer reviewed work- their backround, previous work, their methods and their backing, motivations etc- is just as important as the fact that their work has been peer reviewed, published and cited?

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Dulin's Books

decent article from Popular Mechanics although i disagree with the concluding section

http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...43.html?page=1


So you agree then kennyc that knowing about the authors of a peer reviewed work- their backround, previous work, their methods and their backing, motivations etc- is just as important as the fact that their work has been peer reviewed, published and cited?

Thanks for that link. I particularly enjoyed this line:

"Gravity isn't a useful theory because Newton was a nice person.""



I agree it is important to understand the background and research areas and potential motivations of anyone seeking a public forum, but don't feel that has any real relevance on the validity of the work, provided it follows the established scientific method and science processes - peer review, etc.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by kennyc

I fail to understand how you can accuse me of having a closed mind.

Maybe the constant reiteration of a particular phrase in another thread contributed to that perception.
Especially as it was always expressed as an incontrovertible fact, rather than a personal opinion.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Maybe the constant reiteration of a particular phrase in another thread contributed to that perception.
Especially as it was always expressed as an incontrovertible fact, rather than a personal opinion.

And what phrase would that be? I'm still confused.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by kennyc

I agree it is important to understand the background and research areas and potential motivations of anyone seeking a public forum, but don't feel that has any real relevance on the validity of the work, provided it follows the established scientific method and science processes - peer review, etc.

That is interesting because your rebuke of the list of links Dulin's Books provided centred almost solely on the researchers themselves, their backgrounds, areas of speciality, their "motives" and backing parties rather than the work itself and whether it had any validity.

In fact, your response read almost like you had not bothered to actually read the links but had simply spent time investigating the background of the scientists involved.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

That is interesting because your rebuke of the list of links Dulin's Books provided centred almost solely on the researchers themselves, their backgrounds, areas of speciality, their "motives" and backing parties rather than the work itself and whether it had any validity.

In fact, your response read almost like you had not bothered to actually read the links but had simply spent time investigating the background of the scientists involved.

Cheers,
PKFFW

Which is exactly what I did. Most of those are not available as full text in any case and most of them are not even peer-reviewed journals which automatically removes them from the scientific discussion. Many were comments or letters to the editor.

P.S. that does not meant that there content is right or wrong, but if it is not published per the Science process then it is outside the science discussion -- which is what most of every posting here is and what all the hoopla in the news is.

[XNN]

I've been lurking for some time and thought a post might be in order. As background, I'm a climate scientist. I have a Ph.D. in climatology and am actively working and publishing in the field, although not on proxy climate reconstruction. That being said, I do work in a narrow area related to the use of statistical methods in climatology and have dealt in the past with numerical weather prediction models, as well as global and regional climate models and their output.

(Note: I'm a government scientist -- not in the States -- who has worked during the tenure of parties with very, very different viewpoints on climate change.)

I've tried to keep up with this and related threads on a couple of sites I frequent. It has definitely been interesting seeing the reaction to the UEA email leak. Responses from both "sides" of the debate are pretty amusing, actually.

I'm on my lunch break, so I can't linger long. I might pipe in with some thoughts on some of the comments I've read so far, but probably not until end of day. That being said, if anyone would like to ask some questions, I might be able to answer. There are definitely some misconceptions about what being a working scientist in this field is like, about publication/peer review, the relative importance of different radiative forcings on the climate system, the role of climate modeling, etc.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by XNN

I've been lurking for some time and thought a post might be in order. As background, I'm a climate scientist. I have a Ph.D. in climatology and am actively working and publishing in the field, although not on proxy climate reconstruction. That being said, I do work in a narrow area related to the use of statistical methods in climatology and have dealt in the past with numerical weather prediction models, as well as global and regional climate models and their output.

(Note: I'm a government scientist -- not in the States -- who has worked during the tenure of parties with very, very different viewpoints on climate change.)

I've tried to keep up with this and related threads on a couple of sites I frequent. It has definitely been interesting seeing the reaction to the UEA email leak. Responses from both "sides" of the debate are pretty amusing, actually.

I'm on my lunch break, so I can't linger long. I might pipe in with some thoughts on some of the comments I've read so far, but probably not until end of day. That being said, if anyone would like to ask some questions, I might be able to answer. There are definitely some misconceptions about what being a working scientist in this field is like, about publication/peer review, the relative importance of different radiative forcings on the climate system, the role of climate modeling, etc.

Yeah! Thank you for de-lurking!

[Dulin's Books]

XNN Have you read the NAS and Wegman reports about Mann's hockey stick paper?

Please since you are in statistics I'd like your opinion of the method used for Wegman and also if you could your remarks about rasmus response to post 19 here

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...date/#comments

and if you could Lloyd Flack's comments in that thread from i believe #35 onward. Its not very long i promise. thanks for your time and input.

[Daithi]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

I believe in global warming, and I believe it is largely caused by things we are doing to the planet, but I have to admit I’m biased. I believe because I read Scientific American, subscribe online to New Scientist, listen to podcasts from Nature and Science Friday, keep up with the latest news from Science Daily, read books by scientists, etc. I haven’t paid much attention to Fox news commentators or listened to what scientific experts like Rush Limbaugh or Republican politicians have to say on the subject, so for those who are ahead of me in that regard, please forgive my ignorance.

And that’s all I’m going to say about that, because I have no desire to waste my time trying to convince the unconvincible.

I do much the same as WT Sharpe, but I came to a different conclusion a year or two ago. I don't know if global warming is occuring or not, but I don't believe the science is settled and find it extremelly disturbing that dissenting voices are ignored, ridiculed, and referred to as "deniers" as in holocaust deniers. I also could not understand the practice of not providing dissenters with the data and models the science was based upon. This was all before the emails from Jones, et. al. were released.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by Daithi

I do much the same as WT Sharpe, but I came to a different conclusion a year or two ago. I don't know if global warming is occuring or not, but I don't believe the science is settled and find it extremelly disturbing that dissenting voices are ignored, ridiculed, and referred to as "deniers" as in holocaust deniers. I also could not understand the practice of not providing dissenters with the data and models the science was based upon. This was all before the emails from Jones, et. al. were released.

I regard "global warming" as just another of the periodic outbreaks of pseudoscientific hysteria, of the same ilk as the outbreaks of religious or economic hysteria.

In my lifetime, the outbreaks have included the "global cooling" hyteria of the 1970s, along with the "overpopulation and famine" hysteria of the same period. And of course there is the ever popular and long running "we are running out of oil" hysteria dating from at least the 1960s.

The symptoms include those you have identified above.

Obligatory Book Reference: I recommend a free ebook: "Fantastic Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds." http://manybooks.net/titles/mackaych2451824518-8.html

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Daithi

I do much the same as WT Sharpe, but I came to a different conclusion a year or two ago. I don't know if global warming is occuring or not, but I don't believe the science is settled and find it extremelly disturbing that dissenting voices are ignored, ridiculed, and referred to as "deniers" as in holocaust deniers. I also could not understand the practice of not providing dissenters with the data and models the science was based upon. This was all before the emails from Jones, et. al. were released.

I actually agree with this (thought I'm sure that is going to bring another flurry of attacks my way). All input should be evaluated and published on the Scientific Stage. My issue is when laymen, politicians and clergy try to do science in public forums and media. If there are dissenting voices these must be raised in the proper context the one of the established science processes, not on Ereader forums, not on NBC Nightly news etc. etc.

If data is not being shared openly and honestly then proper ethics of science are not being observed.

[XNN]

Originally Posted by Dulin's Books

XNN Have you read the NAS and Wegman reports about Mann's hockey stick paper?

Sorry, no I haven't. Paleo work is well outside my direct area of expertise.

Please since you are in statistics I'd like your opinion of the method used for Wegman and also if you could your remarks about rasmus response to post 19 here

Linked quote and reply:

From link: "Re #10 response: Gavin, you forgot to mention the other sort-of original part of the Wegman recommendations, which is to employ a lot more statisticians in climate science research.

[Response:I have yet to see any evidence for the implicit assertion that statistitians bring forth the true answers whereas other scientists don't. My guess is that there are clever statisticians as well as poor statisticians - probably as in other disciplines. There are as far as I know a number of statisticians involved in climate research already, and they bring in benefitial new aspects to the analysis, but physicists are just as important (if not more) for advancing the climate science. I sounds as if Wegman has some naive idea are some kind of magicians who can bring out the right numbers (?). -rasmus]"

I'm of two minds here. I have seen truly disastrous -- at least from the standpoint of statistical methods -- papers by pure climatologists get past peer review. These definitely would have benefited from a statistician's eye. On the other hand, I have seen pure statisticians try to cross over into applied climatology and make some truly boneheaded conclusions because they didn't have a basic grounding in the physical sciences.

The strongest work tends to be from researchers with a solid background in both disciplines, or by collaborations between the two camps. In Canada (where I work) the climate research community has, possibly by chance, fallen into this mold. Given the size of the community, I think that this has allowed us to punch above our weight class, so to speak. As an example, the former head of the national climate modeling center and current director of climate research within the government is a statistician.

[fugazied]

I really find it amazing that so many people reject the science on global warming which is agreed upon by 97% of climate scientists. I don't know if this is from a fear/disbelief in empirical scientific methods from flat earthers, or paranoid conspiracy theories claiming anything backed by the UN must be evil, or a climate science education primarily from fox news.

You have:
- Massive increase in carbon output
- Scientific evidence proving that in an atmospheric system, carbon traps heat
- Scientific evidence demonstrating rising sea temps, rising land temps, coral bleaching, 20 thousand year old glaciers disappearing, large chunks of ice floating off from Antarctica, massive rise in occurence and ferocity natural disasters, massive droughts and floods in different parts of the world, shifting rain patterns and numerous other changes all very well documented.

Yet people can keep a straight face and reject the science on offer. It is a testament to the ignorance that the common man is capable of.

I wonder if the skeptics will go for the theory of gravity next, or perhaps there will be a resurgence in the belief that the universe revolves around the earth. We already know most of them reject the theory of evolution.