| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/19/2007 10:13:56 AM · #126 |
Well that's certainly how I view things (with my scant scientific knowledge).
I'm wondering if any skeptics will know how to counter the presumption that many of us harbour, which is –given that we spew billions of tons of pollutive toxins into the atmosphere daily – how can man's activity not have an effect resulting in likely climate change?
If we assume most people can't cite any documents, won't spend time researching beyond the TV, newspapers and word of mouth, then what should the media recommend people do? Surely the skeptics' argument is pointless and counter productive to a more efficient way of living? |
|
|
|
11/19/2007 10:14:40 AM · #127 |
Originally posted by JohnnyPhD:
Your third link I won't read cause it says "Blog" which, to me, is an awesome indication of bad information an opinions.
|
Your career as a scientist is going to follow traditional lines I see. There will be sources of information that you will refuse to read or consider. So we'll have one more scientist that will limit his own abilities with preconceived notions about the validity of certain data sources. Well, maybe data is the wrong word. Ideas.. yeah, that's the right word.
|
|
|
|
11/19/2007 10:22:05 AM · #128 |
The Schulte article. First of all, you could go much further than "less than half" - just take a random sample of peer-reviewed articles, and the great majority will say nothing about climate change. Largely because most of them will be about other things. A similar study (Peiser, unpublished) was rejected from Science for huge methodological errors (which the author has acknowledged). As the Schulte article has not yet been released, it's hard to know what they did but at best they found 6% of studies explicitly rejecting AGW.
I also think it's funny that the same people argue "Scientists aren't allowed to speak out" and "look at all the science that refutes AGW!" Only one of those can be true.
Edit to add: It appears that the Schulte article has been rejected by the "Journal of Energy and Environment", pretty much removing it from being significant to the debate. Note that the editor of the JEE, Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, is known as a climate skeptic, so rejection of a skeptical article from this journal means it must have been pretty weak.
Message edited by author 2007-11-19 11:14:31. |
|
|
|
11/19/2007 10:29:20 AM · #129 |
Originally posted by eamurdock:
So do we. But for some reason environmental scientists are expected to eliminate all uncertainty before we can act. "We need further study" is a DELIBERATE strategy to postpone action, a delay we can ill afford. |
Don't you think it was a good thing people said we need to study this further back in the 70's when some scientists were suggesting to cover the ice caps with soot to get them to melt because they were certain that the overwhelming evidence showed we were heading to an ice age and had very little time to react? Reacting to uncertain data can be just as bas as not reacting to uncertain data. I deal with skeptics daily too (the guy that sits in the back of the room that says "it will never work" or "we tried that before"). Skeptics are an important part of the system as they keep us honest and keep us from making mistakes. We hate the skeptics, but in reality they are our best friend.
Originally posted by eamurdock:
We don't know exactly where or how it will fail. We can make estimates, however, and we know that the current load far exceeds what the system can handle. |
I don't envy you. Your world is very uncertain and you don't have much to work with (compared to my arena) yet you are expected to have all the answers. Add to that the politcal pressure now that it's a political issue...
|
|
|
|
11/19/2007 10:31:38 AM · #130 |
From what I can tell this is a press release written my the Hudson Institute for a book by one of their fellows. There is no information on the methodology used, or what constitutes "Evidence countering man-made global warming." In my experience (including in this thread) that may just mean the acknowledgment of uncertainty.
Regardless, it is certainly not peer reviewed research. |
|
|
|
11/19/2007 10:34:00 AM · #131 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm just going to have to point this post out to fir3bird as an example of exactly what I'm talking about. What does this post really say or add to the debate? |
Well, I guess we'll have to start a new forum for debates where you're not allowed to post unless you cite primary information sources, or are of Mensa intellectual status. I see in another post that it appears for you to debate, you must be open to changing your mind. Congratulations.
I believe that it's possible that a post may appear here that changes my mind on the subject. I'd rate it a better chance than my winning the lottery this week. ;) But I don't expect to see that post. I don't mind seeing any of the posts in this discussion because I realize it's a discussion, not a debate. As I suggested at the head of my post, rules and restricted participation would be required for a debate.
So Doc, I think you're tilting at windmills and that's kinda neat. I suspect our opinions on human activities on the planet are not far from the same. I fear our opinions of the radicalization of the subject are far different. But differences make the world go round.
Message edited by author 2007-11-19 10:35:38.
|
|
|
|
11/19/2007 10:44:32 AM · #132 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by eamurdock:
So do we. But for some reason environmental scientists are expected to eliminate all uncertainty before we can act. "We need further study" is a DELIBERATE strategy to postpone action, a delay we can ill afford. |
Don't you think it was a good thing people said we need to study this further back in the 70's when some scientists were suggesting to cover the ice caps with soot to get them to melt because they were certain that the overwhelming evidence showed we were heading to an ice age and had very little time to react? Reacting to uncertain data can be just as bas as not reacting to uncertain data. I deal with skeptics daily too (the guy that sits in the back of the room that says "it will never work" or "we tried that before"). Skeptics are an important part of the system as they keep us honest and keep us from making mistakes. We hate the skeptics, but in reality they are our best friend. |
I agree 100%. I think that solutions need to be conservative and reversible, which is why I'm opposed to current suggestions to putting millions of tiny 'sun blockers' into orbit, for instance - what if we're wrong? What if we put up too much? what if there's an unintended consequence?
To be fair, however, there's a huge gap between what was going on in the 70's (a hypothesis and some brainstorming about possible solutions) and what's going on now (a robust scientific theory with consensus support). The 70's cooling was supported by one popular science book (Ponte), a handful of speculative articles in non-technical publications (National Geographic, Time, NYT), and a smattering of scientific speculation about hints at trends. There was not a mountain of peer-reviewed research, which there is for AGW. When is there enough science? There are still those who claim the germ theory of disease is false, but we don't expect Doc to pay them much mind.
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by eamurdock:
We don't know exactly where or how it will fail. We can make estimates, however, and we know that the current load far exceeds what the system can handle. |
I don't envy you. Your world is very uncertain and you don't have much to work with (compared to my arena) yet you are expected to have all the answers. Add to that the politcal pressure now that it's a political issue... |
It's true... it's a tough one and there are a lot of competing interests. And what's more the right answer isn't always clear - what is the proper use of resources? What should be the relationship of humans to nature? In some ways AGW is a relief because there is at least one clear WRONG answer against which we can work... |
|
|
|
11/19/2007 11:35:31 AM · #133 |
Originally posted by eamurdock:
Exactly! You know how accurate you need to be to say this is safe/this isn't safe.
So do we. But for some reason environmental scientists are expected to eliminate all uncertainty before we can act. |
Eamurdock - I have enjoyed the civility of your posts, thanks for advancing the discussion. With regard to the above, the primary difference I see is that the magnitude of the uncertainties in the temperature data is, arguably, not known and impossible to determine. In contrast, the inaccuracy of a gauge is known within close tolerances.
Accordingly, accounting for deviations within a well-known range is quite different than statistical attempts to account for unknown deviations across thousands of dissimilar gauges in dissimilar environments installed in dissimilar manner, etc, etc. So I don't believe anybody is asking environmental scientists to eliminate all uncertainty, they are simply questioning whether environmental scientists have a good enough understanding and accounting for the uncertainties.
I personally believe that the uncertainties may taint the predictions, but probably only as to the magnitude, and not the existence of the issue. I am not foreclosed to the notion that reasonable minds can and will differ on this and other issues. |
|
|
|
11/19/2007 11:37:48 AM · #134 |
Originally posted by fir3bird:
Originally posted by JohnnyPhD:
Your third link I won't read cause it says "Blog" which, to me, is an awesome indication of bad information an opinions.
|
Your career as a scientist is going to follow traditional lines I see. There will be sources of information that you will refuse to read or consider. So we'll have one more scientist that will limit his own abilities with preconceived notions about the validity of certain data sources. Well, maybe data is the wrong word. Ideas.. yeah, that's the right word. |
If you would rather have a scientist who is basing his knowledge on a blog rather than primary and secondary literature that is peer reviewed by scientists (that are both directly related to the field and unrelated to the field) then I think you have a little more to worry about than global warming. I guess I will be traditional, as my knowledge will come from educated people who are qualified to disseminate information, rather than Johnny Skeptic who reads "the american thinker" and immediately posts on his "blog" that it is all a hoax. Anyone can have a blog. Hell, I can start one right now, although it will most likely revolve around girls and my pursuit of a 70-200mm. I would rather listen to someone that has dedicted their life to asking questions and finding the answers, whether they agree with his ideas or not. Of course there will be false data presented and mistakes made, but that happens with everything. I guess I would prefer a doctor to work on me rather than an accountant who read a medical blog. |
|
|
|
11/19/2007 11:55:04 AM · #135 |
Originally posted by Patents4u:
Eamurdock - I have enjoyed the civility of your posts, thanks for advancing the discussion. |
Thank you for that! I work hard to stay civil and on topic because I think most laypeople who are skeptics are skeptics honestly and in good faith, and simply don't have access to the primary literature. I want people to hear the arguments, not just think I'm a blowhard. ;)
Originally posted by Patents4u:
With regard to the above, the primary difference I see is that the magnitude of the uncertainties in the temperature data is, arguably, not known and impossible to determine. In contrast, the inaccuracy of a gauge is known within close tolerances.
|
Actually, there are good estimates of the uncertainties, for a very up-to-date example see:
Kettleborough JA et al. Estimates of uncertainty in predictions of global mean surface temperature. Journal of climate [0894-8755] 2007 20(5) pg 843-855
The uncertainties are indeed higher than those in many other fields (LoudDog's 777 wing test video is, BTW, pretty awesome) but again that's not the same as not knowing anything.
Also important to note - point temperature measurements matter, but they are only one tiny piece of the puzzle. So while there are problems with them, the problems are generally overstated, and the significance of those data to the overall conclusion is greatly exaggerated.
One thing climate scientists do not do is sit and look at a graph of temperature readings and say "well, it seems to be going up, guess that's that." Apparent temperature trends are seen as supporting evidence to a great deal of other work, in essence validating the existing models - if one were to just extrapolate "trends" one would be laughed out of the room. |
|
|
|
11/19/2007 12:07:31 PM · #136 |
I grew up in the 70s. An imminent Ice Age was predicted. The Ozone was going away, it was irreversible, we'll all be radiated to death by UV rays. And oh yeah, we're out of oil by now too.
Not that we shouldn't do something of course, but I have my doubts about a lot of what they're proposing we do. Everyone has their own agenda, and money buys influence, so you can't believe a lot of what you hear on the subject.
If gore was all that worried about global warming he'd seriously change his ways (info about his house/estate, flying so much, etc). Bush and much of the military-industrial complex has it's financial interests in oil, gas and war. The general population wants SUVs not prius's, big houses that eat energy (at least in the US), etc.
The government did a good job cleaning up the environment. Now everything is made in china, and they're trashing the joint over there. It's a lot like chopping wood - try to do it and not break a sweat. If you want the wood, you're gonna sweat.
|
|
|
|
11/19/2007 12:26:58 PM · #137 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
I grew up in the 70s. An imminent Ice Age was predicted. |
Asked and answered. See above.
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
The Ozone was going away, it was irreversible, we'll all be radiated to death by UV rays. |
It was going away, and it was fixed because people listened to the scientists. Unfortunately, AGW is a much harder problem to fix for a lot of reasons.
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
And oh yeah, we're out of oil by now too. |
By some estimates, yes. So? Science isn't always right but it's the best we've got. You're using a computer that was created by science, despite the fact that you've proven scientists are all lying frauds?
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
If gore was all that worried about global warming he'd seriously change his ways (info about his house/estate, flying so much, etc). |
So thoroughly debunked it's not even funny, and even if it weren't it's a strawman argument that has no bearing on the truth value of climate theory.
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
Bush and much of the military-industrial complex has it's financial interests in oil, gas and war. The general population wants SUVs not prius's, big houses that eat energy (at least in the US), etc.
The government did a good job cleaning up the environment. Now everything is made in china, and they're trashing the joint over there. It's a lot like chopping wood - try to do it and not break a sweat. If you want the wood, you're gonna sweat. |
True. We change the environment to suit our purposes, and no one but fringe wackos are suggesting we shouldn't. But there will be real, huge economic and health costs from climate change, and those should be balanced against the costs of action. Those who oppose action are those who are currently profiting from the status quo and that the costs are largely externalized from those organizations. |
|
|
|
11/19/2007 12:28:18 PM · #138 |
Originally posted by JohnnyPhD:
If you would rather have a scientist who is basing his knowledge on a blog |
Alas! You're unable to read what I wrote! I never indicated that I wanted scientists that relied *ENTIRELY* on what is written in blogs. (I do know that there are blogs that consist of mostly scientists in a particular field) But the absolute exclusion of any bit of data, or an idea within a blog, which is what you personally advocate, is the height of arrogance. IMHO :)
Pardon me If I've "made" you have to post again. LOL
|
|
|
|
11/19/2007 12:48:33 PM · #139 |
Where does carbon come from? Outer space? Follow me on this a minute...
The issue is too much CO2 in the atmosphere, right? And that's cause by burning (releasing) the carbon in oil, gas and coal that's been trapped/stored for millions of years.
Where did that carbon come from? Plants and animals that once lived here on earth. So that carbon was captured from .... the sun, air, what? If was once free what was the earth like then?
If all that carbon was once free, but the earth wasn't a hothouse like Venus, then why not? If it wasn't free, where was it? Where did the current carbon come from? I ask because coal and expecially oil are buried deeply in the earth, miles UNDER the sea even. So perhaps oil isn't dead dinosaurs afterall? If not, then it's possible a rescourse that the earth itself creates and it may regenerate?
My house and the furniture in it are made of wood - carbon - grown in (mostly) my lifetime. It's locked up carbon, not in the atmosphere. I threw out a cardboard box today, and a magazine - recently free carbon that will almost certainly be put in a landfill and locked up.
I don't think the issue is (primarily) carbon.
Why? Well, teh above for one. Second, the amount of sunlight striking the surface of the earth is down 10-15% in the last 50 years - blocked by the atmosphere.
I think the issue is the HEAT we're releasing from this locked up coal/gas/oil. Drive and your car gets hot. My house is 70F, the outside is 34F. I keep adding heat to the house and it escapes to the atmosphere...warming the earth. My blacktop driveway is still warm at 2 am in the summer - the grass is not. More heat building up in the atmosphere. My living body gives off heat. More people, more heat.
back to the 'faulty' scientists for a moment...based on the scientists of a few years back i thought the world would be overpopulated and we'd be starving by now. Seems they keep changing what the next calamity is going to be.
|
|
|
|
11/19/2007 01:01:00 PM · #140 |
| The purpose of the American Thinker link was to illustrate that science is not always driven by pure objective fact and tends, much as the rest of humanity does, to jump on unfounded bandwagons or give inflated credence to spurious data upon occasion. It lists DDT as an example I believe is very germaine to our current discussion. The banning of DDT was adopted by the world community based on false data and a famous book filled with a host of incorrect information but to this day, even with the falacies having been exposed, DDT is not used as it should be. DDT use would have prevented millions of deaths from malaria. The pure scientific fact got railroaded. |
|
|
|
11/19/2007 01:19:32 PM · #141 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
Where does carbon come from? Outer space? Follow me on this a minute... |
The carbon cycle was a pretty basic topic in my biology classes.
Mass deforestation doesn't help, along with a rapid increase in generation.
|
|
|
|
11/19/2007 01:46:17 PM · #142 |
Is the scientific community more often right or wrong? Can we decently take the chance that they might be wrong? What's the risk in saving some energy?
It's incredible how stubborn some people are :( |
|
|
|
11/19/2007 02:04:53 PM · #143 |
Originally posted by MistyMucky:
Is the scientific community more often right or wrong? Can we decently take the chance that they might be wrong? What's the risk in saving some energy?
It's incredible how stubborn some people are :( |
THe scientific community has pretty much debunked global warming.
Only a select few with ulterior motives and the soap box get the grease.
|
|
|
|
11/19/2007 02:05:14 PM · #144 |
Originally posted by fir3bird:
Originally posted by JohnnyPhD:
If you would rather have a scientist who is basing his knowledge on a blog |
Alas! You're unable to read what I wrote! I never indicated that I wanted scientists that relied *ENTIRELY* on what is written in blogs. (I do know that there are blogs that consist of mostly scientists in a particular field) But the absolute exclusion of any bit of data, or an idea within a blog, which is what you personally advocate, is the height of arrogance. IMHO :)
Pardon me If I've "made" you have to post again. LOL |
My reading comprehension isn't what I thought it was. Or maybe it is. You went after my future as a scientist because I choose not to read blogs. My opinion of blogs is just that, my opinion. I do not credit them as reliable as anyone can have one, from me to the truly informed. However, you seem to find fault in that, which is your opinion. I don't think I said a "scientist that relied *entirely* on what is written in blogs," or atleast I didn't mean it that way. I guess a "scientist that gains much of their knowledge from blogs" would be better worded. Maybe not, I guess that's why I wasn't an English major.
But what you say is "but the absolute exclusion of any bit of data..." Where would that data come from? I doubt any chemist or Biologist would present data in a blog. Maybe I'm wrong, but probably not on this one. We, unfortunately, work our asses off to get data to submit to quality peer reviewed scientific journals. For the most part we are very protective of our data and methods until they are published because we do not want someone else stealing them. Also, solid, valid publications are what get incorporated into grant proposals so that our research can get further funded and we have a job. Therefore, the idea of getting data from a blog is absurd because, like I said in my response, I will read the primary and secondary literature that they came from (Alas! you're unable to read what I wrote). As for ideas in blogs: sure. A lot of people have a lot of great ideas. But if I entered your field today and said "i have an idea" because I read some online posts you would probably laugh at me, even if it was a good one. So I don't believe I am being arrogant (maybe a jackass, but not arrogant) I personally hate science (work in a lab for a few years and you'll probably agree) but I have the utmost respect for these Ph.D doctors and their desire to find the answers, as pain staking as it is. They have dedicated themselves to wasting away in a lab and reading the literature for upwards of 9 years (4 undergrad, 5 typically for grad school) all to gain a better understanding of life and to let people know what they find. I would rather listen to them, rather than anyone with a web browser. But that is my opinion.
I know, I keep posting when I say I'll stop. I personally don't like these arguments because, well, I'm not good at arguing. also, these types of forums do nothing for my portrait work.
This is my last post...until my next one. |
|
|
|
11/19/2007 02:13:11 PM · #145 |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
THe scientific community has pretty much debunked global warming.
Only a select few with ulterior motives and the soap box get the grease. |
So the IPCC, American Association for the Advancement of Science, US National Academy of Science, American Meteorological Society and others are all just shills in this shell game ?
|
|
|
|
11/19/2007 02:21:16 PM · #146 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
THe scientific community has pretty much debunked global warming.
Only a select few with ulterior motives and the soap box get the grease. |
So the IPCC, American Association for the Advancement of Science, US National Academy of Science, American Meteorological Society and others are all just shills in this shell game ? |
Personally, I'd rather get my information from an unbiased source like a lobbyist for Exxon-Mobil ... |
|
|
|
11/19/2007 02:23:00 PM · #147 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
THe scientific community has pretty much debunked global warming.
Only a select few with ulterior motives and the soap box get the grease. |
So the IPCC, American Association for the Advancement of Science, US National Academy of Science, American Meteorological Society and others are all just shills in this shell game ? |
Read this //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
Not that it's a debunking, but there are SOOOO many vairables involved that who's to say who is right?
Temps are rising now. But they were dropping from the 40's to the late 70s, hence Chicken Little's call for a coming Ice Age. Now Mr. Little says we're all melting.
If the first conclusion was wrong, does that make the second one right?
So there is a trend for however many years that the earth is heating up. Could be normal. There was an ice age, and things got damnedably cold - and it warmed up again - neither was caused by humans. We are a hubris lot to take credit, or blame, for changing the planet.
|
|
|
|
11/19/2007 02:24:32 PM · #148 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
THe scientific community has pretty much debunked global warming.
Only a select few with ulterior motives and the soap box get the grease. |
So the IPCC, American Association for the Advancement of Science, US National Academy of Science, American Meteorological Society and others are all just shills in this shell game ? |
Read this //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
Not that it's a debunking, but there are SOOOO many vairables involved that who's to say who is right?
Temps are rising now. But they were dropping from the 40's to the late 70s, hence Chicken Little's call for a coming Ice Age. Now Mr. Little says we're all melting.
If the first conclusion was wrong, does that make the second one right?
So there is a trend for however many years that the earth is heating up. Could be normal. There was an ice age, and things got damnedably cold - and it warmed up again - neither was caused by humans. We are a hubris lot to take credit, or blame, for changing the planet. |
From your own link 'This hypothesis never had significant scientific support, but gained temporary popular attention due to press reports following a better understanding of ice age cycles and a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s.'
|
|
|
|
11/19/2007 02:33:20 PM · #149 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
Not that it's a debunking, but there are SOOOO many vairables involved that who's to say who is right? |
It's not about who is right, it's just about how much the scientific community is right. Nobody claims to know how warm it will be in 50 years. One should just know that even the best case scenario does not look very good.
Seriously, you trust scientists in developing highly complicated digital cameras, but not in plotting some sea temperatures? Are you kidding?
|
|
|
|
11/19/2007 02:39:08 PM · #150 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
Not that it's a debunking, but there are SOOOO many vairables involved that who's to say who is right?
Temps are rising now. But they were dropping from the 40's to the late 70s, hence Chicken Little's call for a coming Ice Age. Now Mr. Little says we're all melting.
If the first conclusion was wrong, does that make the second one right?
So there is a trend for however many years that the earth is heating up. Could be normal. There was an ice age, and things got damnedably cold - and it warmed up again - neither was caused by humans. We are a hubris lot to take credit, or blame, for changing the planet. |
Again. And again and again and again:
THE EVIDENCE FOR GLOBAL WARMING DOES NOT COME FROM TEMPERATURE TRENDS.
The evidence is based on knowledge of the climate system as a whole, from understanding the variables that contribute to climatic patterns, and from recent advances in understanding the nature of non-linear systems.
Recent temperature trends are significant because they validate the models and show that things are behaving how we expect. AGW theory is not, not, not, an empirical extrapolation of measured temperature trends.
The "Scientists were wrong before, therefore let's do nothing" argument is the one I'm most tired of. Science was wrong before. It's wrong now, but less so. We are constantly improving our understanding of these systems. To compare what a few people got some press with in the 70's to the massive and cohesive scientific consensus that currently exists is, frankly, absurd.
I'm sympathetic to DrAchoo's demand for primary literature; I don't know that it needs to be primary but it needs to be from reputable sources. I can find things on the internet saying that relativity is false, that the holocaust never happened, that the germ theory of disease is a conspiricy, that 9/11 was carried out by the CIA but that doesn't make them true, and they all suffer from the same problems as the climate denialists - the constant parroting of the same talking points over and over, ignoring the fact that they have ALL been refuted at length.
But I'll keep at it, because it's important and it's my responsibility as a scientist to do so. |
|
