Global Warming | Fact or Fiction?

[shawn001]

Oceans Started Warming 135 Years Ago, Study Suggests

Oceans Started Warming 135 Years Ago | Global Warming & Sea-Level Rise | LiveScience

 

[shawn001]

Work In progress, if you haven't seen this its very much worth watching on PBS.

EARTH: The Operators' Manual

EARTH: The Operators' Manual : PBS

 

[work in progress]

Work In progress, if you haven't seen this its very much worth watching on PBS.

EARTH: The Operators' Manual

EARTH: The Operators' Manual : PBS

Thanks for the tip! I saw a promotional piece about this documentary awhile ago and forgot all about it.

I don't know if you've noticed this lately in your postings, but I'm finding that so much of the climate change issue is happening here and now -- especially in stories about how the extra heat and water vapour in the atmosphere is loading the dice for increasingly radical weather effects -- that the story is going right in the general news discussion, rather than being isolated in the topic of global warming. Also, some of the polling data I've heard (one referenced on the Texas public radio KERA program THINK) are showing that it's the experience of extreme weather of late that's shifting poll numbers towards greater acceptance of the reality that the climate is changing.

 

[shawn001]

Thanks for the tip! I saw a promotional piece about this documentary awhile ago and forgot all about it.

I don't know if you've noticed this lately in your postings, but I'm finding that so much of the climate change issue is happening here and now -- especially in stories about how the extra heat and water vapour in the atmosphere is loading the dice for increasingly radical weather effects -- that the story is going right in the general news discussion, rather than being isolated in the topic of global warming. Also, some of the polling data I've heard (one referenced on the Texas public radio KERA program THINK) are showing that it's the experience of extreme weather of late that's shifting poll numbers towards greater acceptance of the reality that the climate is changing.

I have been following the news and research now and for about the last 8 years at least.


Let me know after you watch that program.

I knew already the Pentagon and Armed forces were getting involved and do not deny warming and know its very real.

"Rear Admiral David Titley, Oceanographer of the Navy, and a contributor to the Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review which in 2010, for the first time, cited climate change as a "threat multiplier"

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

NOAA Confirms Unprecedented Warmth in March

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has released its March 2012 National Overview report, confirming that March was more than just a month of scattered warmth--it shattered records across the U.S., becoming the only month ever recorded, except for January 2006, that had surpassed its record by such a large margin.

According to NOAA, the average temperature across the U.S. was 8.6 degrees above the 20th century average.

 

[Revoltingest]

More controversy in the science community.....

http://washingtonexaminer.com/polit...asa’s-global-warming-endorsement/469366

In an unprecedented slap at NASA’s endorsement of global warming science, nearly 50 former astronauts and scientists--including the ex-boss of the Johnson Space Center--claim the agency is on the wrong side of science and must change course or ruin the reputation of the world’s top space agency.

Challenging statements from NASA that man is causing climate change, the former NASA executives demanded in a letter to Administrator Charles Bolden that he and the agency “refrain from including unproven remarks” supporting global warming in the media.

“We feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate,” they wrote. “At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.”

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

More controversy in the science community.....

http://washingtonexaminer.com/polit...demn-nasa’s-global-warming-endorsement/469366

If this letter and list of signatures is accurate, then it isn't really controversy in the "science community" at all, and not just because 50 signatures is meaningless. Some of those on the list may have some sort of expertise, but based on their positions it's mainly a bunch of people, from a manager of motion simulators to aircraft maintenance specialists, who are (mis)using some connection with a scientific organization to make political noise.

 

[Revoltingest]

If this letter and list of signatures is accurate, then it isn't really controversy in the "science community" at all, and not just because 50 signatures is meaningless. Some of those on the list may have some sort of expertise, but based on their positions it's mainly a bunch of people, from a manager of motion simulators to aircraft maintenance specialists, who are (mis)using some connection with a scientific organization to make political noise.

Of course, the other side has its share of meaningless advocates too.
Yet people anxious to believe place great faith in them.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Of course, the other side has its share of meaningless advocates too.
Yet people anxious to believe place great faith in them.

Not when it comes to the science. They don't have to. Only when it comes to the political accusations against "deniers" and so forth is the "other side" so willing to accept unfounded rhetoric about X scientist who is skeptical about mainstream AGW being "a shill for big oil" or some such thing.

They don't have to turn to Al Gore or greenpeace or whomever when it comes to the theory itself. The consensus of the scientific community is that AGW is real, dangerous (perhaps catastrophic), and will continue to proceed within the margins of error established by IPCC endorsed climate models.

 

[Revoltingest]

Not when it comes to the science. They don't have to. Only when it comes to the political accusations against "deniers" and so forth is the "other side" so willing to accept unfounded rhetoric about X scientist who is skeptical about mainstream AGW being "a shill for big oil" or some such thing.

Caution there, fella....I have a slide rule, & I know how to use it! I'm a big fan of science. I studied it & used it effectively as an engineer.
But I also notice that some fans of science will take a strong position on issues in which they're not expert. So they look to authority for confirmation.
But when they find experts on both sides, the opposing side is demonized & dismissed. Lay people will do this without analysis, so it resembles faith
based belief. I've no expertise in climate science, so when I see reasoned arguments by experts on both sides, this inspires my skepticism.
Thus, I don't quickly embrace or dismiss out of hand any plausible position. Opposing views should be noticed & considered when warranted.

They don't have to turn to Al Gore or greenpeace or whomever when it comes to the theory itself. The consensus of the scientific community is that AGW is real, dangerous (perhaps catastrophic), and will continue to proceed within the margins of error established by IPCC endorsed climate models.

Al Gore is a good example of a non-scientist who says unsupported things which then become treated as 'fact', eg, climate change is irreversible.

Tis better to understand than to believe.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Caution there, fella....I have a slide rule, & I know how to use it! I'm a big fan of science. I studied it & used it effectively as an engineer.
But I also notice that some fans of science will take a strong position on issues in which they're not expert.

I started debating on this thread on "page" 37:

All this tells us is that another scientist has been bribed and bought off by the oil industry! No need to panic! Seriously, it's long past time to panic. The panic should have started over 20 years ago when there was still time to stop anthropogenic warming from triggering positive feedback effects that cannot be stopped now. The old fool is waving his Nobel prize around as his authority, won't be around long enough to have to worry about catastrophic climate change.

I love it when contrary opinion and minority views, even of experts are written off as the product of ulterior motives or something equally instulting. Science has a long history of wrong minority and majority views. That doesn't make it the product of stupidity, abnormal bias, etc. You can disagree with his view, as scientists in relevant fields do, without resorting to maligning his character.

Several hundred posts later, I stopped trying to explain the science and why those who are labelled "deniers" actually can have reasons for their views that aren't a matter of being "shills for the industry" or whatever. Another member (not the one quoted above) made the whole thing an exercise in futility. But, as is typical when I find myself somehow defending an anti-mainstream AGW position which isn't even mine, what I get is mostly simply references to how it's the scientific consensus. Which is true. However, for those who are against AGW, it's much more common to tout the name of this or that scientist or group who doesn't buy the theory.

Both sides are equally eager to fling accusations at one another when it comes to the politics. My point, however, is that those who support AGW need not point to a group of 50 largely irrelevant NASA (ex-)employees when it comes to scientific evidence. They can quote mine from just about every large scale respected scientific institution, from NASA to the NAS.

So they look to authority for confirmation.

And when it comes to authority, the layperson who has little to no understanding of the issue can easily cite scientific consensus for support if their position is pro-AGW. If their position is not pro-AGW (whether it is that global warming isn't happening, it is but it is natural, it is and it is our fault but it isn't a problem, etc.), then they are more likely to cite a single authority or write off all the scientific evidence as politically biased, flawed research.

But when they find experts on both sides, the opposing side is demonized & dismissed. Lay people will do this without analysis, so it resembles faith
based belief.

Laypeople and experts both do this. That's one reason I stopped reading realclimate and climateaudit on a regular basis, despite the fact that both sites contain extremely well-informed individuals.

The difference is, that while people who support the mainstream view can do what laypeople do in general (and everyone is a layperson when it comes to most fields; in fact, in climate science alone there are no experts in all sub-fields, as it is just to vast), which is to just go with the consensus view if there is one, people who do not support AGW have no real equivalent "authority" to appeal to.

There certainly is ongoing scientific research which undermines just about every important claim put forth by e.g., the IPCC, from the dominating cause of warming to the temperature records themselves (direct and proxy). And there is always an answer to every study like this published. But unless one is actually well acquainted with the current research (like some of those on climateaudit) and is not a layperson, there's not much to do when it comes to supporting an anti-AGW position in terms of appealing to scientific authority.

I've no expertise in climate science, so when I see reasoned arguments by experts on both sides, this inspires my skepticism.
Thus, I don't quickly embrace or dismiss out of hand any plausible position. Opposing views should be noticed & considered when warranted.

The second bolded portion is certainly true. The first is problematic. I've kept up with much of the research (and controversy) in certain areas of climate science (particularly research relating to the temperature records and the atmospheric models) for years. The problem with the first bolded statement is that it is all too easy to present what appears to be a well-reasoned argument against mainstream AGW. The climate system is incredibly complex and there are any number of areas for which our knowledge is lacking and for which a well-informed person can present what appears to be a good argument to doubt the mainstream view. However, the same is true for evolution. There are those who can put together a very sophisticated, plausible, well-reasoned argument which is utterly wrong but appears convincing simply becauseit is presented to someone who doesn't have a technical background in the field. The difference is that for evolution, there isn't a minority view the way there is for climate science (and climate science is a much "younger" field), so unless one is already inclined to be persuaded, they won't be.

Tis better to understand than to believe.

Since sorrow never comes to late,
And happiness too swiftly flies.
Thought would destroy their paradise.
No more; where ignorance is bliss,
'Tis folly to be wise.
-Thomas Gray

Understanding comes at a price. If it weren't for the fact that one of my main areas of interest in my field is the application of a dynamical systems approach to neuroscience (and how these models are currently limited and where/how they need to be improved or changed), then I almost certainly wouldn't have spent the time I did trying to understand some of the major areas of climate research. Additionally, without a background in multivariate mathematics and at least some physics, even a basic understanding of the research is difficult or impossible.

 

[Revoltingest]

The second bolded portion is certainly true. The first is problematic. I've kept up with much of the research (and controversy) in certain areas of climate science (particularly research relating to the temperature records and the atmospheric models) for years. The problem with the first bolded statement is that it is all too easy to present what appears to be a well-reasoned argument against mainstream AGW. The climate system is incredibly complex and there are any number of areas for which our knowledge is lacking and for which a well-informed person can present what appears to be a good argument to doubt the mainstream view. However, the same is true for evolution. There are those who can put together a very sophisticated, plausible, well-reasoned argument which it utterly wrong simply because they are presenting it someone who doesn't have a technical background. The difference is that for evolution, there isn't a minority view the way there is for climate science (and climate science is a much "younger" field), so unless one is already inclined to be persuaded, they won't be.

I've no objection to any of that.

Understanding comes at a price. If it weren't for the fact that one of my main areas of interest in my field is the application of a dynamical systems approach to neuroscience (and how these models are currently limited and where/how they need to be improved or changed), then I almost certainly wouldn't have spent the time I did trying to understand some of the major areas of climate research. Additionally, without a background in multivariate mathematics and at least some physics, even a basic understanding of the research is difficult or impossible.

True dat.

 

[tomato1236]

I think principles of self-reliance, responsibility, efficiency and avoiding waste are terrific. Those are things we should reflect regardless of the state of the climate. That said, I don't really care if the climate changes. It's happened before for non-car-exhaust reasons and we adapted. We can adapt again, and with greater agility than before thanks to technology. Besides, I hate being cold.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think principles of self-reliance, responsibility, efficiency and avoiding waste are terrific. Those are things we should reflect regardless of the state of the climate. That said, I don't really care if the climate changes. It's happened before for non-car-exhaust reasons and we adapted. We can adapt again, and with greater agility than before thanks to technology. Besides, I hate being cold.

We might be less able to smoothly adapt this time, since populations are much greater in affected areas.
But as you say, what's gonna happen is gonna happen.

 

[work in progress]

I started debating on this thread on "page" 37:


Several hundred posts later, I stopped trying to explain the science and why those who are labelled "deniers" actually can have reasons for their views that aren't a matter of being "shills for the industry" or whatever. Another member (not the one quoted above)

And, since you quoted me, without bothering to bring it to my attention, I've got a few things to say about being smeared by a lowlife like you, who has nothing better to do than churn out disingenuous drivel. Your 'teach the controversy' strategy of promoting confusion, has been nothing more than an attempt to load everyone down with loads of technical, mostly unnecessary garbage. And your big issue about alleged discrepancies in atmospheric temperature data is something a legitimate critic would take to the scientists and engineers who deal with this stuff. There are also lots of climate and environmental bloggers who deal with statistical data and analysis -- talk to them....like Skeptical Science for example! If 97% of climate scientists see evidence for human-caused global warming, I'd like to know why such a clear majority of the experts are convinced, and why I should take the word of a handful of cranks, almost all of which have their hands dirtied by the money they take from oil and coal-funded lobby groups? And whatever goes on in atmospheric data doesn't address the fact that the oceans, which absorb 90% of the heat energy from the sun, are steadily increasing temperatures.

My objections to climate denialists like you, which you failed to provide credible answers for are the facts you can't deny: atmospheric CO2 is rising....getting close to 395ppm as of last month,

sea levels are still rising, and projected to rise 3 feet by 2050, and 9 feet by 2100...if those projections don't have to be revised upward again,

ocean acidification is still increasing, as are the declines in ocean plankton and fish stocks by coincidence.

Even if there was no such thing as global warming; what sense would it make to be complacent about the world's oceans slowly dying, and turning into anoxic swamps? But that's the logic of diehard rightwing zealots who think that unbridled capitalism can just continue on forever.

I see global warming as one of a number of crises that we are not preparing for, but will have to be dealt with in the coming decades, which also includes: overpopulation (of humans), metal and mineral resource declines...including potash...an essential for modern high-yield agriculture, post-peak oil rising energy costs, topsoil loss and fresh water declines all over the world. This world is heading into a perfect storm of converging crises caused by too many humans over-exploiting the planet's resources, and the near free ride is coming to an end within a few decades, one way or another. My attention is on what can be done on a personal and wider social level to ease the transition to a no-growth world, rather than waste time with someone parsing out statistical jargon on isolated issues.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

And, since you quoted me, without bothering to bring it to my attention, I've got a few things to say about being smeared by a lowlife like you

I quoted you and part of my response to you then. The only comment on the post was that it was the first one I made. How is that "smearing"?

who has nothing better to do than churn out disingenuous drivel. Your 'teach the controversy' strategy of promoting confusion, has been nothing more than an attempt to load everyone down with loads of technical, mostly unnecessary garbage.

Interesting. Did you read the context for my last few posts?

More controversy in the science community.....

http://washingtonexaminer.com/polit...demn-nasa’s-global-warming-endorsement/469366

If this letter and list of signatures is accurate, then it isn't really controversy in the "science community" at all, and not just because 50 signatures is meaningless. Some of those on the list may have some sort of expertise, but based on their positions it's mainly a bunch of people, from a manager of motion simulators to aircraft maintenance specialists, who are (mis)using some connection with a scientific organization to make political noise.

or

Of course, the other side has its share of meaningless advocates too.
Yet people anxious to believe place great faith in them.

Not when it comes to the science. They don't have to. Only when it comes to the political accusations against "deniers" and so forth is the "other side" so willing to accept unfounded rhetoric about X scientist who is skeptical about mainstream AGW being "a shill for big oil" or some such thing.

They don't have to turn to Al Gore or greenpeace or whomever when it comes to the theory itself. The consensus of the scientific community is that AGW is real, dangerous (perhaps catastrophic), and will continue to proceed within the margins of error established by IPCC endorsed climate models.

In fact, the post you quoted specifically addressed the problem of equating controversy with doubt. But rather than understanding what I was saying, or the context, you responded with a bunch of rhetoric.

 

[work in progress]

I quoted you and part of my response to you then. The only comment on the post was that it was the first one I made. How is that "smearing"?

If you want to use that quote from me, then include the fact that I was responding to someone else who posted a news link of a Wall Street Journal story about another "scientists who don't believe in global warming" story. And the news blurb of that particular scientist identified him as a Nobel Prize winner for credibility, without mentioning that this scientist had been long retired, and his Nobel Prize had nothing to do with climate or atmospheric research. The propaganda purposes of Murdoch Press is to use arguments from authority, even when the authority has no relevance in the issue being discussed. So an unrelated Nobel Prize is supposed to trump the 97% of climate researchers who actually study the subject. That may work on authoritarian conservative followers, but it doesn't work on free thinkers.

Interesting. Did you read the context for my last few posts?

or

I haven't read the context of any of your last few posts anywhere! I wouldn't have responded to that one, except for the fact that you used a quotation from me without providing context, as a strawman argument for some other argument!

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I wouldn't have responded to that one, except for the fact that you used a quotation from me without providing context, as a strawman argument for some other argument!

I didn't do any such thing. I used the quotation as a link to where I started to post. I didn't include either my entire post or yours, because the only point was to provide a link to where I started my involvement in the thread. After providing the link, I explained what I tried to do in the thread, and when I stated why it was fruitless, I specifically noted that it was not you whom I was referring to:

I started debating on this thread on "page" 37:


Several hundred posts later, I stopped trying to explain the science and why those who are labelled "deniers" actually can have reasons for their views that aren't a matter of being "shills for the industry" or whatever. Another member (not the one quoted above) made the whole thing an exercise in futility.

I haven't read the context of any of your last few posts anywhere!

Had you even read the entirety of the post you reacted so vehemently to, you would have realized that I said almost precisely what you stated in your response:

I've no expertise in climate science, so when I see reasoned arguments by experts on both sides, this inspires my skepticism.
Thus, I don't quickly embrace or dismiss out of hand any plausible position. Opposing views should be noticed & considered when warranted.

The second bolded portion is certainly true. The first is problematic. I've kept up with much of the research (and controversy) in certain areas of climate science (particularly research relating to the temperature records and the atmospheric models) for years. The problem with the first bolded statement is that it is all too easy to present what appears to be a well-reasoned argument against mainstream AGW. The climate system is incredibly complex and there are any number of areas for which our knowledge is lacking and for which a well-informed person can present what appears to be a good argument to doubt the mainstream view. However, the same is true for evolution. There are those who can put together a very sophisticated, plausible, well-reasoned argument which is utterly wrong but appears convincing simply becauseit is presented to someone who doesn't have a technical background in the field.

My point was almost precisely what you said here:

And, since you quoted me, without bothering to bring it to my attention, I've got a few things to say about being smeared by a lowlife like you, who has nothing better to do than churn out disingenuous drivel. Your 'teach the controversy' strategy of promoting confusion, has been nothing more than an attempt to load everyone down with loads of technical, mostly unnecessary garbage.

In the post you responded to, I specifically argued that "teaching the controversy" is misleading and problematic. Nor is it what I attempted to do throughout my involvement. I was addressing (mainly) to things I also find problematic (especially the first):
1) Writing off any and all "deniers" as unscientific, ideologically driven liars and
2) The idea that "the science is settled" and that the scientific community has provided a coherent, accurate model and a course of action

I stated, more than once, that for every study which undermined some aspect of mainstream AGW, another study answered it. I also stated before the problem with "teaching the controversy":

The problem I have judging these and other similar sites is that I still haven't decided what a good way to educate the public is. Making certain to point out all the unknowns is not likely to do any good. Same with pointing out that there is ongoing research challenging mainstream AGW theory. On the other hand, most of the poeple who believe that humans are warming the planet are missing a lot of information. Then again, having that information may do more harm then good.

So despite the fact that I have tried to be more than fair throughout the thread, and in the post you reacted to specifically noted that you were not whom I was referring to (not to mention the fact that my post was in support of AGW), apparently you are more concerned with reacting than understanding:

And, since you quoted me, without bothering to bring it to my attention, I've got a few things to say about being smeared by a lowlife like you, who has nothing better to do than churn out disingenuous drivel.

Indeed.

 

[work in progress]

Had you even read the entirety of the post you reacted so vehemently to, you would have realized that I said almost precisely what you stated in your response:

EXcept that you did NOT include the context of the person and the news source I was criticizing....and you still haven't done so here! The article celebrating scientists who reject the consensus opinion on global warming, was just another example of the slide into prurient propaganda that the formerly respected business publication - The Wall Street Journal, has taken since it became another cog in the wheel of Murdoch Press. I could start another whole thread on the subject of how Newscorp violated their promises when the sale was approved, to maintain an editorial hands-off policy, but I don't have the time or the interest to bother with it.

As for the article itself -- it made a big deal about one of the deniers being a Nobel Prize winner, without noting that he was retired, over 80 years old, and his Nobel was in solid state physics, not climate-related science. The article doesn't tell us which lobby group was promoting this scientist for a public speaking circuit, but obviously some oil company funded lobby group is paying for and promoting them.

For that matter, a whole nother thread could be started on how these Cold War-era physicists, who mostly spent their early part of their careers designing nukes, missiles and anti-missile technology for the military, have formed the core of the right wing science lobby, beginning when Fred Sykes, Robert Jastrow, Fred Singer and a few others, were enlisted to form the Marshall Institute, and use their scientific cred to lobby against 2nd hand cigarette smoke bans, against bans on cloroflurocarbons, lobby for Ronald Reagan's S.D.I. Program, and have used their talents to create confusion about global warming, and cripple any significant policies to tax carbon emissions. That is the primary objective of their campaign, so just as with evolution-deniers, they see no need to propose alternative coherent hypotheses to explain the data.....it's just another version of "teach the controversy."

My point was almost precisely what you said here:


In the post you responded to, I specifically argued that "teaching the controversy" is misleading and problematic. Nor is it what I attempted to do throughout my involvement. I was addressing (mainly) to things I also find problematic (especially the first):
1) Writing off any and all "deniers" as unscientific, ideologically driven liars and
2) The idea that "the science is settled" and that the scientific community has provided a coherent, accurate model and a course of action

Whether they are liars or not, I don't know. Some are, some may be so conservative, like Roy Spencer, that they can't consider evidence for man-made climate changing effects for ideological reasons. And this is where what science journalist - Chris Mooney calls the "smart idiot effect" comes in. A recent study by Pew Research on U.S. opinions on global warming found (no surprise) that Republicans are less likely to both: believe that the climate is warming, and that man-made causes are the main contributor to recent warming. What was surprising was that (unlike Democratic voters) Republicans with higher education were less likely to accept the scientific consensus than lower educated Republican voters:

Yet for Republicans, unlike Democrats, higher education is associated with greater skepticism that human activity is causing global warming. Only 19% of Republican college graduates say that there is solid evidence that the earth is warming and it is caused by human activity, while 31% of Republicans with less education say the same.

A Deeper Partisan Divide Over Global Warming | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press
​

So, why would education trend with skepticism or denial in Republicans and not Democrats? The Pew Study just hangs it out there unexplained, but when global warming is taken in context of other political issues, the same trend appears. It has more to do with the mindset of the person to start with, than the actual nuts and bolts of the policy issue being considered. Egalitarian thinking people are more inclined to consider evidence contrary to their worldview than authoritarian thinkers, who place ideology above all else. The authoritarian ideologue will use his education to prove or strengthen his ideology, rather than to incorporate new understandings that might shift or shape other pre-existing ideological opinions. Chris Mooney again in Salon, provides the details:

The idealistic, liberal, Enlightenment notion that knowledge will save us, or unite us, was even put to a scientific test last year—and it failed badly. Yale researcher Dan Kahan and his colleagues set out to study the relationship between political views, scientific knowledge or reasoning abilities, and opinions on contested scientific issues like global warming. ...........................................................The result was stunning and alarming. The standard view that knowing more science, or being better at mathematical reasoning, ought to make you more accepting of mainstream climate science simply crashed and burned.
Instead, here was the result. If you were already part of a cultural group predisposed to distrust climate science—e.g., a political conservative or “hierarchical-individualist”—then more science knowledge and more skill in mathematical reasoning tended to make you even more dismissive. Precisely the opposite happened with the other group—“egalitarian-communitarians” or liberals—who tended to worry more as they knew more science and math. The result was that, overall, more scientific literacy and mathematical ability led to greater political polarization over climate change—which, of course, is precisely what we see in the polls.
So much for education serving as an antidote to politically biased reasoning.


The ugly delusions of the educated conservative - Salon.com


​

The takeaway is that the few scientists who are the trusted sources for authoritarian conservatives, are at the pinnacle of using education and intellectual skills to drive a narrow, ideological agenda. The key issue isn't what they believe about global warming, but what they advise governments and the public to do about it.....which usually consists of NOTHING, regardless of the scientists individual opinion on what is happening with the world's climate. It doesn't matter if they are complete deniers that the Earth is warming....believe it is caused by natural cycles....or even accept the whole ball of wax - as often quoted science writer - Bjorn Lomborg does -- who accepts all the major consensus points but advocates doing nothing about carbon emissions or carbon sequestration even, and just spend money on "adapting" to climate change. Whatever they believe, if they are advocating the same general public policies, then they have played their own small role in pushing the world towards complete catastrophe in the coming decades.

I stated, more than once, that for every study which undermined some aspect of mainstream AGW, another study answered it. I also stated before the problem with "teaching the controversy":

So despite the fact that I have tried to be more than fair throughout the thread, and in the post you reacted to specifically noted that you were not whom I was referring to (not to mention the fact that my post was in support of AGW), apparently you are more concerned with reacting than understanding:

Indeed.

There has been legitimate unexpected new information from new research over the last 20 years, which have altered the percentages of human carbon emissions, such as: the burning of tall grasslands for third world agriculture, and the realization that agriculture (especially the factory farming meat and dairy industries) are an even larger carbon contributor than previously realized. The way I see it, these new factoids don't alter the need to phase out coal, oil and gas as the prime energy sources; they just add more issues that need to be added to the list to get carbon emissions reduced.

So what policies do you recommend for addressing the problem of AGW? A carbon tax? An end to corn and soybean subsidies? This is where the rubber meets the road.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

EXcept that you did NOT include the context of the person and the news source I was criticizing....and you still haven't done so here!

That's actually because I didn't want to portray you in a negative light. But if you want the context, no problem.

Another member posted a link which discussed the resignation of a nobel-prize winning physicist from the American Physical Society because the society made a public claim concerning AGW he disagreed with:

No Need to Panic About Global Warming

Your response was to malign his character, integrity, even his intellectual capacity (emphasis added and quoted links snipped for brevity)

All this tells us is that another scientist has been bribed and bought off by the oil industry! No need to panic! Seriously, it's long past time to panic. The panic should have started over 20 years ago when there was still time to stop anthropogenic warming from triggering positive feedback effects that cannot be stopped now. The old fool is waving his Nobel prize around as his authority, won't be around long enough to have to worry about catastrophic climate change. Btw, according to his Wikipedia page, this is how he earned his prize...way back in 1960, I might add:

<snipped wiki quote.
​

Now, could someone tell me what his field of research and his award has to do with the study of climate research? Or, could someone tell me why this Wall Street Journal article didn't inform their readers that his credentials have nothing to do with climate science? Oh yeah, that's right... the WSJ is now owned by News Corpse...nuff said.
Well, if anyone happens to open the link to WSJ's propaganda, I wouldn't put much stock in this old fool's claim that there is no evidence of global warming over the last 10 years, when the data coming in shows 2011 tied with 1997 as the 11th warmest year, and of greatest significance - 2011 was the warmest year on r-ecord in the Arctic (with 2010 as the previous record year). The Arctic has been warming at twice the rate of increase as the global average, and the rapid loss of sea ice and melting permafrost, is the likely the beginning of runaway positive feedback effects that will make life extremely difficult, if not impossible in the coming decades. On this subject, Jeff Masters has this conclusion in his review of 2011 weather:

<snipped quote>
​

Yeah, no need to panic....if you're over 80 years old!

Not only does his expertise (physics) have quite a bit to do with climate research, but apparently your view of the earth is heavily influenced by someone who is even older and whose expertise is even less relevant:

One factor that is still completely ignored,and one of the reasons why James Lovelocke says he started thinking up a Gaia Hypothesis over 40 years ago, is that the Sun has increased its energy output at least 30% since life on Earth got started almost 4 billion years ago, and there is evidence in the basic composition of atmospheric gases that the planet's biosphere has been trying to tweak the dials of negative and positive feedback effects to optimize conditions for life.Gaia Theory

The Gaia system of feedback loops may work to regulate the planet for life under normal circumstances, but is slow to respond to shocks that result from asteroid/comet impacts, sudden increases in vulcanism (such as when continents split apart or crash together), and dealing with a lifeform that is growing and consuming resources at levels never dealt with before. Right now we are learning that natural carbon sequestration will take 100,000 years to bring CO2 levels down to pre-industrial levels. Seems obvious that if we have reached the level of sophistication to artificially engineer the environment, we also have the responsibility to clean up after ourselves....or face the consequences!

Except:

So "Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever" is

is over 80 years old

and

and his expertise has nothing to do with climate research

, but James Lovelocke, who is even older and who received his PhD in medicine, is definitely someone we want to listen to about the climate and other environmental issues.

That was the context. Your smearing a nobel-prize winning physicist (claiming he was "bought" by the "oil industry", calling him an "old fool" who has no relevant expertise, etc.), when it later turned out that one of your main views concerning the climate and the planet comes from someone even older whose specialty is medicine.

And my full response was:

All this tells us is that another scientist has been bribed and bought off by the oil industry!

I love it when contrary opinion and minority views, even of experts are written off as the product of ulterior motives or something equally instulting. Science has a long history of wrong minority and majority views. That doesn't make it the product of stupidity, abnormal bias, etc. You can disagree with his view, as scientists in relevant fields do, without resorting to maligning his character.

Now, could someone tell me what his field of research and his award has to do with the study of climate research?

If you have to ask, you can't know that much about climate research. He's a physicist. The reason he resigned from the American Physical Society is because of the official position released by those who run the group. The reason the society bothered to release such a position is because climate change involves several areas of expertise, including multiple areas of physics (along with statistics, computer science, paleobotony, dynamical systems, etc.). His field has to do with climate research because physics is central to understanding just about anything to do with the climate.

Or, could someone tell me why this Wall Street Journal article didn't inform their readers that his credentials have nothing to do with climate science?

Who knows? Could be propaganda, could be that a large number of climate scientists are physicists...

Well, if anyone happens to open the link to WSJ's propaganda, I wouldn't put much stock in this old fool's claim that there is no evidence of global warming over the last 10 years

You do realize that this is common knowledge among experts who DO firmly believe in AGW? If memory serves, back when the release of emails from East Anglia was a big deal, Phil Jones (who certainly believes in anthropogenic global warming) stated that there has been no statistically significant warming in the past 15 years. The temperature trend just isn't in the data. Does it mean that AGW doesn't exist? Absolutely not.