LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

The Dangers of Junk Science.

I didn't write it.

You're correct in guessing that "my subject" is science-based. My BSc is in Physics and my PhD is in computational science. Consequently (a) I am very much at home with "numbers", and (b) have been able to look thoroughly at the code of the few GCM models that have been made public - I'm old enough actually to have worked with the somewhat archaic, but nonetheless still adequate, languages (usually FORTRAN) in which they're written.

My scepticism is driven by three main forcings.. :)

One, the models are really very poor. The best way to describe them is that they are (to use a computer nerd term) "kludges" and they're far too simplistic, you can't accurately model a process that you understand very imperfectly. They only backcast because they are heavily parameterised - said parameters can thus be tweaked so that the model's result, when run against historic data, produces the "correct" result for "today". I think it was John von Neuman who reckoned that "With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk" and these models tend to have dozens. Unfortunately, the chaotic nature of climate more or less guarantees that this won't make them any more accurate when they're forecasting. As all "catastrophic" AGW predictions are derived from the boundary results of these models I feel it incumbent upon myself as a scientist to be extremely sceptical.

Two. I am very wary of the continual "adjustments" that are being made to the historical data record. Especially, as in the case of the GISS record, when the overwhelming result is to make the past colder. An attempt was made a while ago to try to extract the adjustments from "official" temperature record - which seemed to suggest that in truth "global warming" was indeed "man made" as the size of the adjustments matched almost exactly the reported warming!

Three. The planet doesn't exactly seem to be cooperating with the modelers. CO2 has continued its steady increase but the temperature has, if anything, been going the other way. The Tripati, Roberts and Eagle study showed, if anything, that CO2 and temperature are not coupled - despite being used as an AGW scare story "The last time CO2 levels were the same as today it was 10F warmer and sea levels were 20 feet higher" would tend to suggest that, as at the moment they're not, there's not a very strong link.
Click to expand...
 
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/feedback_system.png

In Their Own Words: The IPCC on Climate Feedbacks
by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
November 1st, 2009


Despite the fact that the magnitude of anthropogenic global warming depends mostly upon the strengths of feedbacks in the climate system, there is no known way to actually measure those feedbacks from observational data.

The IPCC has admitted as much on p. 640 of the IPCC AR4 report, at the end of section 8.6, which is entitled “Climate Sensitivity and Feedbacks”:

“A number of diagnostic tests have been proposed…but few of them have been applied to a majority of the models currently in use. Moreover, it is not yet clear which tests are critical for constraining future projections (of warming). Consequently, a set of model metrics that might be used to narrow the range of plausible climate change feedbacks and climate sensitivity has yet to be developed.”

This is a rather amazing admission. Of course, since these statements are lost in a sea of favorable (but likely superfluous) comparisons between the models and various aspects of today’s climate system, one gets the impression that the 99% of the IPCC’s statements that are supportive of the climate models far outweighs the 1% that might cast doubt.

But the central importance of feedbacks to projections of future climate makes them by far more important to policy debates than all of the ways in which model behavior might resemble the current climate system. So, why has it been so difficult to measure feedbacks in the climate system? This question is not answered in the IPCC reports because, as far as I can tell, no one has bothered to dig into the reasons.

Rather unexpectedly, I have been asked to present our research results on this subject at a special session on feedbacks at the Fall AGU meeting in San Francisco in mid-December. In that short 15 minute presentation, I hope to bring some clarity to an issue that has remained muddied for too long.

To review, the feedback measurement we are after can be defined as the amount of global average radiative change caused by a temperature change. The main reason for the difficulty in diagnosing the true feedbacks operating in the climate system is that the above definition of feedback is NOT the same as what we can actually measure from satellites, which is the amount of radiative change accompanied by a temperature change.

The distinction is that in the real world, causation in the opposite direction as feedback also exists in the measurements. Thus, a change in measured radiative flux results from some unknown combination of (1) temperature causing radiative changes (feedback), and (2) unforced natural radiative changes causing a temperature change (internal forcing).

The internal forcing does not merely add contaminating noise to the diagnosis of feedback – it causes a bias in the direction of positive feedback (high climate sensitivity). This bias exists primarily because forcing and net feedback (including the direct increase of IR radiation with temperature) always have opposite signs, so a misinterpretation of the sum of the two as feedback alone causes a bias.

For instance, for the global average climate system, a decrease in outgoing radiation causes an increase in global average temperature, whereas an increase in temperature must always do the opposite: cause an increase in outgoing radiation. As a result, the presence of forcing mutes the signature of net feedback. Similarly, the presence of feedback mutes the signature of forcing.

The effect of this partial cancellation is to result in diagnosed net feedbacks being smaller than what is actually occurring in nature, unless any forcing present is first removed from the data before estimating feedbacks. Unfortunately, we do not know which portion of radiative variability is forcing versus feedback, and so researchers have simply ignored the issue (if they were even aware of it) and assumed that what they have been measuring is feedback alone. As a result, the climate system creates the illusion of being more sensitive than it really is.

One implication of this is that it is not a sufficient test of the feedbacks in climate models to simply compare temperature changes to radiation changes. This is because the same relationship between temperature and radiation can be caused by either weak forcing accompanied by a large feedback parameter (which would be low climate sensitivity), or by strong forcing accompanied by a small feedback parameter (which would be high climate sensitivity).

Only in the case of radiative forcing being either zero or constant in time – situations that never happen in the real world – can feedback be accurately estimated with current methods.

Our continuing analysis of satellite and climate model data has yet to yield a good solution to this problem. Unforced cloud changes in the climate system not only give the illusion of positive feedback, they might also offer a potential explanation for past warming (and cooling). [I believe these to be mostly chaotic in origin, but it also opens the door to more obscure (and controversial) mechanisms such as the modulation of cloud cover by cosmic ray activity.]

But without accurate long-term measurements of global cloud cover changes, we might never know to what extent global warming is simply a manifestation of natural climate variability, or whether cloud feedbacks are positive or negative. And without direct evidence, the IPCC can conveniently point to carbon dioxide change as the culprit. But this explanation seems rather anthropocentric to me, since it is easier for humans to keep track of global carbon dioxide changes than cloud changes.

Also, the IPCC can conveniently (and truthfully) claim that the behavior of their models is broadly “consistent with” the observed behavior of the real climate system. Unfortunately, this is then misinterpreted by the public, politicians, and policymakers as a claim that the amount of warming those models produce (a direct result of feedback) has been tested, which is not true.

As the IPCC has admitted, no one has yet figured out how to perform such a test. And until such a test is devised, the warming estimates produced by the IPCC’s twenty-something climate models are little more than educated guesses. It verges on scientific malpractice that politicians and the media continue to portray the models as accurate in this regard, without any objections from the scientists who should know better.
Click to expand...
 
I could critique Dr. Spencer on several levels, the easiest being that his argument is so opaque I really don't understand it. Second being that he's an expert on satellite measurements of atmospheric temperature, which is only one piece of the evidence supporting AGW.

But I'll take the easy route and merely point out that Dr. Spencer is also a supporter of Intelligent Design and that the AGU is only giving him 15 minutes to present his arguments, which suggests to me that they don't take him very seriously.

"On the subject of Intelligent design, [Roy W.] Spencer wrote in 2005, "Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as 'fact,' I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism. . . . In the scientific community, I am not alone. There are many fine books out there on the subject. Curiously, most of the books are written by scientists who lost faith in evolution as adults, after they learned how to apply the analytical tools they were taught in college."[18] He further states "I finally became convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution, for the creation model was actually better able to explain the physical and biological complexity in the world... Science has startled us with its many discoveries and advances, but it has hit a brick wall in its attempt to rid itself of the need for a creator and designer."

Wikipedia

We can play this game for years, trysail. You set 'em up; I shoot 'em down. What's the point?
 
This is dated material and the second time I have watched the program on the Documentary Channel, if I recall, "The dark secret of Hendrik Schon"

I make reference to this piece at this time and place to emphasize the paucity of peer reviewed data concerning Climate Change Science and the absence of original data that, 'the dog ate it', that the data for Climate Research was lost due to insufficient computer storage capacity and was deleted.


http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/298/5591/30

According to a report released 25 September by a panel of independent investigators, Bell Labs physicist Jan Hendrik Schön faked experimental results in at least 17 published papers. Schön had been fired from Bell Labs the previous evening, after officials there received the report. The findings mark this as one of the most extensive cases of scientific misconduct in modern history.
Click to expand...

http://superconductors.org/beasley.htm

MURRAY HILL, N.J. - Bell Labs announced today the findings of an independent committee it formed to investigate the validity of certain research reported by teams of Bell Labs and other scientists. In its report, the committee concludes that one member of these teams, Jan Hendrik Schön, had engaged in scientific misconduct by falsifying and fabricating experimental data between 1998 and 2001. Schon's employment with Lucent Technologies has been terminated. The committee cleared all the other researchers who had contributed to the experiments, and who were co-authors on several published papers, of any scientific misconduct.
Click to expand...

http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/feature/2002/09/16/physics/print.html

Big trouble in the world of "Big Physics"
Six months ago, Jan Hendrik Schön seemed like a slam dunk nominee for a Nobel prize. Then some of his colleagues started to take a closer look at his research.
Click to expand...

~~~

The final link provides the best history of Dr. Schon. and a combination of all three serve to confirm the distinct possiblity of falsifying data to suit a personal or political agenda.

One can accept the gullibility of the general public, as the education system and main stream media are all, 'believers' in the AGW hysteria, but those here on the forum with a modicum of science education should know better.

Amicus

edited to add: the focus of the program referred, was a theory called, "Moore's Law", which notes that the speed of silicon chips, for the past forty years, has doubled each 18 months during that period of time. The crux is that the smaller the silicon chips become, the more susceptible to failure they also become and the limit of miniaturization is being pushed. Schon's theory offered a solution to this dilemma by processes described in the links provided.

There is also a more recent prediction, which I called attention to in a Post a year or so ago, that of 'Diamond Computer Chips', created by artificial or manufactured diamonds that offer a solution to the silicon dilemma.

~~
 
Last edited:
More ignorant stooges who endorse taking immediate action against anthropogenic global warming (a partial list):

These organizations also agree with the consensus:
The Earth Institute at Columbia
University Northwestern University
University of Akureyri University of Iceland
Iceland GeoSurvey National Centre for Atmospheric Science
UK Climate Group Climate Institute Climate Trust
Wuppertal Institute for Climate Environment and Energy
Royal Meteorological Society Community
Research and Development Centre Nigeria
Geological Society of London
Geological Society of America
UK Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment
Pew Center on Global Climate Change
American Association for the Advancement of Science
National Research Council
Juelich Research Centre
US White House US Council on Environmental Quality
US Office of Science Technology Policy
US National Climatic Data Center
US Department of Commerce
US National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service
The National Academy of Engineering
The Institute of Medicine
UK Natural Environment Research
Council Office of Science and Technology Policy
Council on Environmental Quality National Economic Council
The National Academy of Engineering
The Institute of Medicine
UK Natural Environment Research Council
Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology Engineers
Australia American Chemical Society
The Weather Channel
National Geographic

Apparently, none of these organizations contain scientists as knowledgeable, canny, and responsible as some of the non-scientists in the Author's Hangout, who have, without any special training in climatology or scientific epistemology, doped out the whole sad scam.

Who gets to define what is "science", if not the top scientists?
 
Last edited:
dr_mabeuse said:
...
Who gets to define what is "science", if not the top scientists?
Click to expand...

The best part about Trysail's scientist, Roy Spencer, is that Dr. Spencer is an avid defender of Intelligent Design, a pseudo science if there ever was one. The guy could be the best climatologist living, but if he's also defending anti-science as science in another field there's little reason to take him serious -- 9 times out of 10 someone who defends pseudo science in one field is a defender of pseudo science in all fields.
 
Last edited:
dr_mabeuse said:
I'm not aware of anyone saying AGW is "settled science". I'm aware of them saying that there's sufficient evidence to accept AGW as a fact and that it warrants doing something about it now. The fact that we don't know exactly how mutations work doesn't invalidate the theory of evolution. The fact that we don't fully understand the chemical dynamics of the atmosphere is no grounds for rejecting AGW. It may be an excuse for ignoring it, but it's not a reason.

You can do two cost/benefits analyses. How much will it cost to fix it versus how much will it cost to ignore it if it's TRUE.

And how much will it cost to fix it versus how much will it cost to ignore it if it's FALSE.

The cost of ignoring it if it's true is several orders of magnitude greater than the cost of doing something about it if it's false.

And having doubts about a theory is a long, long way from disproving a theory. Scientific consensus seemed to tip the way of the AGW believers sometime in the mid oughts, and whether you think all these scientists are dupes or chiselers or idiots, the consensus is that it's real. The ball's now in the doubters' court and it's their job to provide proof that it's false, and not just accusations and innuendo.

So far they haven't been able to do so.
Click to expand...

Mein Gott, Zoot! Do you really want to turn it into "Popular Science?" Scientists ( good luck defining that! ) get to vote on eugenics or evolution or the Second Law of Thermodynamics? What do you think the results of those votes would have been in, say, 1863 or 1899 or 1937? What do you think the result of a vote on heliocentrism would have been in 1610?

In all analysis of data— and, in virtually every field of study— the most difficult (and, perhaps, insoluble) problem is that of accurately distinguishing (in advance) secular change from cyclical change:

These things are always obvious— but only IN HINDSIGHT!




dr_mabeuse said:
I'm not aware of anyone saying AGW is "settled science"...
Click to expand...

Please tell me that you're joking otherwise I'll succumb to the temptation to tell you that you need to get out more often.

 
Last edited:
You'll forgive me for not quoting, but my computer's acting balky...

Your argument about doing science by popularity is a valid one, but that's not the case here.

Leaving aside eugenics – which is a value system, basically, and not a science – and the 2nd Law of thermo, which is experimentally demonstrable, we find that Evolution and Heliocentrism challenged the dogmas of their day and were strongly resisted by the establishment. They therefore had to convince scientists (or what passed for scientists back then) of their rightness by overwhelming evidence.

In the same way, AGW was at first heretical,and challenged the prevailing status quo of the time. Scientists were convinced only slowly, and only by a preponderance of evidence. So you're on the wrong side of the debate. The anti-AGW faction represents established interests and the dogmatic approach, the old status quo. AGW is the theory that challenges and threatens all that. The burden of proof fell on AGW and, for the large majority of scientists, has been met.

As far as your latest graph, I really think outfits like The American Statistical Association, The National Bureau of Standards, the American Academy of Sciences, etc. etc, etc., are all aware of these spurious effects and artifacts in data analysis, and they've all endorsed the idea of Anthropogenic Global Warming. I really don't think they're going to be fooled by any observer effects.

As for “settled science”, AGW is anything but. There is still much that isn't known and much that is constantly being challenged, re-evaluated, refined. But still, taking the most conservative approach, most scientists believe that there's more than enough evidence that AGW is a real to warrant taking steps to reduce anthropogenic production of greenhouse gases; that the cost of amelioration is far less than the eventual cost of doing nothing.

Finally, I have to ask you this: what kind of evidence would it take to convince you that your position is wrong? What would the AGW crowd have to do to convince you that it's real?

You must have some criteria by which your theory that nothing is happening can be falsified, otherwise you're not doing science, just arguing an opinion, defending a prejudice. Your position would just be a blind defense of preconceived conclusions, irrespective of facts.
 
I still say the earth is flat and is also the center of the universe. And there is no such thing as poetry.
 
Defending fringe beliefs and conspiracies gives some people a little jolt between their legs. Someone who's devoted to fringe beliefs functions on the basis that they're right and because they're right about their marginal belief their life has an important purpose, a superior purpose to the rest of us who go about our days with more mundane purposes, such as supporting our families.
 


Zoot,
I don't understand why a rational person would put much credence in any hypothesis until models based upon the theory demonstrate some consistent predictive accuracy and explanatory power. Thus far, that has not been the case. It is only when models consistently demonstrate predictive capacity that one can be reasonably confident that their proponents and constructors have a firm grasp on causes, variables, coefficients, autocorrelations and sensitivities. The burden of proof is, as it should be and has always been, upon the proposers to demonstrate the explanatory power of a hypothesis.

You appear to have previously acquiesced that this is "hideously complex" stuff. Every engineer worth his salt knows that the ideal solution to any engineering problem is the simplest one— the one with the fewest moving parts.

That— and very serious questions about the reliability/integrity of the underlying data— explains a large part of my surprise at anyone's willingness to entertain— much less accept— solutions to a problem that hasn't even been proved to exist.

... The most critical question in climate is the estimation of a parameter – is the sensitivity of climate to doubled CO2 1.5, 2.5 or 3.5 deg C? Or could it be 6 deg C or 0.6 deg C?

In some ways, the estimation of such parameters through the development of complicated computer models is reminiscent of activities carried out by engineers. One important difference is that climate scientists typically report their results in highly summarized form in journals like Nature, rather than in the 1000-page or 2000-page engineering studies that an aerospace engineering enterprise would produce.

Viewed from this perspective, a remarkable aspect of the climate debate has been the seeming inability of the climate science community to narrow confidence intervals on this estimate. In 1979, the Charney Report (National Research Council 1979) estimated the impact at 3 deg C with a 1.5 degree range either way. In 2007, IPCC AR4 estimates are virtually unchanged. With all the improvements in scientific knowledge and all the efforts of climate scientists over the years, why has the improvement of these confidence intervals proved so resistant? ...
Click to expand...

Stephen McIntyre
Page 39
How do we “know” that 1998 was the warmest year of the millennium?
Presentation at Ohio State University
May 16, 2008
http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/ohioshort.pdf

 
Last edited:
I'm not that concerned over whether the mean earth temperature will rise by 3 degrees or 6 degrees over the next x years. In this climate debate there are some incontrovertible facts, such as:

(1)CO2 is a known greenhouse gas that absorbs and traps infrared radiation. This can be demonstrated in any lab.
(2)The mean temperature of the earth is increasing while the temperature of the stratosphere is decreasing, as predicted by simple greenhouse-gas GW theory.
(3)The levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are higher than they have been at any time during this current climatological era, and they are increasing. This increase is non-linear and is best explained by attributing it to anthropogenic causes.
(4)The rate of increase will itself increase (exponential curve) as more nations industrialize and bring more fossil-fueled plants and vehicles into existence. (Corollary: Sooner or later we're going to have to address the problem of CO2 emissions.)
(5)Controlling CO2 emissions would be more efficiently and economically done if done now rather than later.

That's it. That's pretty much the rationale behind my position on AGW. In a nutshell, the danger of doing nothing is much more severe than the cost of taking action now.



And then there's always reports like this 2005 report from the Royal Society.

====================
Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide

30 Jun 2005

Carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted to the atmosphere by human activities is being absorbed by the oceans, making them more acidic (lowering the pH, the measure of acidity).

Evidence indicates that emissions of carbon dioxide from human activities over the past 200 years have already led to a reduction in the average pH of surface seawater of 0.1 units and could fall by 0.5 units by the year 2100. This pH is probably lower than has been experienced for hundreds of millennia and, critically, at a rate of change probably 100 times greater than at any time over this period.

The report outlines our best understanding of the impacts of these chemical changes on the oceans. The impacts will be greater for some regions and ecosystems, and will be most severe for coral reefs and the Southern Ocean. The impacts of ocean acidification on other marine organisms and ecosystems are much less certain. We recommend a major international research effort be launched into this relatively new area of research.
We recommend that action needs to be taken now to reduce global emissions of CO2 from human activities to the atmosphere to avoid the risk of irreversible damage from ocean acidification.
=========================

Large scale die-offs of coral reefs have been observed for years now and are particularly severe in the Southern Ocean. Coral is made of calcium carbonate, which is very soluble in acids.
 
Atmosphere, mixture of gases surrounding any celestial object that has a gravitational field strong enough to prevent the gases from escaping; especially the gaseous envelope of Earth. The principal constituents of the atmosphere of Earth are nitrogen (78 percent) and oxygen (21 percent). The atmospheric gases in the remaining 1 percent are argon (0.9 percent), carbon dioxide (0.03 percent), varying amounts of water vapor, and trace amounts of hydrogen, ozone, methane, carbon monoxide, helium, neon, krypton, and xenon.
Click to expand...

~~~

Mabeuse, et al, do you have any idea of how silly your post really is?

Amicus
 
Mab, Post 158:
In the same way, AGW was at first heretical,and challenged the prevailing status quo of the time. Scientists were convinced only slowly, and only by a preponderance of evidence.
Click to expand...

~~~

I would challenge your assertion in the above...

There was very little Climate Science of any kind prior to the 1960's, before computers and satellites that created 'The Big Blue Marble', illusion of the earth as a lonely, lovely existent against the black of outer space.

There was, however, a strong pro environmental group, many of them, who conspired to create an 'anti industrial' mentality among the Hippies and the Nature Freaks. It was those young, innocents who actually stayed in college and only dropped acid occasionally who began to create a science to support their contention that the works of man were evil and should be restrained.

It was a fragile science at best until computers capable of creating 'models', patterned on written computer programs that were biased in their output to 'prove' rather than question input.

GIGO, I am sure you remember, garbage in, garbage out, quite like the economic models I was compelled to study in graduate school.

Further, if one begins with a faulty premise, which you have, then the following logic is also flawed, as is yours.

Ask your self why the original data upon which the IPCC conclusions were made, has never been revealed or peer reviewed.

Amicus
 
Al Gore wrote "Earth In the Balance" in 1992, a time when Global Warming was a fringe theory from the 80's. Not that Al Gore represents climate science from the early 90's, but the fact that he wrote the book sorta shows he was on the not-so-bandwagon long before it was fashionable to say human beings are melting glaciers. Eventually the science came along, and it turns out the fringe theories from the 80's were correct. There is anthropo GW and the climate models, satellite data can now prove it. Just read IPCC 2007 report.

The real comment about Al Gore isn't "He's a liar and he's profiting from popular science and he's going to destroy global capitalism..." The correct comment should be "Al, you were in one of the highest offices for eight years, what did you do to deal with climate change?" The answer as far as I can tell, is nothing.
 
Last edited:
Epmd....calling on one of the 'Lesser Apostle's' of the faith now are you?

There is no scientific evidence to support AGW theories. Thas a fack, Jack, hit the road, toad, there must be 50 ways to show your faith.

And that is what followers of AGW are, faith based believers.

The 000.03 percent of CO2 in the atmosphere, remains essentially unchanged over time. Explain that?

Or just ignore it as I posted it before.

Amicus
 
Again, this time to doc, since the others don't listen; no amount of evidence will change trysail or amicus's thinking. You could invite them to a conference where all the world's climatologists, atmospheric scientists, and even chemists and physicists took part. Have all of them raise their hand if they believed in global warming. Watch as 99% raise their hand. Turn to the two of them and they would shake their head no. Why?

It's all because they love being on the other side. They love the idea of the fight. They're not interested in facts. Evidence. Truth. They just want the excitement. I can't say I blame them, but it's sad to see that two people who could contribute to teaching knowledge choose to spread lies because they can't see their own fight from the facts.

Here's a truth for you - It takes an applied person to learn. It takes a brilliant person to learn to accept their wrong. They are not brilliant, merely head strong. :(
 
dr_mabeuse said:
More ignorant stooges who endorse taking immediate action against anthropogenic global warming (a partial list):

These organizations also agree with the consensus:
The Earth Institute at Columbia
University Northwestern University
University of Akureyri University of Iceland
Iceland GeoSurvey National Centre for Atmospheric Science
UK Climate Group Climate Institute Climate Trust
Wuppertal Institute for Climate Environment and Energy
Royal Meteorological Society Community
Research and Development Centre Nigeria
Geological Society of London
Geological Society of America
UK Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment
Pew Center on Global Climate Change
American Association for the Advancement of Science
National Research Council
Juelich Research Centre
US White House US Council on Environmental Quality
US Office of Science Technology Policy
US National Climatic Data Center
US Department of Commerce
US National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service
The National Academy of Engineering
The Institute of Medicine
UK Natural Environment Research
Council Office of Science and Technology Policy
Council on Environmental Quality National Economic Council
The National Academy of Engineering
The Institute of Medicine
UK Natural Environment Research Council
Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology Engineers
Australia American Chemical Society
The Weather Channel
National Geographic

Apparently, none of these organizations contain scientists as knowledgeable, canny, and responsible as some of the non-scientists in the Author's Hangout, who have, without any special training in climatology or scientific epistemology, doped out the whole sad scam.

Who gets to define what is "science", if not the top scientists?
Click to expand...

This supports the above. They don't respond to your paragraph, and choose to ignore all the scientific bodies. They don't want facts, they want excitement.
 
penandpaper said:
Again, this time to doc, since the others don't listen; no amount of evidence will change trysail or amicus's thinking.
Click to expand...

That's apparently true, because I asked them both to state what it would take to turn them into AGW believers and neither of them was able to reply.

In other words, their minds are closed. There's nothing that could convince them. Their opinions aren't based on analysis of evidence, but on a firm, quasi-religious belief.
 
Special note to Mr. Wizard...

0.038 volume per cent CO2 comes out to be 383 ppmv (parts per million by volume) CO2.

Ozone is present in the atmosphere at a concentration of 0.000007% or 0.07 ppmv. Yet that concentration of ozone is enough to absorb all of the UV-C and most of the UV-B radiation coming from the sun. That 0.07 ppmv is what makes life on earth possible.

The mechanism by which ozone absorbs UV and CO2 absorbs Infra-red are basically the same. So if 0.07 ppm Ozone is sufficient to block most of the sun's UV, how much more efficient is 383 ppmv CO2 (~5500 times the concentration of ozone) at absorbing the infrared radiation headed the other way? i.e. heat.

Infra-red radiation that would be broadcast to space is absorbed by greenhouse gases and serves to warm the atmosphere. That, in fact, is the basic physics of the greenhouse effect.



You really don't know the first thing about what you're talking about, do you, Amicus? Yet it doesn't stop you from running your mouth.

Now go away. The grown-ups are trying to have a conversation.
 
Last edited:
dr_mabeuse said:
That's apparently true, because I asked them both to state what it would take to turn them into AGW believers and neither of them was able to reply.

In other words, their minds are closed. There's nothing that could convince them. Their opinions aren't based on analysis of evidence, but on a firm, quasi-religious belief.
Click to expand...

On the bright side, you did a great job researching the topic for me (you never know when the need arises for good facts), and teaching me a thing or two I forgot about climate science. So for that, thank you.
 
Now, ain't that a gas? Both sides accusing the other of being faith based?

I did a lil piece of research on another subject, that of the effect gay parents have on children. The 'popular' desired, wanted social science result was that there was no difference between children raised by hetero or gay parents.

Guess what? There is no evidence to support that contention either.

Now with man caused global warming, the popular, desired, wanted result is that filthy man is soiling his own nest. Guess what?

There is no evidence to support that contention.

There is climate change indeed, we know that as fact. That it is man caused, is not a fact, it is a supposition or a theory that is not supported by science.

There is something more I wish to add to this; a thought I had earlier today, recalling the past, perhaps in a recall of the Berlin Wall and the fall of the Soviet Union.

Before the advent of the computer, just to generalize, the public at large was totally dependent upon the studious academics to provide new information. Only they read the latest science journals and usual in academe.

At this date in history, anyone can perform a search on the Web and confirm or deny claims made or rejected by others.

We cloistered intellectuals, no longer safe in our Ivy Clad halls, must be able to provide documentation for that which we present.

And....there is a lot of information out there, both good and bad, politically motivated or not, backed by Industry or not, pushed by Government, or not, and sorting it out becomes a chore for even the most devoted seeker of truth.

Mabeuse and a host of others, 'want' to believe that the industry of man is bespoiling the planet, and thus they search to find data to 'confirm' their belief.

I hold two things near and dear in my pursuits, the individual, his rights and liberties, and, Truth, Veritas, other than that, I have no horse in this race towards an understanding of Global Climate Change. I want truth and I want the individual and his rights protected.

There is no valid evidence of anthropogenic global warming.

'Consensus science,' is not science. That is what Mabeuse and others attempt to provide by pasting a long list of consensus minded scientists. They can all agree that the sky is falling and if they are wrong or right, reality will be the judge.

But, by all means, let us keep this conflict before the public; sooner or later, each will find his own level of competence and understanding and find his own sources of truth.

Amicus
 
amicus said:
Now, ain't that a gas? Both sides accusing the other of being faith based?

I did a lil piece of research on another subject, that of the effect gay parents have on children. The 'popular' desired, wanted social science result was that there was no difference between children raised by hetero or gay parents.

Guess what? There is no evidence to support that contention either.

Now with man caused global warming, the popular, desired, wanted result is that filthy man is soiling his own nest. Guess what?

There is no evidence to support that contention.

There is climate change indeed, we know that as fact. That it is man caused, is not a fact, it is a supposition or a theory that is not supported by science.

There is something more I wish to add to this; a thought I had earlier today, recalling the past, perhaps in a recall of the Berlin Wall and the fall of the Soviet Union.

Before the advent of the computer, just to generalize, the public at large was totally dependent upon the studious academics to provide new information. Only they read the latest science journals and usual in academe.

At this date in history, anyone can perform a search on the Web and confirm or deny claims made or rejected by others.

We cloistered intellectuals, no longer safe in our Ivy Clad halls, must be able to provide documentation for that which we present.

And....there is a lot of information out there, both good and bad, politically motivated or not, backed by Industry or not, pushed by Government, or not, and sorting it out becomes a chore for even the most devoted seeker of truth.

Mabeuse and a host of others, 'want' to believe that the industry of man is bespoiling the planet, and thus they search to find data to 'confirm' their belief.

I hold two things near and dear in my pursuits, the individual, his rights and liberties, and, Truth, Veritas, other than that, I have no horse in this race towards an understanding of Global Climate Change. I want truth and I want the individual and his rights protected.

There is no valid evidence of anthropogenic global warming.

'Consensus science,' is not science. That is what Mabeuse and others attempt to provide by pasting a long list of consensus minded scientists. They can all agree that the sky is falling and if they are wrong or right, reality will be the judge.

But, by all means, let us keep this conflict before the public; sooner or later, each will find his own level of competence and understanding and find his own sources of truth.

Amicus
Click to expand...

Wrong. There is tons of evidence that supports it. The question scientists are trying to sort out is - how much do we influence? And, just like all the shit we do, we grossly underestimate. Fishing. Timber. Introduction of exotic species. Hell, a fucking rabbit can change thousands of square miles of an ecosystem. You don't think we can influence Big M's climate? Tsk, tsk. Still looking for fight. Here you go. You win.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

JohnEngelman
The Chosen People, a book review by Byron Roth
5 6 7
Replies
150
Views
3K
goldytheGoldfish
goldytheGoldfish
MarieDavisRPs
"For the Betterment of Planet Earth" (closed)
11 12 13
Replies
302
Views
5K
MarieDavisRPs
MarieDavisRPs
butters
the dangers of Benzene: “These people flat-out lied to the regulators”
Replies
2
Views
232
Rick345
Rick345
bestkeptsecret678
Asymptomatic: Breeders on the Run (closed for Poprockz)
2 3
Replies
58
Views
2K
bestkeptsecret678
bestkeptsecret678
P
Any bias in the American media is right-wing, not left-wing
2 3
Replies
59
Views
2K
Typo Fu Master
Typo Fu Master
Back
Top