Global warming or not?

[kazbates]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

That, unfortunately, is easy to answer: Money. We committed our money and resources to oil and coal, to such an extent that efforts to switch to other forms of energy were easily deflected back to the oil/coal track by the ones holding the purse-strings.

Our governments are literally hogtied by Big Oil and Coal... and worse, they are totally willing and submissive to it. They buy our leaders off with wine, women, mansions and Hummers, and our leaders are more than happy to go along with it. They have been behind every effort to slow, kill or ridicule alternative energies for the past century or so, and in return, the govt has given them subsidies and tax breaks that are lavish compared to those of other industries. Until our leaders have the stones (or the public manages) to lock them out of the chambers long enough to get some honest governing done, that won't change.

That's why we desperately need lobbying reforms, as well as a commitment to put leaders in office who are willing to make the tough choices, which we have to be willing to follow. We have to stop the dirty money trail.

I couldn't agree with you more. You would think, though, that the media would want to press the issue of Big Oil and Big Coal more than they do. The threw daggers at Pres. Bush for 8 years because they disliked him so intensely (and no, I'm not going to debate his presidency). Why not point the same focus at the politicians who are helping the energy industry keep the status quo?

As for lobbyist reform, I also couldn't agree more. I had hopes that the new administration would keep their promises in this arena, but it seems I'll be disappointed again. Is it any wonder that I regard both sides of the aisle with a great deal of scepticism?

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by kazbates

I'll say again that scientists are not infallible .


I will say this, I'm not altogether opposed to scientists taking this route to open the publics' eyes about climatological changes. ..

Agreed to #1 (as you know)

I disagree though with the second point. I don't think there is any place in science for hyperbole, staging, grandizing etc. Science and the Scientific process should present the facts and move one.

Nor is science something the layman or politicians/government should be involved in. Science is and should be conducted by trained scientists.

There certainly is a place for presenting and interpreting the results of science and I've done a fair bit of that myself. I think it is very important to have an educated public and for them to be involved in supporting science. And this is where the rub is, eh? Understanding and supporting but not controlling.

I guess I have a much dimmer view on the public than you Kaz. I see a public that is driven completely by the media and the government - a nation of sheep doing whatever they are told to do by the box in the corner. I think the biggest thing we need in this country are for people to GET INVOLVED that would take us a long way toward recovery.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by kazbates

I couldn't agree with you more. You would think, though, that the media would want to press the issue of Big Oil and Big Coal more than they do. The threw daggers at Pres. Bush for 8 years because they disliked him so intensely (and no, I'm not going to debate his presidency). Why not point the same focus at the politicians who are helping the energy industry keep the status quo?

Who pays for the media? Advertisers. Who do you think they are? Gas companies. Auto companies. Credit Cards and banks. All the companies that espouse "the good life," which depends on the Oil companies to deliver goods, and the Coal companies to juice them up. That's why I said the govt is hogtied: Oil and coal are that deep into almost literally everything this country does.

[kazbates]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Agreed to #1 (as you know)

I disagree though with the second point. I don't think there is any place in science for hyperbole, staging, grandizing etc. Science and the Scientific process should present the facts and move one.

Nor is science something the layman or politicians/government should be involved in. Science is and should be conducted by trained scientists.

There certainly is a place for presenting and interpreting the results of science and I've done a fair bit of that myself. I think it is very important to have an educated public and for them to be involved in supporting science. And this is where the rub is, eh? Understanding and supporting but not controlling.

I guess I have a much dimmer view on the public than you Kaz. I see a public that is driven completely by the media and the government - a nation of sheep doing whatever they are told to do by the box in the corner. I think the biggest thing we need in this country are for people to GET INVOLVED that would take us a long way toward recovery.

Considering I teach the future public, that might effect my viewpoint!

For the most part, I think we are all pretty much self-serving. My husband drives a hybrid. I would like to say that it is because we are environmental conscientious citizens of the world and have chosen that vehicle because he must commute to work and that seemed the best alternative. The fact is he wanted to be able to drive the HOV lanes here in Virginia. Self-serving, yes, but the side benefit is that he only has to fill the gas tank once a week therefor conserving energy. It's these kinds of changes that will take time for people to accept (for whatever reason) and will ultimately help the climate. I wholeheartedly agree that we have to start somewhere, but sometimes I feel like the Going Green zealots think things should change overnight. I'm all for doing my part, but I'm not going to move into a hut, start riding a bicycle (the rear image of me riding a bike is enough to cause mass panic ) and give up my Internet. I will however, use recycled shopping bags, separate my recyclables, lower my thermostat, and make greener choices when I can.

Just to show that my husband isn't a completely hopeless case, he is salivating over the new electric cars that are supposed to be hitting the market. The only problem is that they are incredibly expensive.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by kennyc

On occasion individual scientists can be the worst! But in the end the community corrects. The body of science is not something that is made up from opinion polls or viewpoint. It it made of of measurable, repeatable replicable facts.




Something is happening, something bad is happening, we may not know exactly why but that should be only more reason to find out and do what we can to make it better. If we wait til the 25th century, it may not come.

And that's okay too I guess because 99% of all species that every lived are now extinct.

We'll just let mother Earth start over and try again. I expect I'll be long gone in even one more century (unless of course Ray is right).

That is the point I keep trying to point out. Measurable, yes. Repeatable and replicable, no! We don't have another planet for a control, and we can't compare just one variable and keep the other ones constant. We don't even know what all the other variables are. And we can't do 50 or 100 experiments and compare them to do statistical averages.

In any other scientific endevour, this lack of rigor would have any theory based on this limited of data as, "intriguing, but not testable. Let us know when you figure out how to test it.". In Global Warming, it's "quick, let's restructure the world economy, no matter how many people starve, because it has to be right."

(As for my lack of understanding of the scientific method...Degree in Micro/Molecular Biology, minor in Zoology, minor in Chemistry, long-time fossil collector, which requires a good knowledge of stratigraphy and general geology, hobby of studying quantum physics (as best I can), and three decades of computer programming, which is doing complex logic and finding flaws in the same. I think I know my way around the course...)

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

That is the point I keep trying to point out. Measurable, yes. Repeatable and replicable, no! We don't have another planet for a control, and we can't compare just one variable and keep the other ones constant. We don't even know what all the other variables are. And we can't do 50 or 100 experiments and compare them to do statistical averages.

In any other scientific endevour, this lack of rigor would have any theory based on this limited of data as, "intriguing, but not testable. Let us know when you figure out how to test it.". In Global Warming, it's "quick, let's restructure the world economy, no matter how many people starve, because it has to be right."

(As for my lack of understanding of the scientific method...Degree in Micro/Molecular Biology, minor in Zoology, minor in Chemistry, long-time fossil collector, which requires a good knowledge of stratigraphy and general geology, hobby of studying quantum physics (as best I can), and three decades of computer programming, which is doing complex logic and finding flaws in the same. I think I know my way around the course...)

Given that background (assuming it's true) I'm extremely disappointed in you. Clearly none of those interests are directly related to climatology but you should at least know better that to state that first paragraph. The studies, the theory, the results are not about duplicating the Earth you silly boy, as I'm betting you well know given the rest of your post.

The conclusions or the vast majority of climate scientists is based on a variety of evidence not simple co2 or temperature fluctuations as you harp on.

Given your scientific background I think it even more prudent that you present your evidence and data to the journals and the climate scientists!

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by kazbates

Considering I teach the future public, that might effect my viewpoint!
...

Consider you teach 3rd grade .... Kids that age are wonderful! Open, inquiring, eager to learn! Unfortunately that changes for most by the time the reach adulthood. and they become the sheep I see. I wish it weren't so.

[astra]

Originally Posted by kennyc

This article is HORRIBLE. First note that it is a VIEWPOINT (not a legitimate news article) Not once does it mention the scientific method which is the basis of science. I suppose because what they are attempting to push is some sort of public Committee Method of Science. Who are these yahoos?


It's Thanks for the humor Bilbo

Global.....

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by astra

Global.....

Interesting! Thanks for that.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Given that background (assuming it's true) I'm extremely disappointed in you. Clearly none of those interests are directly related to climatology but you should at least know better that to state that first paragraph. The studies, the theory, the results are not about duplicating the Earth you silly boy, as I'm betting you well know given the rest of your post.

The conclusions or the vast majority of climate scientists is based on a variety of evidence not simple co2 or temperature fluctuations as you harp on.

Given your scientific background I think it even more prudent that you present your evidence and data to the journals and the climate scientists!

No it's not about duplicating the Earth, it's about - 1. repeatable experiments. (how can I know something wasn't a fluke, if I can't do it again?) and - 2. replicable - Somebody who has the capability to do the same experiment (and has no vested interest in the result) does the same experiment and gets the same result. I ask, what experiments? There aren't any. There are measurements, but only direct ones for the last few hundred years, the rest being extrapolations from secondary sources. (Tree rings, ice cores, ect.) I don't say they are worthless, but they aren't as fine grained and accurate as direct measurement (and large pieces of data needed just aren't in them). Upon this a faith has been built, and woe be to the dissenters.

Now I have provided more information, described more limitations to the data, described the gaps in the logic chain, and carefully explained why I consider the current Global Warming worldview too uncertain to be making policy decisions affecting billion of current lives. What has been your response?

Nothing. NO description of where the gaps can be filled. NO specifics of where my logic chain is incorrect. NO descriptions of how experiments can be built. NO anything except -

Scientists said it.
I believe it.
That ends it.

Well, I heard that as a kid with one word changed. (I'll leave the word to the discerning reader....)

Oh yes, and calling me a liar and a fool...

[Dulin's Books]

Originally Posted by kennyc

No need to. I believe in the scientific method, therefore I believe the published data.

Well i gave you scientific data earlier and you seemed to ignore it. So here are a few more you might want to read-

Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 years (Climate Research, vol. 23, 89–110, January 2003) - Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas

Corrections to the Mann et al. (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series (Energy & Environment, vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 751-771, November 2003) - Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications (Energy & Environment, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 69-100, January 2005) - Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance (Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 32, February 2005) - Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

Reply to comment by Huybers on "Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance" (Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 32, October 2005) - Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

Reply to comment by von Storch and Zorita on "Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance" (Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 32, October 2005) - Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data (Nature 433, 613-617, February 2005) - Anders Moberg, Dmitry M. Sonechkin, Karin Holmgren, Nina M. Datsenko and Wibjörn Karlén

Comment on "The Spatial Extent of 20th-Century Warmth in the Context of the Past 1200 Years" (Science, vol. 316. no. 5833, p. 1844, June 2007) - Gerd Bürger

A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies (Energy & Environment, vol. 18, nos. 7-8, pp. 1049-1058, December 2007) - C. Loehle

Causes of the Unusually Destructive 2004 Atlantic Basin Hurricane Season (Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, vol. 87, issue 10, October 2006) - Philip J. Klotzbach, William M. Gray

Comments on "Impacts of CO2-Induced Warming on Simulated Hurricane Intensity and Precipitation: Sensitivity to the Choice of Climate Model and Convective Scheme" (Journal of Climate, vol. 18, issue 23, December 2005) - Patrick J. Michaels, Paul C. Knappenberger, Christopher Landsea

Estimating future sea level changes from past records (Global and Planetary Change, vol. 40, issues 1-2, pp. 49-54, January 2004) - Nils-Axel Mörner

Snowfall-Driven Growth in East Antarctic Ice Sheet Mitigates Recent Sea-Level Rise (Science, vol. 308. no. 5730, pp. 1898 - 1901, 24 June 2005) - Curt H. Davis, Yonghong Li, Joseph R. McConnell, Markus M. Frey, Edward Hanna

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

No it's not about duplicating the Earth,

...
Now I have provided more information, described more limitations to the data, described the gaps in the logic chain, and carefully explained why I consider the current Global Warming worldview too uncertain to be making policy decisions affecting billion of current lives. What has been your response?

Nothing. ...

Scientists said it.
I believe it.
That ends it.

Well, I heard that as a kid with one word changed. (I'll leave the word to the discerning reader....)

Oh yes, and calling me a liar and a fool...

No Ralph, your the one that said we have to replicate the Earth and that the results otherwise were bogus.

As far as YOUR data, many others have raised exactly the same issues and they have been addressed by the climate scientists who all agree that it has been considered in the results.

I have no requirement to debate you on this - it is not my science or my publication (despite the fact that I agree with it). You are perfectly welcome to your opinion. If you are so certain it negates the published conclusions then certainly you should be working to present that to the world.

As far as your analogy you miss one very important point that I've made repeatedly. Scientists are not perfect, nor are all of them right all of the time, but Science IS. It is Science that says this about Global Warming and yes I believe it. Science is the ultimate and best tool we have to understand the world around us.

I'm not sure if you are accusing me of calling you names, but I have not and will not. I respect you as an individual but your opinion on this issue is wrong.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Dulin's Books

Well i gave you scientific data earlier and you seemed to ignore it. So here are a few more you might want to read-
....

Thanks for that I will check out the links/sources/articles at my leisure. But again as with Ralph, I feel no compelling need to defend the position of Science in this matter. I am not a Climate Scientist nor do I play one on TV or the Internet, but I do trust the science that has been published on this topic and in addition it matches well with what I myself have observed happening to our world.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by Dulin's Books

Well i gave you scientific data earlier and you seemed to ignore it. So here are a few more you might want to read-...

Was the list taken from http://www.heartland.org/publication..._Alarmism.html ?

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

... described the gaps ...

Wait... I thought we were discussing climate not evolution.