Global Warming Debunked?

[zaphod2016]

Found this in a TED Talk this morning

The speaker, Kary Mullis, argues that new studies by NASA debunk the theory.

I believe the paper he is referencing is this one here.

What say you?

[Reality Check]

The TED talk has already been mentioned in this thread: Kary Mullis at Ted

I am always sceptical when a scientist in one area (biochemistry for Kary Mullis) comments on other areas (climate).
The paper is not explicitly about global warming. All it states is that the tropics (not the world) experienced increased circulation between 1985 and 2000.

[BenBurch]

As the atmosphere is a heat engine, pumping in most heat usually increases circulation.

[Poptech]

You can get 398 papers supporting skepticism here.

[A.A.Alfie]

But he rightly points out that so many scientists will have their funding removed, jobs futures etc if they don't maintain the beliefs that GW/AGW is real.

More importantly - for this fence sitter anyway - men like this, who are credible scientists - have doubts and this causes the confusion on the ground (i.e. the millions who dont get the science). Now before you go backing up and stating that he's a hack, or denier, wrong field etc. He is still a credible scientist.

Now, I don't want people trying to tell me their side is right and the other side is wrong either folks, so just keep all your stats studies and experts in your holsters thanks - too scientific for me and will go over my head.
Bunnies like me get information from both sides of the debate and frankly we get confused. The AWG belivers have credible scientists with studies and statistics to show what they want. Conversely, the deniers do too.

The believers accuse us of being scared of things we can't control, fear for a changing world and that sought of stuff and thus say we love to keep our heads in the sand. The deniers say exactly the same of the scientists who 'believe'.
One side accuses the other of dirty tricks and so does the other. and on it goes.

The media go along for the rise too, it sells copy and/or air time and being green is the latest fashion (no I'm not anti green) but it seems to have gone too far in many, many ways much in the same vein as political correctness. It's getting to the point that to have an opinion that questions or is other than 'AWG is truth' and fact that it is politically incorrect also, people are aghast and attack the questioning mind.

Frankly, the discussion is getting stale, let me know when there is some real news or an asteroid is getting close ok.
I'm kinda getting over it.



.

[Poptech]

He is not the only skeptic nobel prize winner...

Ivar Giaever, Ph.D. Physics, Nobel Prize in Physics 1973
Kary Mullis, Ph.D. Biochemistry, Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1993
Norman Borlaug, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of International Agriculture, Texas A&M University, Nobel Peace Prize 1970

Along with other "crazy deniers" like...

Freeman Dyson, Professor Emeritus of Physics, Princeton University, Lorentz Medal 1966, Max Planck Medal 1969

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by A.A.Alfie

But he rightly points out that so many scientists will have their funding removed, jobs futures etc if they don't maintain the beliefs that GW/AGW is real.

Somebody could produce the evidence that he is right, e.g. statements form funding agencies that they willl withdraw funding unless the scientist "maintain the beliefs that GW/AGW is real".

Originally Posted by A.A.Alfie

More importantly - for this fence sitter anyway - men like this, who are credible scientists - have doubts and this causes the confusion on the ground (i.e. the millions who ont get the science). Now before you go backing up and stating that he's a hack, or denier, wrong field etc. He is still a credible scientist.

The problem is that he is not a credible climate scientist. He is a credible biochemist (so long as you avoid the topic of AIDS).

[A.A.Alfie]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Somebody could produce the evidence that he is right, e.g. statements form funding agencies that they willl withdraw funding unless the scientist "maintain the beliefs that GW/AGW is real".


The problem is that he is not a credible climate scientist. He is a credible biochemist (so long as you avoid the topic of AIDS).

Ah yes... And fair enough maybe. But how the hell would I know the difference? I only work in social sciences. Millions of others haven't even my limited education (especially in this area). Who are they to believe? Your guys just because you smear this well spoken, educated man who makes sense. Or your guys because the other side smears your well spoken, educated man who makes sense?

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Somebody could produce the evidence that he is right, e.g. statements form funding agencies that they willl withdraw funding unless the scientist "maintain the beliefs that GW/AGW is real".


The problem is that he is not a credible climate scientist. He is a credible biochemist (so long as you avoid the topic of AIDS).

I had never heard of him so wikied the name, and I can't resist sharing this bit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kary_Mullis

Originally Posted by Wikipedia article on Kary Mullis

Mullis's 1998 autobiography Dancing Naked in the Mind Field, gives his account of the commercial development of PCR, as well as providing insights into the opinions and experiences of the author. In the book, Mullis chronicles his romantic relationships, use of LSD, synthesis and self-testing of novel psychoactive substances, belief in astrology and an encounter with an extraterrestrial in the form of a fluorescent raccoon.

N.B. I am not claiming that this devalues his opinions on global warming at all.

[macdoc]

Quote:

Global Warming Debunked?

how bout no -and if you don't know then lose the pre-supposition headline that it has anything to do with AGW .
If anything the paper confirms more heat energy in the geosystems.

The tropics have expanded

Quote:

Tropical zone expanding due to climate change: study

July 6th, 2009

http://www.physorg.com/news166081900.html

and the Tropopause has been rising in altitude

Quote:

Rising height of atmospheric boundary points to human impact on climate

25.07.2003

http://www.innovations-report.de/htm...cht-20192.html

•••

AAA did you read the referenced paper or are you just wanting to hear yourself talk...

Quote:

Evidence for Strengthening of the Tropical General Circulation in the 1990s

Junye Chen,12* Barbara E. Carlson,2 Anthony D. Del Genio2
Satellite observations suggest that the thermal radiation emitted by Earth to space increased by more than 5 watts per square meter, while reflected sunlight decreased by less than 2 watts per square meter, in the tropics over the period 1985-2000, with most of the increase occurring after 1990. By analyzing temporal changes in the frequency of occurrence of emitted thermal and reflected solar fluxes, the effects of El Niño-Southern Oscillation are minimized, and an independent longer-time-scale variation of the radiation budget is identified. Similar analyses of upper tropospheric humidity, cloud amount, surface air temperature, and vertical velocity confirm that these flux changes are associated with a decadal-time-scale strengthening of the tropical Hadley and Walker circulations. Equatorial convective regions have intensified in upward motion and moistened, while both the equatorial and subtropical subsidence regions have become drier and less cloudy.
<sub>1 Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Columbia University, Palisades, NY 10964, USA.
2 NASA/Goddard Institute for Space Studies, 2880 Broadway, New York, NY 10025, USA.
* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: jchen@giss.nasa.gov</sub>

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...t/295/5556/838

If you are fence sitting at this point in time damn right you're not much on science.

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by A.A.Alfie

But he rightly points out that so many scientists will have their funding removed, jobs futures etc if they don't maintain the beliefs that GW/AGW is real...... the discussion is getting stale, let me know when there is some real news or an asteroid is getting close ok.
I'm kinda getting over it.... .

Yep, AGW has jumped the shark about a year or two ago. But the heavy, heavy money to be made through ramming taxation based on fear mongering means you ain't going to see the discussion go away.

Originally Posted by zaphod2016

Found this in a TED Talk this morning

The speaker, Kary Mullis, argues that new studies by NASA debunk the theory.

I believe the paper he is referencing is this one here.

What say you?

Well, ultimately this is the method that will show whether there is any grounds - or partial grounds - to the AGW claims. And that is to actually measure upper troposphere radiative balance.

It's a bit obvious that there is a problem in the standard Warmer greenhouse theory, namely that hot air rises. More hot air, there should be more transfer of heat to the upper troposphere where it can be dissipated to space. The measurement of this is the upper troposphere radiative balance.

Greenhouse theory holds there is with more CO2, more "retained heat". But more heat is offset by more hot air rising. This is analogous to a "heat pump" in thermodynamics.

[Poptech]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

The problem is that he is not a credible climate scientist.

How is a credible climate scientist determined and who determines this?

[A.A.Alfie]

Originally Posted by macdoc

]

If you are fence sitting at this point in time damn right you're not much on science.

And I don't deny it Mac.

But please dont throw science at me because your wasting my time and your time. I'm stating the facts as they appear to 'the masses' of which I consider myself a member. I ask the question again...

Should we believe your side because you smear this well spoken, educated credible man who makes sense? Or do we believe your well spoken, educated man who makes sense and is smeared by the other?

That is the true dilemma for people like me. People who have a genuine interest but genuinely know the science is beyond them?

[Poptech]

The science is not beyond you.

20/20: Give Me a Break: Global Warming (Video) (8min)

[Poptech]

Originally Posted by A.A.Alfie

But how the hell would I know the difference? I only work in social sciences. Millions of others haven't even my limited education (especially in this area). Who are they to believe? Your guys just because you smear this well spoken, educated man who makes sense. Or your guys because the other side smears your well spoken, educated man who makes sense?

You have to understand how they argue...

If you are skeptical your credentials are invalid...

David R. Legates, Ph.D. Professor of Climatology
Hans Jelbring, Ph.D. Climatology
John R. Christy, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science
Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Ecological Climatology
Richard A. Keen, Ph.D. Professor of Climatology
Robert C. Balling Jr., Ph.D. Professor of Climatology
Robert E. Davis, Ph.D. Professor of Climatology
Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT

If you are an alarmist your credentials are irrelevant...

Chris Field, Ph.D. Biology (IPCC Co-chair of Working Group 2)
Gavin Schmidt, Ph.D. Applied Mathematics
James Hansen, Ph.D. Physics (NASA, GISS)
Michael Mann, Ph.D. Geology
Rajendra K. Pachauri, Ph.D. Industrial Engineering (IPCC Chairman, 2007-Present)
Robert T. Watson, Ph.D. Chemistry (IPCC Chairman, 1997-2002)
Steven Schneider, Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering and Plasma Physics
Tom J. Chalko, Ph.D. Laser Holography

[A.A.Alfie]

Originally Posted by Poptech

You have to understand how they argue...

If he is skeptical his credentials are invalid...

David R. Legates, Ph.D. Professor of Climatology
Hans Jelbring, Ph.D. Climatology
John R. Christy, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science
Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Ecological Climatology
Richard A. Keen, Ph.D. Professor of Climatology
Robert C. Balling Jr., Ph.D. Professor of Climatology
Robert E. Davis, Ph.D. Professor of Climatology
Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT

If he is an alarmist is credentials are irrelevant...

Chris Field, Ph.D. Biology (IPCC Co-chair of Working Group 2)
Gavin Schmidt, Ph.D. Applied Mathematics
James Hansen, Ph.D. Physics (NASA, GISS)
Michael Mann, Ph.D. Geology
Rajendra K. Pachauri, Ph.D. Industrial Engineering (IPCC Chairman, 2007-Present)
Robert T. Watson, Ph.D. Chemistry (IPCC Chairman, 1997-2002)
Steven Schneider, Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering and Plasma Physics
Tom J. Chalko, Ph.D. Laser Holography

Hence my question on who to believe. All the dice are loaded by those doing the talking and the real truth gets lost in the politics and the money. Each side is "right" and for guys like me, the application of common sense (which usually serves me very well) becomes superfluous because we dont understand the science.


Confused, confused, confused!

[Poptech]

Originally Posted by A.A.Alfie

Hence my question on who to believe. All the dice are loaded by those doing the talking and the real truth gets lost in the politics and the money. Each side is "right" and for guys like me, the application of common sense (which usually serves me very well) becomes superfluous because we dont understand the science.


Confused, confused, confused!

The argument boils down to whether man-made CO2 (carbon dioxide, the life supporting naturally occurring trace gas in our atmosphere) is causing climate change and something needs to be done about.

The skeptic position is either man-made CO2 is not causing climate change or the effect it is having is largely irrelevant and not worth acting on.

That is it CO2, it has nothing to do with pollution, clean air ect...

The video I posted above makes an excellent argument for the skeptical position.

[A.A.Alfie]

Originally Posted by Poptech

The argument boils down to whether man-made CO2 (carbon dioxide, the life supporting naturally occurring trace gas in our atmosphere) is causing climate change and something needs to be done about.

The skeptic position is either man-made CO2 is not causing climate change or the effect it is having is largely irrelevant and not worth acting on.

The video I posted above makes an excellent argument for the skeptical position.

Thaks very informative and exactly what I've been talking about. Each side have valid, articulate, credible claims.
Anyone questioning AWG is deemed to have crossed the politically correct lines and is often under attack and subject to abuse by others.
If I say "the debate is not over" because all this information is coming through, I have just crossed that 'pc' line. I have been threatened in this forum - frankly I'm not sure what they were going to do to me - perhaps send some AGW round to get me - boogedy boogedy. Twits!
No I'm not saying that everyone who thinks AWG is real are twits, I'm actually writing this because most of them arent. The guy who thinks he can 'get me' over the internet certainly is though. It's also that sort of attitude that does nothing for their argument.

Damn! On and on I go. You guys get me in....
I'm off to bed - it's after midnight...

[GreNME]

Originally Posted by A.A.Alfie

More importantly - for this fence sitter anyway - men like this, who are credible scientists - have doubts and this causes the confusion on the ground (i.e. the millions who dont get the science). Now before you go backing up and stating that he's a hack, or denier, wrong field etc. He is still a credible scientist.

He's really not. The reason he hasn't been run out of his field for his multiple cases of woo is because he is deserving of respect for his discoveries that are credible, regardless of whether or not the man's personal behavior or beliefs outside the scope of his field are credible in any way (which they're not).

Let me give you two examples I'm familiar with: E.A. Wallis Budge and (the oft-cited by woo) Gerald Massey. Both were doctored, educated men who had lots of credible experience, and both had authored more than one publication on the budding field of Egyptology in their time. However, using either man's work in a modern context is going to be automatically met with criticism, not because the men aren't worthy of respect for the work they did-- Budge pioneered translation of Ancient Egyptian writing, while Massey was an accomplished author of Literature and Art History (he had acclaim for his essays on Shakespeare's sonnets)-- but because there are flaws in both of their work. With Budge, while he pioneered translation of AE text, his translations often had mistakes based on lack of context and he tended to translate everything into a "King James" form of English that didn't always follow the tone of the language being used. With Massey, many of his conclusions are made up from whole cloth with heavy influence from his "spiritualist" hobbies and personal beliefs. That they are clearly wrong on certain things and not credible sources for modern work in Egyptology doesn't detract from their personal accomplishments (though it's clear why Massey wasn't really considered an Egyptologist for many years). In other words, their credibility for their actual accomplishments are not diminished by accepting that where they are shown as demonstrably wrong is not credible.

Mullis regularly breaks the 1st, 3rd, 7th, and 10th steps of the Baloney Detection Kit guidelines, and that severely hampers his credibility on a great deal of subjects outside of his field.

[Poptech]

Originally Posted by A.A.Alfie

If I say "the debate is not over" because all this information is coming through, I have just crossed that 'pc' line. I have been threatened in this forum - frankly I'm not sure what they were going to do to me - perhaps send some AGW round to get me - boogedy boogedy. Twits!

Oh that depends on how much of a threat you are considered to them. I was obviously very dangerous as I would start topics with papers such as these...

Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions? (PDF) (Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT)

Taking Greenhouse Warming Seriously (PDF) (Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT)

Less Ice In Arctic Ocean 6000-7000 Years Ago (Geological Survey of Norway)

And have the topics moved or locked. This was a specially dangerous post that needed serious moderator attention as it was locked and moved...

Carbon dioxide not to blame in ice age mystery (Science News)

So be careful posting real science here especially if it does not agree with the collective.

[GreNME]

Originally Posted by Poptech

The argument boils down to whether man-made CO2 (carbon dioxide, the life supporting naturally occurring trace gas in our atmosphere) is causing climate change and something needs to be done about.

False dichotomy. It's not an either-or situation, not in the least and hasn't been so for quite some time except as a political argument.

The debate that's still taking place, mainly in the US, is not whether or not climate change is man-made, but how much man-made factors are affecting other variables in the global climate. That's the scientific debate right there. In connection with that debate, there are also questions about whether anything can be done, what could or should be done if possible, and how to make such changes (if possible) in a manner that disrupts civilization as little as possible.

When political rhetoric is removed from the actual debates that exist, the debate itself seems far more logical and rational.

[Poptech]

Originally Posted by GreNME

False dichotomy. It's not an either-or situation, not in the least and hasn't been so for quite some time except as a political argument.

Oh yes it is.

Originally Posted by GreNME

The debate that's still taking place, mainly in the US, is not whether or not climate change is man-made, but how much man-made factors are affecting other variables in the global climate. That's the scientific debate right there. In connection with that debate, there are also questions about whether anything can be done, what could or should be done if possible, and how to make such changes (if possible) in a manner that disrupts civilization as little as possible.

That is actually the political debate right now.

[GreNME]

Originally Posted by Poptech

Oh yes it is.

Oh no it isn't. (See? I can do it too.)

Originally Posted by Poptech

That is actually the political debate right now.

If you truly believe that, then feel free to take it up in the proper location. The political rhetoric surrounding the topic muddies the conversation.

[macdoc]

+1

[Pixel42]

Originally Posted by A.A.Alfie

But he rightly points out that so many scientists will have their funding removed, jobs futures etc if they don't maintain the beliefs that GW/AGW is real.

There is plenty of funding available for scientists who are prepared to question the reality of AGW. Exxon alone have given millions.

[BenBurch]

I know a coal company who would open its vaults to you if you could prove that CO2 had no effect on climate. I mean we are talking actual riches here far beyond what your average scientist could ever hope for.

[godless dave]

Originally Posted by A.A.Alfie

But he rightly points out that so many scientists will have their funding removed, jobs futures etc if they don't maintain the beliefs that GW/AGW is real.

What's right about that? Do you have any evidence to support that?

Originally Posted by A.A.Alfie

More importantly - for this fence sitter anyway - men like this, who are credible scientists - have doubts and this causes the confusion on the ground (i.e. the millions who dont get the science). Now before you go backing up and stating that he's a hack, or denier, wrong field etc. He is still a credible scientist.

The fact that this is not his or her field is what makes him not credible on this issue.

Originally Posted by A.A.Alfie

Now, I don't want people trying to tell me their side is right and the other side is wrong either folks, so just keep all your stats studies and experts in your holsters thanks - too scientific for me and will go over my head.

With that attitude, you will never get an answer. The stats and studies are the only way to know the facts. Make an effort to learn to understand them.

Originally Posted by A.A.Alfie

One side accuses the other of dirty tricks and so does the other. and on it goes.

That's why you need to look for the facts behind the accusations, to see which accusations are true and which are not.

[yy2bggggs]

Originally Posted by Poptech

You can get 398 papers supporting skepticism here.

Poptech:

You keep posting this, but I have to ask. Why is it relevant that there are three hundred ninety eight such papers I can find there? Is the volume of papers in itself supposed to suggest something?

To me, it simply sounds like a collection of papers supporting a particular view--which isn't in itself impressive--and the fact that they are all in one place, and that you're pointing to the volume, sounds like cherry picking--a propaganda technique.

[Tubbythin]

Originally Posted by A.A.Alfie

But he rightly points out that so many scientists will have their funding removed, jobs futures etc if they don't maintain the beliefs that GW/AGW is real.

Sorry A.A.Alfie. But that is complete and utter unadulterated crap.

Quote:

More importantly - for this fence sitter anyway - men like this, who are credible scientists - have doubts and this causes the confusion on the ground (i.e. the millions who dont get the science). Now before you go backing up and stating that he's a hack, or denier, wrong field etc. He is still a credible scientist.

He's a credible scientist. Really?

Quote:

Now, I don't want people trying to tell me their side is right and the other side is wrong either folks, so just keep all your stats studies and experts in your holsters thanks - too scientific for me and will go over my head.

Err. What are you doing on the science forum then?

[Tubbythin]

Originally Posted by Poptech

The argument boils down to whether man-made CO2 (carbon dioxide, the life supporting naturally occurring trace gas in our atmosphere) is causing climate change and something needs to be done about.

The skeptic position is either man-made CO2 is not causing climate change or the effect it is having is largely irrelevant and not worth acting on.

Are you living in 1994?

[TellyKNeasuss]

Originally Posted by zaphod2016

Found this in a TED Talk this morning

The speaker, Kary Mullis, argues that new studies by NASA debunk the theory.

I believe the paper he is referencing is this one here.

What say you?

What I say is that someone starting a thread should do more than post a link to a half hour video. Care to sum it up for us?

The paper doesn't refute AGW unless you've fallen for the strawman argument that AGW implies that there can't be any natural climate variability.

[TellyKNeasuss]

Originally Posted by Poptech

You have to understand how they argue...

If you are skeptical your credentials are invalid...

David R. Legates, Ph.D. Professor of Climatology
Hans Jelbring, Ph.D. Climatology
John R. Christy, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science
Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Ecological Climatology
Richard A. Keen, Ph.D. Professor of Climatology
Robert C. Balling Jr., Ph.D. Professor of Climatology
Robert E. Davis, Ph.D. Professor of Climatology
Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT

If you are an alarmist your credentials are irrelevant...

Chris Field, Ph.D. Biology (IPCC Co-chair of Working Group 2)
Gavin Schmidt, Ph.D. Applied Mathematics
James Hansen, Ph.D. Physics (NASA, GISS)
Michael Mann, Ph.D. Geology
Rajendra K. Pachauri, Ph.D. Industrial Engineering (IPCC Chairman, 2007-Present)
Robert T. Watson, Ph.D. Chemistry (IPCC Chairman, 1997-2002)
Steven Schneider, Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering and Plasma Physics
Tom J. Chalko, Ph.D. Laser Holography

And the founder of the International Flat Earth Society was a Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society so I can be justified in claiming that the Earth is flat?

[Tubbythin]

Originally Posted by Poptech

Ivar Giaever, Ph.D. Physics, [b]Nobel Prize in Physics 1973

Hmm. A Nobel for discovering tunneling phenomena in superconductors.
Seriously, how on Earth could you possibly think this relevant in anyway whatsoever?

[TellyKNeasuss]

Originally Posted by Tubbythin

Hmm. A Nobel for discovering tunneling phenomena in superconductors.
Seriously, how on Earth could you possibly think this relevant in anyway whatsoever?

Poptech's whole premise is that he must be right because he can find people who agree with him.

[Yoink]

Originally Posted by A.A.Alfie

But he rightly points out that so many scientists will have their funding removed, jobs futures etc if they don't maintain the beliefs that GW/AGW is real.

That is a transparently absurd statement that makes me think your whole tone of dispassionate "I'm just a confused non-science person caught in the middle" is a disingenuous pose. Some of the world's deepest pockets would stand to benefit from convincing scientific findings that AGW was incorrect. There is simply nothing at all that would prevent petrochemical and coal companies from funding climate research if they thought such research would help defend their industries from regulation. The US govt, which, I would guess, is the primary funder of climate research in America, would dearly love to learn that AGW is a "myth." You're spinning a conspiracy theory that is even more absurd than "Nasa faked the moon landings."

Originally Posted by A.A.Alfie

More importantly - for this fence sitter anyway - men like this, who are credible scientists - have doubts and this causes the confusion on the ground (i.e. the millions who dont get the science). Now before you go backing up and stating that he's a hack, or denier, wrong field etc. He is still a credible scientist.

Except he's A) clearly a loon and B) working outside his area of expertise.

Originally Posted by A.A.Alfie

Bunnies like me get information from both sides of the debate and frankly we get confused. The AWG belivers have credible scientists with studies and statistics to show what they want. Conversely, the deniers do too.

That's like saying "well, there are some experts who say the Holocaust happened, and some who say it didn't"--it is entirely clear where the overwhelming majority of experts in the field stand at this point. Just because you can dig up a few wannabe "mavericks" who pooh-pooh the idea (just as you can about any widely accepted scientific finding you care to name) doesn't mean that you get to pretend that expert opinion is evenly divided. It's not, and it's simply disingenuous to pretend that it is.

[fsol]

Originally Posted by TellyKNeasuss

And the founder of the International Flat Earth Society was a Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society so I can be justified in claiming that the Earth is flat?

Some of those Profs of climatology turn out not to be Profs of climatology when you google them.

[blutoski]

Originally Posted by Tubbythin

Hmm. A Nobel for discovering tunneling phenomena in superconductors.
Seriously, how on Earth could you possibly think this relevant in anyway whatsoever?

Science is very specialised. As soon as a scientist steps outside his scope of experience and education, he is essentially a layperson about that new subject.

This is probably something that non-scientists don't understand very well, and it does lead to vulnerability to being mislead by weak credentials (such as the person having excelled in another field).

Skeptics do not have to panic if they don't have the background required to actually understand the published papers. Part of being a skeptic is understanding one's limitations, whether that means understanding the limits of personal perception, or understanding that it can take years to get conversant in many subjects.

A skill that skeptics need to cultivate is the ability to recognize good versus bad sources of information.

To this end, there is something called 'argument from authority' - this is not a logical fallacy. It is a type of argument that actually describes how science works as a human endeavour.

An earlier post asked 'how does one become a credible climatologist, and who gets to decide' - the answer is:

• climatologists get to decide who is a credible climatologist (thus, the importance of 'peer review')
• a climatologist is considered credible if his publications are of a good quality by his peers

[zaphod2016]

Originally Posted by TellyKNeasuss

What I say is that someone starting a thread should do more than post a link to a half hour video.

That link should skip 20 minutes in, to the section of the talk where the speaker discusses global warming. Its at the end.

If you'd like my summary, here it is:

1. I am not a scientist, and I am unqualified to understand the details and ramifications of this NASA report.

2. TED Talks have included woo before, for example, "the Aquatic Ape" theory, and so I have learned to be skeptical of them. However, I still find TED very interesting, and check them out from time to time.

3. The speaker, Kary Mullis, is an interesting guy. He's a Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry for the discovery of the PCR process, which is used to amplify DNA sequences. I'm honestly not sure what that means, but I do understand it helped further genetic research.

4. Mullis also has a few controversial ideas; obviously he denies the global warming theory, and furthermore, he rejects the commonly accepted theory that HIV causes AIDS. According to Mullis, AIDS is not caused by HIV; some studies show cases of AIDS appearing without HIV. Note: I'm not defending either theory, and understand both are extremely controversial.

5. Mullis was quite a hippie back in the Golden Age of Berkley- dropped a lot of acid; big in the local surfing scene. This doesn't discredit him, but it does show a rather eccentric character at work.

6. I thought it was interesting, and I've seen a few other JREFers profess that they reject the AGW theory. I hoped you guys would provide more sources for me to read, and as usual, you did not disappoint. I hope to catch-up with these other links later tonight.

If you want my personal opinion on global warming, here it is- I live about 10 feet above sea level in Florida, a few blocks from the ocean. I consider this one of the "front lines" in the "war on global warming". Global warming aside, I am keen on clean air and water, and I betray my own libertarian instincts when it comes to environmental issues (see also: tragedy of the commons). That is to say, I think there must be checks against industry to account for public interest and safety, which I'm sure angers my fellow libertarians to no end.

That said, I have not yet observed the effects of global warming myself. The sea level has not risen visibly here, and the temperatures are rather steady. Looking over a 100-year scale, hurricanes aren't getting "worse", however, a) we are in the tail-end of a 20-year hurricane cycle right now and b) property values keep going up, so the amount of damage caused (in terms of USD) is increasing- the storms themselves still range Cat 1 - Cat 3, same as they ever did.

Now, I realize I am blind to many of the scientific principles that govern my daily life. In other words, just because I "can't see it" doesn't mean it isn't real. Also, I'm not a scientist, and so, I am forced to trust other, smarter people to translate raw data into something my feeble chimp brain can understand. I am skeptical about global warming, as I am skeptical about all things. However, if forced to wager, I think the truth is somewhere in between- not as bad as some claim, but certainly not a total myth either.

Also, in the course of writing this, I exhaled a good amount of CO2. I'm sorry, but I did. In my defense, I also planted several palm trees in my back yard, and those trees have done more to combat CO2 than anything Al Gore has ever done. This is to say, the hypocrisy, and politicization of the issue, hasn't helped the situation one bit.

tl;dr - I'm not a scientist. Who cares what I think? Let the data speak for itself.

[blutoski]

Originally Posted by Yoink

That's like saying "well, there are some experts who say the Holocaust happened, and some who say it didn't"--it is entirely clear where the overwhelming majority of experts in the field stand at this point. Just because you can dig up a few wannabe "mavericks" who pooh-pooh the idea (just as you can about any widely accepted scientific finding you care to name) doesn't mean that you get to pretend that expert opinion is evenly divided. It's not, and it's simply disingenuous to pretend that it is.

A fun way to explain why divided opinion does not mean debate remains: [Opinion is divided [on whether it is necessary to have a crew]. All the other captains say it is. I say it isn't.]

[GreNME]

Really, a "can't see it from my house" reasoning? That has to be a highly abbreviated form of a more complex group of reasons, or at least I hope it is.

As for what effects can be expected: water isn't going to rise at visibly notable amounts year-to-year, not unless you're measuring total volume versus what's breaking against your nearest beach; things aren't necessarily going to get hotter, but the overall average climate worldwide will rise (this means some places may actually get colder); the change in the overall climate will affect weather patterns in that cycles for storms are likely to be longer, meaning a 5-year cycle may become as long as 6 or 8 years, or a 20-year cycle may go up to 25 or 30 years; along with cycles lengthening, certain regions may also see more severe storm cycles or drought cycles (depending on the region, naturally). What all of these effects aggregate to is that our current methods of surviving, dealing with, or reacting to weather patterns is going to change dramatically over a relatively short period, possibly as low as 50 years or as much as 100 years, depending on who you ask and how severe they think things are going to get. The biggest take-away from this that has troublesome implications is that a great deal less land on the planet could be arable as a result of the overall average climate changes and their effects, and that some regions where arable land exist are going to face changes in crop raising/harvesting practices or suffer large losses over time. Many people find this troubling because a great deal of arable land on the planet is already facing production crises from time to time. In other words, civilization isn't going to collapse, glaciers aren't going to overtake Manhattan (like in The Day After Tomorrow), and the world isn't going to turn upside down in Hollywood-time (meaning in days, weeks, or months). It's going to take years, and unlike a lot of things humanity has learned to assert control over this will not likely be one of them-- so it'll require change or obsolescence.

Some people aren't worried about this and think most of us will adapt just fine. Others think our current practices are pushing what normally moves at a snails pace a great deal faster and with more drastic effect. Pretty much everyone is unsure of exactly what could be done to hedge our chances of meeting the change with maximum success instead of a Darwinian crap shoot.

And that, in a nutshell, is a basic explanation of the Global Climate Change issue from a science-based, non-partisan, and data-supported perspective. More specificity can be had when getting into information and consensus as to how much mankind is contributing, or how different the rate of contribution has changed over the decades, or what immediate measurable effects exist and what exactly they might mean. However, down that path also lies a great deal of partisan rhetoric and political argument, so Tread With Care.